Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is based off of John le Carré's famous espionage novel of the same name. It was written by Bridget O'Connor and Peter Straughan, directed by Tomas Alfredson, and stars an ensemble cast that includes Gary Oldman, Colin Firth, Tom Hardy, John Hurt, Toby Jones, Mark Strong, Benedict Cumberbatch, and Ciarán Hinds.
I knew nothing of John le Carré, or his novels before watching this film. I hadn't even seen Let the Right One In, Alfredson's most famous film before this. All I knew was that this film had the most superior British ensemble cast I'd ever seen. The cast I mentioned above aren't even the entire cast. You also have Stephen Graham (Al Capone, Boardwalk Empire), Christian McKay (Orson Welles, Me and Orson Welles) and Simon McBurney, among many more notable actors. That was the main reason I had to see this film.
What we have here is the anti-James Bond. Apparently, John le Carré worked in MI6 (or the Circus, as it's called in the film) for many years before becoming a novelist, and based many of his novels off of his experience working in MI6. Instead of Bond's suaveness and many gadgets, le Carré's novels portrayed anguish, and complex characters. They featured battles fought with words, not weapons. They were true spy novels, as it appears. This translates very well into the film, and we have a character based, extremely smart, effective thriller. And that's arguably the main reason why this works so well, is because it's so smart. This isn't a film for general audiences, but a film for the critical thinking, the intelligent, the people that are fed up with Michael Bay movies.
George Smiley (Gary Oldman) a recently retired MI6 agent, is brought back in by Control (John Hurt) to find a mole, working for the Soviets, at the highest level of the MI6. It could be new head of MI6, Percy Alleline (Toby Jones), his supporter Roy Bland (Ciarán Hinds), Smiley's friend Bill Haydon (Colin Firth), or Control's former protege Toby Esterhause (David Dencik). Smiley must find the mole before the Soviets can take down MI6. All the cast here are on top performance. Gary Oldman, in a career of outstanding performances, has a truly outstanding performance as Smiley. He can bring fear to you by just staring at you, and talking. Not only will Oldman gain his first Oscar nomination this February, he will also gain his first win (well, he should). Every single member of the supporting cast could be nominated as well. Firth, Hardy, Cumberbatch (a personal favourite of mine) all deserve wins. I imagine that Firth will certainly be nominated, but I don't know if anyone else will.
Alfredson does a superb job directing here. He recreates the world of 1970s England brilliantly, even capturing parts of the hippie craze in Britain at one point. He's able to make suspense, just by having two characters talk. In this film, only 3 bullets are shot from guns, and all are just as effective as the dialogue of this film. This film will gain a Best Adapted Screenplay nomination, as well as a Best Director nomination.
Overall, we have arguably, the smartest film not just this year, but in many years. I was surprised at just how much I fell in love with this film, and got wrapped up in it. A truly phenomenal film, and while it certainly isn't for everyone, if you're sick of Hollywood pandering down to audiences, then this film is for you. I give it a 10/10.
Sunday, January 8, 2012
Saturday, December 10, 2011
Hugo
Hugo is Martin Scorsese's latest film, his first in 3D, based on The Invention of Hugo Cabret, by Brian Selznick. It was written by John Logan, directed by Martin Scorsese, and stars Asa Butterfield, Chloe Grace Moretz, Sir Ben Kingsley, and Sacha Baron Cohen.
Going into this film, I was a bit worried. Sure it's Scorsese, but he's doing 2 new things he's never done before: 3D, and a kids film. I thought it would come out good, but not great. Instead, we have one of his most heartfelt films, and one of the best he's ever made. It's a love letter to the early days of cinema.
For every decade Scorsese's been doing films, he has one great film per decade. The 70s, Taxi Driver. The 80s, Raging Bull. The 90s, Goodfellas. The 00s, The Departed. And for the 10s, we have Hugo. Sure we have 8 more years left of him making films (including a possible Sinatra biopic), but I just don't see how he can top this. How is this one of the best films he's ever made? The film, at first glance, looks like it's about two children, on an adventure, in 1920s Paris. Instead, the film is a love letter to cinema, a tribute to the history of cinema, and Georges Melies, one of the earliest filmmakers.
Hugo Cabret (Asa Butterfield) is a young orphan living inside a train station, who lost his father (Jude Law) in a fire. He's working on an automaton his father found. He steal parts from a local toy-shop owner (Ben Kingsley), and is eventually caught. He is forced to work in the shop, and eventually meets Isabelle (Chole Grace Moretz), the toy-shop owner's goddaughter. Together, these two find themselves swept up in an adventure involving some of cinema's earliest films.
Let's start with the acting. The main cast all does very good, especially our two leads, Asa Butterfield and Chloe Grace Moretz. Butterfield is able to capture this sense of hope and despair at the same time, and Moretz is just infectiously fun. Ben Kingsley is also tremendous, playing one of cinema's earliest filmmakers. I'd also like to mention that Sacha Baron Cohen, an actor known for playing comedic roles, does a good job here as the (sort of) villain of the story, the inspector. He's an extremely versatile actor, and I always look forward to seeing his films.
Scorsese has done a lot for film preservation. So I can only imagine that as soon as Selznick released this novel, Scorsese instantly started making this film. It's arguably, the perfect film for him to make. Sure, there are no gangsters, Mafia, or De Niro/DiCaprio, but it's the perfect film for him to make, because it's about some of the earliest films ever made. And he does a tremendous job. There are references to some early films everywhere throughout the film, and he's actually able to make 3D work for the most part. I was genuinely surprised that I saw a 3D film not made by James Cameron that I genuinely enjoyed.
All in all, I severely recommend this film. It's a high class of kids films, and a damn good film at that. Your kid might not enjoy it, cause it definitely isn't a normal kids film. But it's still a damn good film, and if you want your child to see a good movie as opposed to a lot of the crap that comes out nowadays, show them this. Parents'll probably enjoy it too. I give it 10/10.
Going into this film, I was a bit worried. Sure it's Scorsese, but he's doing 2 new things he's never done before: 3D, and a kids film. I thought it would come out good, but not great. Instead, we have one of his most heartfelt films, and one of the best he's ever made. It's a love letter to the early days of cinema.
For every decade Scorsese's been doing films, he has one great film per decade. The 70s, Taxi Driver. The 80s, Raging Bull. The 90s, Goodfellas. The 00s, The Departed. And for the 10s, we have Hugo. Sure we have 8 more years left of him making films (including a possible Sinatra biopic), but I just don't see how he can top this. How is this one of the best films he's ever made? The film, at first glance, looks like it's about two children, on an adventure, in 1920s Paris. Instead, the film is a love letter to cinema, a tribute to the history of cinema, and Georges Melies, one of the earliest filmmakers.
Hugo Cabret (Asa Butterfield) is a young orphan living inside a train station, who lost his father (Jude Law) in a fire. He's working on an automaton his father found. He steal parts from a local toy-shop owner (Ben Kingsley), and is eventually caught. He is forced to work in the shop, and eventually meets Isabelle (Chole Grace Moretz), the toy-shop owner's goddaughter. Together, these two find themselves swept up in an adventure involving some of cinema's earliest films.
Let's start with the acting. The main cast all does very good, especially our two leads, Asa Butterfield and Chloe Grace Moretz. Butterfield is able to capture this sense of hope and despair at the same time, and Moretz is just infectiously fun. Ben Kingsley is also tremendous, playing one of cinema's earliest filmmakers. I'd also like to mention that Sacha Baron Cohen, an actor known for playing comedic roles, does a good job here as the (sort of) villain of the story, the inspector. He's an extremely versatile actor, and I always look forward to seeing his films.
Scorsese has done a lot for film preservation. So I can only imagine that as soon as Selznick released this novel, Scorsese instantly started making this film. It's arguably, the perfect film for him to make. Sure, there are no gangsters, Mafia, or De Niro/DiCaprio, but it's the perfect film for him to make, because it's about some of the earliest films ever made. And he does a tremendous job. There are references to some early films everywhere throughout the film, and he's actually able to make 3D work for the most part. I was genuinely surprised that I saw a 3D film not made by James Cameron that I genuinely enjoyed.
All in all, I severely recommend this film. It's a high class of kids films, and a damn good film at that. Your kid might not enjoy it, cause it definitely isn't a normal kids film. But it's still a damn good film, and if you want your child to see a good movie as opposed to a lot of the crap that comes out nowadays, show them this. Parents'll probably enjoy it too. I give it 10/10.
Saturday, December 3, 2011
The Muppets
The Muppets is the latest release in the Muppets film series, the last film, Muppets from Space, being released 12 years ago. It was written by Jason Segel and Nicholas Stoller, directed by James Bobin, and stars Jason Segal, Amy Adams, Rashida Jones, Chris Cooper, and the Muppets.
I'm an 18 year old university student. Needless to say, I don't really watch the Muppets, I didn't grow up with them in their prime, and I don't know much about them. I of course know of Kermit and Miss Piggy, but aside from them, I didn't really know offhand of any other Muppets, aside from Animal, simply because he is essentially Keith Moon: the Muppet. Going into this film, I had heard the critical praise, and knew that I'd have a good time. It's a musical comedy revival of a popular puppet series. This wouldn't have been made if it was bad.
And luckily, we have one of the most heartwarming films of this year. Despite the fact that I really don't know much about the Muppets, I found myself shedding a few tears at some points. The basic plot concerns Walter (performed by Peter Linz), who is essentially a Muppet, and his brother, Gary (Jason Segal), and Gary's girlfriend Mary (Amy Adams). For Gary and Mary's anniversary, they take a trip to L.A., with Walter tagging along, as he is a large fan of the Muppets, and wants to visit the Muppet Theater. There, he discovers that an oil magnate, Tex Richman (Chris Cooper), wants to buy the Theater and drill underneath it for oil. Walter finds Kermit the Frog (performed by Steve Whitmire), and they start to get the Muppets back together to put on teleethon to raise $10 million, what they need in order to save the Theater.
Even if you don't know much about the Muppets, you'll enjoy this film. It's got great and catchy songs, tremendously hilarious jokes, and a slew of cameos that will keep you laughing for hours after the film ends. And here's a list of my 3 favourite cameos from this film:
3. Alan Arkin as the tour guide
2. Mickey Rooney (yes, THE Mickey Rooney) as a resident of Smalltown
1. Dave Grohl as Animool (a member of the Moopets, a Muppets knock off)
The only real problem I have with the film is a bit of a cop-out ending, but it's forgivable. The film is a true heartfelt love letter to the Muppets. I never knew that Jason Segal was such a big Muppets fan, but I'm glad he is, as he knows the best way to handle them, and how to make them famous again. Kudos, Jason Segal.
Overall, I highly recommend this film to everyone, Muppet fan or not. I give this film a 9.5/10.
Manamana.
I'm an 18 year old university student. Needless to say, I don't really watch the Muppets, I didn't grow up with them in their prime, and I don't know much about them. I of course know of Kermit and Miss Piggy, but aside from them, I didn't really know offhand of any other Muppets, aside from Animal, simply because he is essentially Keith Moon: the Muppet. Going into this film, I had heard the critical praise, and knew that I'd have a good time. It's a musical comedy revival of a popular puppet series. This wouldn't have been made if it was bad.
And luckily, we have one of the most heartwarming films of this year. Despite the fact that I really don't know much about the Muppets, I found myself shedding a few tears at some points. The basic plot concerns Walter (performed by Peter Linz), who is essentially a Muppet, and his brother, Gary (Jason Segal), and Gary's girlfriend Mary (Amy Adams). For Gary and Mary's anniversary, they take a trip to L.A., with Walter tagging along, as he is a large fan of the Muppets, and wants to visit the Muppet Theater. There, he discovers that an oil magnate, Tex Richman (Chris Cooper), wants to buy the Theater and drill underneath it for oil. Walter finds Kermit the Frog (performed by Steve Whitmire), and they start to get the Muppets back together to put on teleethon to raise $10 million, what they need in order to save the Theater.
Even if you don't know much about the Muppets, you'll enjoy this film. It's got great and catchy songs, tremendously hilarious jokes, and a slew of cameos that will keep you laughing for hours after the film ends. And here's a list of my 3 favourite cameos from this film:
3. Alan Arkin as the tour guide
2. Mickey Rooney (yes, THE Mickey Rooney) as a resident of Smalltown
1. Dave Grohl as Animool (a member of the Moopets, a Muppets knock off)
The only real problem I have with the film is a bit of a cop-out ending, but it's forgivable. The film is a true heartfelt love letter to the Muppets. I never knew that Jason Segal was such a big Muppets fan, but I'm glad he is, as he knows the best way to handle them, and how to make them famous again. Kudos, Jason Segal.
Overall, I highly recommend this film to everyone, Muppet fan or not. I give this film a 9.5/10.
Manamana.
Tuesday, November 22, 2011
The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn
The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn is the fourth of five films in the famous Twilight series. It was released on November 18, 2011. It was written by Melissa Rosenberg, based on the novel by Stephanie Meyer, directed by Bill Condon, and stars Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson, and Taylor Lautner.
The Twilight films. They suck. We all know it. And do you think this one would be any better? Well no, it isn't. As a matter of fact, it's the worst of the bunch. Let me tell you my opinion on the Twilight films. I liked the first, because I thought it had a so-bad-it's-good quality. I didn't care for the second one, as I thought this is where it started to get just plain old bad. And I didn't see the third. So, here we are, at the last book, split into two films, like Harry Potter.
First of all, I'd like to mention that this film does something you don't really think it would: talk to teenage girls about abortion. And due to the Christian undertones of the series, of course, the film's pro-life. My opinion on abortion is irrelevant here, all that matters is who's saying the message. In my opinion, something like Twilight would be great for talking to teenage girls about abortion, as they need to know this stuff. However, Twilight itself can't, because of how phenomenally bad it is. Remember, this is the film series that has their two males leads shirtless for the majority of these films (the opening scene of this film is Jacob taking off his shirt). We've got shining pale kids, shapeshifters, evil women who are the main character, and we're told that this is a horror story. And now, it's talking to us about abortion.
There's a mostly competent cast (Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson, not Taylor Lautner, he does a bad job here) and a competent director (Bill Condon, director of Dreamgirls), so with any other subject material, this'd probably be a decent film. But the subject material is just so horrendously bad. We've got a shining pale pedophile, a shapeshifter (who becomes a pedophile in this film too), and an evil woman who plays with guys feelings, and who is the worst role model for teenage girls everywhere.
This film has the usual bad stuff, as well two new problems: the lack of a (possibly controversial) sex scene, and the lack of a need for a two-parter. The novel was infamous among Twilight fans for it's addition of a sex scene, as well as actual gore during a childbirth sequence. While they keep the gore, they get rid of the sex in this film, which is disappointing. Not because I want to see sex scenes, but because it would create a controversy. I'd love to see Twilight create a controversy, especially among fans. The second problem is that the film has no real need to be split up into two parts. All problems are solved by the end of the film, with no open ends or cliffhangers. If you're gonna do that, why not just leave the film there? It wouldn't have been a great ending, but it would've been a definite ending.
Overall, this film was made to preach Christian values to (marrying at a young age, no sex before marriage, pro-life) to teenage girls. And they just eat it up, because there's shirtless boys and romances that don't work in real life. Overall, I give this film a 2.5/10. I recommend you don't see it.
P.S. Apparently, there is a post-credits scene in which we get a reason for making a two-parter. But who would stick around to watch a post-credtis scene of a Twilight film? This ain't Marvel after all.
The Twilight films. They suck. We all know it. And do you think this one would be any better? Well no, it isn't. As a matter of fact, it's the worst of the bunch. Let me tell you my opinion on the Twilight films. I liked the first, because I thought it had a so-bad-it's-good quality. I didn't care for the second one, as I thought this is where it started to get just plain old bad. And I didn't see the third. So, here we are, at the last book, split into two films, like Harry Potter.
First of all, I'd like to mention that this film does something you don't really think it would: talk to teenage girls about abortion. And due to the Christian undertones of the series, of course, the film's pro-life. My opinion on abortion is irrelevant here, all that matters is who's saying the message. In my opinion, something like Twilight would be great for talking to teenage girls about abortion, as they need to know this stuff. However, Twilight itself can't, because of how phenomenally bad it is. Remember, this is the film series that has their two males leads shirtless for the majority of these films (the opening scene of this film is Jacob taking off his shirt). We've got shining pale kids, shapeshifters, evil women who are the main character, and we're told that this is a horror story. And now, it's talking to us about abortion.
There's a mostly competent cast (Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson, not Taylor Lautner, he does a bad job here) and a competent director (Bill Condon, director of Dreamgirls), so with any other subject material, this'd probably be a decent film. But the subject material is just so horrendously bad. We've got a shining pale pedophile, a shapeshifter (who becomes a pedophile in this film too), and an evil woman who plays with guys feelings, and who is the worst role model for teenage girls everywhere.
This film has the usual bad stuff, as well two new problems: the lack of a (possibly controversial) sex scene, and the lack of a need for a two-parter. The novel was infamous among Twilight fans for it's addition of a sex scene, as well as actual gore during a childbirth sequence. While they keep the gore, they get rid of the sex in this film, which is disappointing. Not because I want to see sex scenes, but because it would create a controversy. I'd love to see Twilight create a controversy, especially among fans. The second problem is that the film has no real need to be split up into two parts. All problems are solved by the end of the film, with no open ends or cliffhangers. If you're gonna do that, why not just leave the film there? It wouldn't have been a great ending, but it would've been a definite ending.
Overall, this film was made to preach Christian values to (marrying at a young age, no sex before marriage, pro-life) to teenage girls. And they just eat it up, because there's shirtless boys and romances that don't work in real life. Overall, I give this film a 2.5/10. I recommend you don't see it.
P.S. Apparently, there is a post-credits scene in which we get a reason for making a two-parter. But who would stick around to watch a post-credtis scene of a Twilight film? This ain't Marvel after all.
Saturday, November 12, 2011
J. Edgar
J. Edgar is Clint Eastwood's latest film, a biography about J. Edgar Hoover, the first director of the Federal Bureau of Investigation. It was written by Dustin Lance Black, directed by Clint Eastwood, and stars Leonardo DiCaprio, Armie Hammer, Naomi Watts, Josh Lucas, and Judi Dench.
J. Edgar Hoover is one of the most interesting men in 20th century American history. He formed the modern day FBI, worked under multiple Presidents (Coolidge to Nixon, almost 50 years), and was supposedly a cross-dresser. Through his life, he saw the two Red Scares, the Great Depression and the bank robberies, McCarthyism, the Mafia in the 60s, communism in the 60s, and Kennedy's assassination. He's been involved with a lot. He's one of the most controversial figures in American history. Such a man deserves a great film, with a great director and a great actor to play the man. Clint Eastwood and Leonardo DiCaprio? Yeah, they could do it.
Let me start with DiCaprio. His performance was truly phenomenal. His performance is without a doubt, the best I've seen this year, and I imagine that he will win the Oscar this year. While J. Edgar Hoover has been depicted many times (never in a leading role), the only performance I can compare DiCaprio to is Kevin Dunn, in Chaplin, who did a good job, but nothing great. DiCaprio is one of the best actors out there today. From Titanic to Shutter Island, he always does a tremendous job, and here, he does even better. This truly is the best performance I've seen this year, and while we still have a month and a half of films lefts, I can't imagine any other actor to win Best Actor this year.
This is the only true positive of the film. The rest of the film is merely good. The main problem is quite frankly, there's too much source material. Many of the major events in 20th century American history involved Hoover. 50 years of history involved him. How can you put all off that in a 2 and a half hour film? Quite simply, you can't. There's too much history to put in, so Eastwood and Black condensed it so we only saw the 20s, 30s, and a bit of the 60s and 70s. McCarthyism was reduced to a single line, the Mafia, one scene. That is the main problem with this film.
However, with this major limit set upon them, they still did a good job. The rest of the cast does good, but nothing spectacular. Black is a terrific writer, and he does make good with what he's given. He'll certainly earn a nomination, but I don't believe he'll get a win. Eastwood does a good job, as usual, but still, this ain't no Gran Torino. Usually, his films are best when he acts in them. He's 81 now, so I can understand him not wanting to act. It certainly would be nice if he could act again, but I'll take him not acting over him dead. Also, the makeup on the cast wasn't very effective, especially on Armie Hammer. It looked best on DiCaprio, but still wasn't completely convincing.
All in all, this is a good movie with a truly amazing lead performance by Leonardo DiCaprio. If you're a history buff at all, this film probably won't please you as much as you want it to, but it's still quite good, and gives a good look into the mind of one of the most controversial figures of the 20th century. Overall, a 7.5/10.
J. Edgar Hoover is one of the most interesting men in 20th century American history. He formed the modern day FBI, worked under multiple Presidents (Coolidge to Nixon, almost 50 years), and was supposedly a cross-dresser. Through his life, he saw the two Red Scares, the Great Depression and the bank robberies, McCarthyism, the Mafia in the 60s, communism in the 60s, and Kennedy's assassination. He's been involved with a lot. He's one of the most controversial figures in American history. Such a man deserves a great film, with a great director and a great actor to play the man. Clint Eastwood and Leonardo DiCaprio? Yeah, they could do it.
Let me start with DiCaprio. His performance was truly phenomenal. His performance is without a doubt, the best I've seen this year, and I imagine that he will win the Oscar this year. While J. Edgar Hoover has been depicted many times (never in a leading role), the only performance I can compare DiCaprio to is Kevin Dunn, in Chaplin, who did a good job, but nothing great. DiCaprio is one of the best actors out there today. From Titanic to Shutter Island, he always does a tremendous job, and here, he does even better. This truly is the best performance I've seen this year, and while we still have a month and a half of films lefts, I can't imagine any other actor to win Best Actor this year.
This is the only true positive of the film. The rest of the film is merely good. The main problem is quite frankly, there's too much source material. Many of the major events in 20th century American history involved Hoover. 50 years of history involved him. How can you put all off that in a 2 and a half hour film? Quite simply, you can't. There's too much history to put in, so Eastwood and Black condensed it so we only saw the 20s, 30s, and a bit of the 60s and 70s. McCarthyism was reduced to a single line, the Mafia, one scene. That is the main problem with this film.
However, with this major limit set upon them, they still did a good job. The rest of the cast does good, but nothing spectacular. Black is a terrific writer, and he does make good with what he's given. He'll certainly earn a nomination, but I don't believe he'll get a win. Eastwood does a good job, as usual, but still, this ain't no Gran Torino. Usually, his films are best when he acts in them. He's 81 now, so I can understand him not wanting to act. It certainly would be nice if he could act again, but I'll take him not acting over him dead. Also, the makeup on the cast wasn't very effective, especially on Armie Hammer. It looked best on DiCaprio, but still wasn't completely convincing.
All in all, this is a good movie with a truly amazing lead performance by Leonardo DiCaprio. If you're a history buff at all, this film probably won't please you as much as you want it to, but it's still quite good, and gives a good look into the mind of one of the most controversial figures of the 20th century. Overall, a 7.5/10.
Thursday, November 10, 2011
A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas
A Very Harold & Kumar 3D Christmas is the third film in the popular stoner comedy series Harold & Kumar. It was released on November 4, 2011. It was written by Jon Hurwitz and Hayden Schlossberg, directed by Todd Strauss-Schulson, and stars John Cho, Kal Penn, and Neil Patrick Harris.
Harold and Kumar doing a Christmas film, in 3D. How the hell are they gonna pull that off? It's the two modern stoners, doing a Christmas film, in 3D. I'm still baffled that they made this. Going into this, I was extremely worried that they could screw this up, and make a terrible film. However, the premise was silly enough for this film to work.
This film is set in the modern day, 7 years after the Guantanamo Bay incident. Harold and Kumar aren't friends anymore. Harold (John Cho) is a successful businessman, married to Maria (Paula Garces), and given up weed. Kumar (Kal Penn) is still slacking, out of a job, broken up from Vanessa (Danneel Harris), and is still smoking, more than ever. An odd package is dropped off at Kumar's place, with Harold's name on it, so Kumar decides to deliver it to Harold.
Let's start with the cast. John Cho and Kal Penn are just as good as they always were, and there really isn't that much to say there. I was actually quite disappointed with Neil Patrick Harris (who will be refered to as NPH from now on). Compared to the last two films, in which he was a sex god, here, he's now a gay man, as he is in real life, but only pretending to be, in order to get more women. Due to this, he isn't really getting women at all. It's a very odd way to portray him, and while I'm glad to see him again, it's a shame to see him not at his top performance. This is mostly the fault of the writing however, so if there is a fourth one, write him better. I'd also like to mention Amir Blumenfeld, of Collegehumor. Collegehumor produces my favourite web series, Jake and Amir, of which he is a writer and actor. It's a good thing to see him in this film, furthering his career into film, especially one like this. It's also good to see that he didn't act anything like Amir from Jake and Amir, but instead, he acted like a completely different character. It's good to see he can act other roles, something I was worried about going into this film.
The choice of 3D in this film is one of the few times I'll let 3D slide, simply because they use 3D to parody it. It's used entirely for parody. Just watch the trailer, and you'll see what I mean. While I don't advocate the usage of 3D in films, unless it actually works quite well, like Avatar or animated films, for parody, I'm willing to let that slide. Mostly because I believe if we're parodying it now, that means that maybe it'll die off soon.
I only have 2 problems with this film. The first is NPH, and the way he was used. The second is the comedy. While this is a good film, and it does tell a good story, as well as having a good Christmas feel to it, it's not as laugh-out-loud funny as the others. There aren't many moments that make you burst out into laughter for prolonged periods of time, unlike the first two. There are several funny moments, but nothing terribly funny. The funniest scene I'd have to say would be the claymation one, which is quite hilarious.
All in all, it's a decent follow-up to one of the defining comedy series of the last decade. If you've seen the first two, I'd recommend you see this. If you're in the mood for a stoner Christmas film (I don't know why you would be, but oh well), this is probably the only stoner Christmas film ever made, so enjoy. While not as good as the last two, it's still a good follow-up, and I would be fine with another film in this series. Overall, a 7/10.
This film is set in the modern day, 7 years after the Guantanamo Bay incident. Harold and Kumar aren't friends anymore. Harold (John Cho) is a successful businessman, married to Maria (Paula Garces), and given up weed. Kumar (Kal Penn) is still slacking, out of a job, broken up from Vanessa (Danneel Harris), and is still smoking, more than ever. An odd package is dropped off at Kumar's place, with Harold's name on it, so Kumar decides to deliver it to Harold.
Let's start with the cast. John Cho and Kal Penn are just as good as they always were, and there really isn't that much to say there. I was actually quite disappointed with Neil Patrick Harris (who will be refered to as NPH from now on). Compared to the last two films, in which he was a sex god, here, he's now a gay man, as he is in real life, but only pretending to be, in order to get more women. Due to this, he isn't really getting women at all. It's a very odd way to portray him, and while I'm glad to see him again, it's a shame to see him not at his top performance. This is mostly the fault of the writing however, so if there is a fourth one, write him better. I'd also like to mention Amir Blumenfeld, of Collegehumor. Collegehumor produces my favourite web series, Jake and Amir, of which he is a writer and actor. It's a good thing to see him in this film, furthering his career into film, especially one like this. It's also good to see that he didn't act anything like Amir from Jake and Amir, but instead, he acted like a completely different character. It's good to see he can act other roles, something I was worried about going into this film.
The choice of 3D in this film is one of the few times I'll let 3D slide, simply because they use 3D to parody it. It's used entirely for parody. Just watch the trailer, and you'll see what I mean. While I don't advocate the usage of 3D in films, unless it actually works quite well, like Avatar or animated films, for parody, I'm willing to let that slide. Mostly because I believe if we're parodying it now, that means that maybe it'll die off soon.
I only have 2 problems with this film. The first is NPH, and the way he was used. The second is the comedy. While this is a good film, and it does tell a good story, as well as having a good Christmas feel to it, it's not as laugh-out-loud funny as the others. There aren't many moments that make you burst out into laughter for prolonged periods of time, unlike the first two. There are several funny moments, but nothing terribly funny. The funniest scene I'd have to say would be the claymation one, which is quite hilarious.
All in all, it's a decent follow-up to one of the defining comedy series of the last decade. If you've seen the first two, I'd recommend you see this. If you're in the mood for a stoner Christmas film (I don't know why you would be, but oh well), this is probably the only stoner Christmas film ever made, so enjoy. While not as good as the last two, it's still a good follow-up, and I would be fine with another film in this series. Overall, a 7/10.
Thursday, November 3, 2011
Anonymous
Anonymous is German filmmaker Roland Emmerich's latest film, and the one most different from his films, concerning Shakespeare and his plays, as opposed to a world disaster. It was written by John Orloff, directed by Roland Emmerich, and stars Rhys Ifans, Vanessa Redgrave, Joely Richardson, David Thewlis, Xavier Samuel, Sebastian Armesto, Rafe Spall, Edward Hogg, and Jamie Campbell Bower.
William Shakespeare. Greatest writer ever? I think it's fair to say that's obvious. Do I believe all these theories that he wasn't really a writer, that somebody else did? Personally, I really don't care who wrote the plays. For all I know, there never has been a William Shakespeare. All that matters are his works. However, it can be quite fun to get swept away in these theories. That's what I was hoping for from this film, to get swept away in the conspiracy theory of the authorship if Shakespeare's plays. And I was swept away. I immensely enjoyed this film, despite its flaws.
Let me start with the positives. Rhys Ifans and Jaime Campbell Bower both play Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, at different points in his life, and both do a great job. This is their best role for both, and while neither will receive an Academy Award nomination for this film, they both definitely do a good job. Vanessa Redgrave and Joely Richardson both play Queen Elizabeth 1, and both also do a great job, Redgrave in particular. If you were to ask me who the best actor in the film was, I'd say Redgrave. She plays Elizabeth like a fun-loving woman, despite her age and perilous situation. She was one of the most enjoyable parts of this film. The rest of the cast also did a good job, but I'd like to talk about the actor they got to play Shakespeare, Rafe Spall. I'd never heard of Rafe Spall before, and watching the trailers, I assumed that Jason Lee was playing Shakespeare in this film, with an English accent. The resemblance in freakishly uncanny. If you're wondering what Rafe Spall did before this film, he's known for his collaborations with Edgar Wright. Here's a picture of his role in Shaun of the Dead.
William Shakespeare. Greatest writer ever? I think it's fair to say that's obvious. Do I believe all these theories that he wasn't really a writer, that somebody else did? Personally, I really don't care who wrote the plays. For all I know, there never has been a William Shakespeare. All that matters are his works. However, it can be quite fun to get swept away in these theories. That's what I was hoping for from this film, to get swept away in the conspiracy theory of the authorship if Shakespeare's plays. And I was swept away. I immensely enjoyed this film, despite its flaws.
Let me start with the positives. Rhys Ifans and Jaime Campbell Bower both play Edward de Vere, 17th Earl of Oxford, at different points in his life, and both do a great job. This is their best role for both, and while neither will receive an Academy Award nomination for this film, they both definitely do a good job. Vanessa Redgrave and Joely Richardson both play Queen Elizabeth 1, and both also do a great job, Redgrave in particular. If you were to ask me who the best actor in the film was, I'd say Redgrave. She plays Elizabeth like a fun-loving woman, despite her age and perilous situation. She was one of the most enjoyable parts of this film. The rest of the cast also did a good job, but I'd like to talk about the actor they got to play Shakespeare, Rafe Spall. I'd never heard of Rafe Spall before, and watching the trailers, I assumed that Jason Lee was playing Shakespeare in this film, with an English accent. The resemblance in freakishly uncanny. If you're wondering what Rafe Spall did before this film, he's known for his collaborations with Edgar Wright. Here's a picture of his role in Shaun of the Dead.
And here's a picture of him in Anonymous.
I don't think this is the same person. I swear to god, Jason Lee is in this film.
Now, the writing. The writer, John Orloff, states that Shakespeare didn't write those plays, but de Vere did. This is known as the Oxfordian theory, as de Vere was the Earl of Oxford. The particular theory he uses is the Prince Tudor Theory, which is the same theory, but states that the Earl of Southampton was also the son of him and Queen Elizabeth I. The writing is quite good, but if you are someone who hates these theories, you'll hate this film. And while I do enjoy the writing, I found a big problem with a twist at the end. To all who know the twist, I'll attempt to write in code, to protect those who don't know the twist. If W.C. was his father, then not only was he with his mother, but sister as well. Why didn't they mention that?
The directing was my only real problem with this film. I've never really liked Roland Emmerich, so I haven't seen a lot of his films. I've only seen Stargate, 2012, and The Day After Tomorrow. His films were always just big disaster films, nothing really special. I admire him for trying something different, but his directing is the only bad part of this. For the majority of outside shots, he chooses to use green screen. Everything shot inside, he shot in beautifully made sets, but everything outside is horrific green screen. Considering how he made some of the best special effects in film recently, you think he'd make his green screen look good. But no, he doesn't. He didn't really do anything good here, and he was the only thing I didn't like about this film.
Overall, I immensely enjoyed this film. The acting was brilliant, the writing, terrific, but the directing really brought it down. Regardless, I found this to be a great political thriller, while also being about the greatest writer who ever lived. If you support the theories, you'll probably love this film, and if you don't, you'll probably hate this film. I don't really care if Shakespeare really wrote the plays or not, I just enjoy them, as well as this film. This film earns a 7.5/10 from me.
P.S. The Derek Jacobi stuff works in the beginning, because it's interesting to think that the modern day Shakespearean actor (aside from maybe Kenneth Branagh) is talking about how Shakespeare never wrote anything, but fails in the end, because of how unbelievably cheesy it gets, and the fact that it was a major play on Broadway, and yet no one applauded.
P.S. The Derek Jacobi stuff works in the beginning, because it's interesting to think that the modern day Shakespearean actor (aside from maybe Kenneth Branagh) is talking about how Shakespeare never wrote anything, but fails in the end, because of how unbelievably cheesy it gets, and the fact that it was a major play on Broadway, and yet no one applauded.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)