[Locke]

Watched two fantastic movies yesterday first was

WALTER MITTY:

Despite heavy promotion in my cinema - hell I'm writing this in the promotional tshirt I wore for the film over the Christmas holidays - I had no idea what a Walter Mitty is. It's about some famous short story where he daydreams his own death at the end, or something? Don't ask the trailer, that seems to suggest something else entirely. So yeah, as you can gather, I had little to no interest in the movie because it had some of the worst promotion since Frozen. However, being out since boxing day, I knew this was one of my last chances to catch the flick, so I gave it a chance and I'm so glad it did.

Why am I glad? Well using the world Wiig uses at the end, 'real'. Although neither Stiller, nor the character he plays, are ordinary, Stiller seems to understand the mundanity of ordinary life so personally. That may not sound particularly positive, but as Mitty goes on his admittedly clichéd tale of self discovery and day seizing, you're so invested in it all that it doesn't matter if really, you've seen this all before. And you're so invested, because it's one of those rare gems that you would truly be able to relate to - it's even more rare that, a movie made for grownups. It's witty, it's charming and it's laugh out loud hilarious. Mitty may well be the best character Stiller ever gets to play.

Any regular readers will know I have a fairly large distaste of Hollywood's band of merry 'comedy' actors. In a sea of Jonah Hill's, Stiller is an actor I appreciate as when he's in a comedy it is usually pretty funny and when he actually has to act, he proves he can - he may be one of the only ones who can. So when I say Mitty may well be Stiller's best character, I don't mean that in a facetious manner of 'wow a character I could actually tolerate!', I mean that as a compliment to an actor who I think has played quite a few great characters in his history of cinema and to an actor I quite admire.

The thing that really completes and sets apart Walter Mitty though, is budget. As I said further up, Walter Mitty's core is nothing particularly original, but when a Mumblecore film on a budget of a hundred thousand tells us that what we daydream about, is really out there, it can only really show us in a microcosmic way. Walter Mitty on the other hand, takes the Mitty daydreaming of saving dogs from exploding buildings and fighting with his boss like it's a superhero movie and then has him battle in the real world (of the film) with sharks, running from erupting volcanoes, leaping out of helicopters and climbing mountains. Walter Mitty doesn't just tell us our daydreams are out there, it shows us. And when it tells us to stop being alive, and start living, I actually feel inspired as this movie can say more than 'get a girlfriend!'. And that is pretty darn special.

It also helps that it is a fantastically made movie. There's been rumours off and on that Stiller is going to quit acting to become a full fledged director and sure Tropic Thunder is a thing that happened, but when you see just how gorgeous Walter Mitty is, you can see Stiller is trying to make up for past mistakes. So I'd happily see him take the directors chair more often, even if I'd miss having him in front of the camera as well. It has gorgeous locations, incredible action set pieces and stunning cinematography with Stiller's eye for art in the every day a joy to behold on the big screen. It also has a great soundtrack.

Basically, in short, Walter Mitty is kind of wonderful. It could have been an inconsistent vanity project for Stiller to blow a wad of cash on his ego but instead this is one of the truest pieces of cinematic yolo I've ever seen, I loved it.

And then, HER:

I love the world through Spike Jonze's eyes. For a movie that almost singularly centres around a romance where only one person is on screen, Her is still able to be a profoundly beautiful movie. With many exteriors shot in Shanghai, this near future Los Angles feels so utterly alien and yet is so stunningly gorgeous.

It's as much a piece of fantasy, as it is a piece of scfi, as it is a piece of social realist romance. OS1 not only embodies the woman of our dreams, but OS1 also embodies the piece of tech of our dreams as well. A concept like that sounds like it could go horribly wrong, but Jonze treads the thin line and always stays on the best side.

There is also a fascinating twist later in the movie, one that isn't a critique of the now, but a critique of the future. It's brutal, and hopefully not prophetic, but finds perhaps the best way to end a story like this, classically but with a painful and modern twist. I'm happy to see Jonze run and explore his unique concepts, but only after he's already crafted a beautiful tale first. It could have easily become too bogged down in the science of it all, or too bogged down in the reality of it all but somehow Jonze manages to blend it seamlessly together. Better even than I'm Here, which is one of my all time favourite romances.

Theodore is a wonderfully complex character. A man who is the voice of relationships, a man whose career is built on sweetness and yet he is a man who is, in reality, a person who is entirely isolated from those things. Theodore is going through a divorce, which is messy and complicated, it may well all be his fault and that is the reason he can't let go. Who hasn't been there? He stays up late and has phone sex involving strangling women with dead cats.

As such, his career as a "beautiful handwritten letter writer" is wonderfully ironic. And highlights one of the many wonderful narrative complexities of this flick. This too bizarre to not really exist job involves Theodore wearing the shoes of people he has never met. He creates poetry out of vague details and photographs, culminating in a letter that is so deeply personal, surely it could have only come from the person whose name is at the bottom, not from some online service. Hell Theodore doesn't even write the "handwritten letters" he just speaks at his computer and waits for it to come up in a handwritten font. It's the mumblecore moonpig.

Theodore is a man who not only lives through the lives and loves of other people through his writing, but is also a man who does it all the time. He sits in public spaces and studies those around him, creating elaborate tales of love and life for them, that he himself is not living. This is a key theme that holds the entire movie together.

The cast is small, but every character is utterly memorable, and Theodore isn't the only one worth writing about. Sadly as basically EVERY character could have an essay written on them, I'm going to write about the three most important women to me, in the movie.

Johansson is an actress that maybe I don't appreciate as much as I should as here she has to carry the whole weight of her character through her voice alone and my GOD does she pull it off. Her and Phoenix have truly incredible chemistry. It's probably one of the best onscreen romances I've ever seen, and they don't share a single scene together. Physically any way. And this is especially impressive as Samantha Morton had completed her role as Samantha, before she was replaced almost at the last second by Johansson.

Amy Adams meanwhile is an actress I'd never really noticed before she really disappointed me as Lois Lane, but here I found myself falling in love with her character who is also called Amy. She is beautiful in this very ordinary way, she is so deeply understanding and just seems like a great person to have in your life.

Special mention though, must go to Olivia Wilde whose character doesn't even have a proper name, but her fleeting, nameless time in the movie is one of the most poignant and heartbreaking. It was certainly the first time I lost my composure and broke down in a blubbering mess, as Theodore recounts his date with her, and gives a step by step breakdown of his emotional motivations.

I haven't dated anyone now in about two years, I haven't been in love for more like three or four. I don't even really remember what being in love really felt like. But then, through this movie, I was able to remember what it felt like all over again. Theodore's crisis is that he fears he has already felt all he is ever going to feel, and he is only destined to repeat lesser versions of the same feelings, if ever again. I can really relate to that, Theodore's loneliness made me realise how lonely I am.

Perhaps most impressive though is Jonze thoughtfulness, he accepts and embraces things that other similar films attempt to skirt around for fear of it seemingly less idealistically romantic. Like for example, a big crux of the film is that Samantha has no body. Now many romance films drill into you that appearance doesn't matter, that sex doesn't matter, it's all about the personality but Her recognises and explores just how important physical attraction and sex is to a relationship, and puts its foot down on fantasists that say otherwise.

Sure the ultimate message is that joy should be embraced, in whatever form it takes, but it makes both Theodore but most importantly Samantha feel so much more real that they desire physical contact. Something so crucial yet so regularly cut out.

Similarly, it's nice that Theodore is so open about his relationship. Even though online dating is now completely common, there is still a certain stigma about meeting someone online, or falling in love through Skype or whatever. So it's nice that Her seems to exist in this utopic future where everyone is a romantic and no one will shame you for finding love, as it doesn't matter what shape it comes in, as long as you're happy.

And so as pathetic as Theodore may at times feel, his ex-wife Catherine certainly seems to, it's hard to hate a message carried on such a wonderfully good intentioned movie.

Basically in short. You will laugh. You will cry. You will scream at the top of your lungs. You will fall in love. And you'll just feel so fucking good. I don't think I've ever loved a movie, the way I love Her.

[XW1n5t0nX]

The Machine Girl. Plot was a little odd considering how the movie started, but other then that it was awesome.

[KRX]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locke

Watched two fantastic movies yesterday first was

WALTER MITTY:

Despite heavy promotion in my cinema - hell I'm writing this in the promotional tshirt I wore for the film over the Christmas holidays - I had no idea what a Walter Mitty is. It's about some famous short story where he daydreams his own death at the end, or something? Don't ask the trailer, that seems to suggest something else entirely. So yeah, as you can gather, I had little to no interest in the movie because it had some of the worst promotion since Frozen. However, being out since boxing day, I knew this was one of my last chances to catch the flick, so I gave it a chance and I'm so glad it did.

Why am I glad? Well using the world Wiig uses at the end, 'real'. Although neither Stiller, nor the character he plays, are ordinary, Stiller seems to understand the mundanity of ordinary life so personally. That may not sound particularly positive, but as Mitty goes on his admittedly clichéd tale of self discovery and day seizing, you're so invested in it all that it doesn't matter if really, you've seen this all before. And you're so invested, because it's one of those rare gems that you would truly be able to relate to - it's even more rare that, a movie made for grownups. It's witty, it's charming and it's laugh out loud hilarious. Mitty may well be the best character Stiller ever gets to play.

Any regular readers will know I have a fairly large distaste of Hollywood's band of merry 'comedy' actors. In a sea of Jonah Hill's, Stiller is an actor I appreciate as when he's in a comedy it is usually pretty funny and when he actually has to act, he proves he can - he may be one of the only ones who can. So when I say Mitty may well be Stiller's best character, I don't mean that in a facetious manner of 'wow a character I could actually tolerate!', I mean that as a compliment to an actor who I think has played quite a few great characters in his history of cinema and to an actor I quite admire.

The thing that really completes and sets apart Walter Mitty though, is budget. As I said further up, Walter Mitty's core is nothing particularly original, but when a Mumblecore film on a budget of a hundred thousand tells us that what we daydream about, is really out there, it can only really show us in a microcosmic way. Walter Mitty on the other hand, takes the Mitty daydreaming of saving dogs from exploding buildings and fighting with his boss like it's a superhero movie and then has him battle in the real world (of the film) with sharks, running from erupting volcanoes, leaping out of helicopters and climbing mountains. Walter Mitty doesn't just tell us our daydreams are out there, it shows us. And when it tells us to stop being alive, and start living, I actually feel inspired as this movie can say more than 'get a girlfriend!'. And that is pretty darn special.

It also helps that it is a fantastically made movie. There's been rumours off and on that Stiller is going to quit acting to become a full fledged director and sure Tropic Thunder is a thing that happened, but when you see just how gorgeous Walter Mitty is, you can see Stiller is trying to make up for past mistakes. So I'd happily see him take the directors chair more often, even if I'd miss having him in front of the camera as well. It has gorgeous locations, incredible action set pieces and stunning cinematography with Stiller's eye for art in the every day a joy to behold on the big screen. It also has a great soundtrack.

Basically, in short, Walter Mitty is kind of wonderful. It could have been an inconsistent vanity project for Stiller to blow a wad of cash on his ego but instead this is one of the truest pieces of cinematic yolo I've ever seen, I loved it.

And then, HER:

I love the world through Spike Jonze's eyes. For a movie that almost singularly centres around a romance where only one person is on screen, Her is still able to be a profoundly beautiful movie. With many exteriors shot in Shanghai, this near future Los Angles feels so utterly alien and yet is so stunningly gorgeous.

It's as much a piece of fantasy, as it is a piece of scfi, as it is a piece of social realist romance. OS1 not only embodies the woman of our dreams, but OS1 also embodies the piece of tech of our dreams as well. A concept like that sounds like it could go horribly wrong, but Jonze treads the thin line and always stays on the best side.

There is also a fascinating twist later in the movie, one that isn't a critique of the now, but a critique of the future. It's brutal, and hopefully not prophetic, but finds perhaps the best way to end a story like this, classically but with a painful and modern twist. I'm happy to see Jonze run and explore his unique concepts, but only after he's already crafted a beautiful tale first. It could have easily become too bogged down in the science of it all, or too bogged down in the reality of it all but somehow Jonze manages to blend it seamlessly together. Better even than I'm Here, which is one of my all time favourite romances.

Theodore is a wonderfully complex character. A man who is the voice of relationships, a man whose career is built on sweetness and yet he is a man who is, in reality, a person who is entirely isolated from those things. Theodore is going through a divorce, which is messy and complicated, it may well all be his fault and that is the reason he can't let go. Who hasn't been there? He stays up late and has phone sex involving strangling women with dead cats.

As such, his career as a "beautiful handwritten letter writer" is wonderfully ironic. And highlights one of the many wonderful narrative complexities of this flick. This too bizarre to not really exist job involves Theodore wearing the shoes of people he has never met. He creates poetry out of vague details and photographs, culminating in a letter that is so deeply personal, surely it could have only come from the person whose name is at the bottom, not from some online service. Hell Theodore doesn't even write the "handwritten letters" he just speaks at his computer and waits for it to come up in a handwritten font. It's the mumblecore moonpig.

Theodore is a man who not only lives through the lives and loves of other people through his writing, but is also a man who does it all the time. He sits in public spaces and studies those around him, creating elaborate tales of love and life for them, that he himself is not living. This is a key theme that holds the entire movie together.

The cast is small, but every character is utterly memorable, and Theodore isn't the only one worth writing about. Sadly as basically EVERY character could have an essay written on them, I'm going to write about the three most important women to me, in the movie.

Johansson is an actress that maybe I don't appreciate as much as I should as here she has to carry the whole weight of her character through her voice alone and my GOD does she pull it off. Her and Phoenix have truly incredible chemistry. It's probably one of the best onscreen romances I've ever seen, and they don't share a single scene together. Physically any way. And this is especially impressive as Samantha Morton had completed her role as Samantha, before she was replaced almost at the last second by Johansson.

Amy Adams meanwhile is an actress I'd never really noticed before she really disappointed me as Lois Lane, but here I found myself falling in love with her character who is also called Amy. She is beautiful in this very ordinary way, she is so deeply understanding and just seems like a great person to have in your life.

Special mention though, must go to Olivia Wilde whose character doesn't even have a proper name, but her fleeting, nameless time in the movie is one of the most poignant and heartbreaking. It was certainly the first time I lost my composure and broke down in a blubbering mess, as Theodore recounts his date with her, and gives a step by step breakdown of his emotional motivations.

I haven't dated anyone now in about two years, I haven't been in love for more like three or four. I don't even really remember what being in love really felt like. But then, through this movie, I was able to remember what it felt like all over again. Theodore's crisis is that he fears he has already felt all he is ever going to feel, and he is only destined to repeat lesser versions of the same feelings, if ever again. I can really relate to that, Theodore's loneliness made me realise how lonely I am.

Perhaps most impressive though is Jonze thoughtfulness, he accepts and embraces things that other similar films attempt to skirt around for fear of it seemingly less idealistically romantic. Like for example, a big crux of the film is that Samantha has no body. Now many romance films drill into you that appearance doesn't matter, that sex doesn't matter, it's all about the personality but Her recognises and explores just how important physical attraction and sex is to a relationship, and puts its foot down on fantasists that say otherwise.

Sure the ultimate message is that joy should be embraced, in whatever form it takes, but it makes both Theodore but most importantly Samantha feel so much more real that they desire physical contact. Something so crucial yet so regularly cut out.

Similarly, it's nice that Theodore is so open about his relationship. Even though online dating is now completely common, there is still a certain stigma about meeting someone online, or falling in love through Skype or whatever. So it's nice that Her seems to exist in this utopic future where everyone is a romantic and no one will shame you for finding love, as it doesn't matter what shape it comes in, as long as you're happy.

And so as pathetic as Theodore may at times feel, his ex-wife Catherine certainly seems to, it's hard to hate a message carried on such a wonderfully good intentioned movie.

Basically in short. You will laugh. You will cry. You will scream at the top of your lungs. You will fall in love. And you'll just feel so fucking good. I don't think I've ever loved a movie, the way I love Her.

... Now, I really want to know your opinions on 3 Idiots.

Oh, look at that. The movie's right below this sentence!

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAF245E23419039BB

[Paladin]

Checked out "The Dark Knight Rises," which I saw once in the theaters & more or less forgot about until now.

Upon rewatching- wow, there is SO MUCH of this movie that does not work. At all. Its actually kinda terrible.

*Bruce Wayne acts like a total idiot for most of the film. He has no backup plans once his safe is opened and identity is stolen and despite being totally bankrupt is still able to get back to Gotham from halfway across the world?
*What exactly is Selina Kyle's motivation? Why does she want to start over (I know they give hints that she's in trouble somehow but hinting's not enough).
*How exactly does Bane SURVIVE with that damn thing on his face? Should'nt he have starved to death years ago?
*NOBODY in Gotham put together that Bruce Wayne and Batman were gone for the same amount of time AND showed up again at roughly the same time?!
*How does the city stay almost perfectly clean for five months when cut off from the rest of the world?

*What does Talia bring to the story? The endgame is still the same with or without her contribution.
*Ditto John Blake. What purpose does he really have besides blatant low-level fanservice? A successor for Batman isn't a bad idea but making up some guy with the coincidental first name "Robin" just seems dumb.
*So, Christopher Nolan insists on a completely realistic setting and won't use most of the good comic villains because its "too weird" but its OK that his Batman can have a lengthy conversation with the ghost of Ra's Al Ghul? And it can't just be Batman's subconscious because it leads to information that he couldn't possibly have figured out on his own by that point!!!

[Matrixbeast]

Yeah. DKR is really, pretty, kinda awful

[Locke]

Quote:

Originally Posted by KRX

... Now, I really want to know your opinions on 3 Idiots.

Oh, look at that. The movie's right below this sentence!

http://www.youtube.com/playlist?list=PLAF245E23419039BB

Haha, how come? But I'll look into the movie!

Any way, 12 Years a Slave:

I'M STARTING THIS REVIEW WITH BLOCK CAPITALS JUST TO MAKE SURE YOU DON'T MISS THIS DISCLAIMER AND GIVE ME SHIT, THANKS. Basically, if you're easily offended, please read no further, thank you, as a very difficult discussion is incoming.

With that out of the way, I'm going to say this now, I refuse to tread on eggshells. As much as the fact that slavery is STILL a touchy subject after all these years, shows both the severity of the crime and also the amount of respect and compassion humans have for one another. The fact that Django Unchained can still seem shocking is kinda part of the problem. If you want to solve anything, you've gotta tread on a few toes, it's a sad fact of life.

Basically, in short, what I am saying going in is that I'm not going to go easy on 12 Years a Slave because of its subject matter. When a film like this generates a discussion about something we aren't discussing, but probably should be, then that is a good thing. But we can also have a discussion about the film itself, without bringing in its context. 12 Years a Slave is a bad movie, and that has nothing to do with the topic this is about.

Okay? Okay. So when I saw the words 'Based on True Events', I immediately recoiled in horror. I'm personally not a fan of Oscar Bait, I find they rarely feel like complete movies, as telling a compelling narrative or creating a beautiful album of imagery is not on the filmmakers minds, its just how much gold they can get on a mantelpiece. The Oscars is an awards show that is an utter joke, and functions more as a popularity contest than even TV lowpoints like X-Factor do.

I'm pretty sure you can count on one hand the amount of films based on true stories that are actually good, and I'm pretty sure you can count on one finger which of those films actually stuck to the true events and didn't take every creative liberty possible to make those events actually interesting.

Similarly my fears grew when I saw the cast. Knowing it's a popularity contest these casts are usually star studded, but as it is the Oscars, they attempt to stray towards those who are recognised more as 'actours' by mass markets, so I guess I can give them credit for that. I guess being the operative here, as there is nothing inherently wrong with that, the cast of this film is frankly incredible, but the idea of taking a harrowing true story and filling it with household names rubs me all kinds of the wrong way.

Then again, is there anything more trivial than taking a real life horror story and charging nine quid to see it (not including the snacks you got peddled on your way in)? If Hollywood put in as much money to actually helping causes as they did into making movies ABOUT causes then maybe the world will change. Movies like this make me feel dirty. But that is an argument for another time, and one I didn't want to bring into my review. Dammit.

The problem is, this minefield of intent and result is impossible to avoid without getting your asscheeks charred off. That is perhaps the greatest impossibility with a film like this. In its inherent nature slavery was an exploitation film. You cant really tastefully critique a world made up of so much sex and violence fuelled by hatred, lust and jealousy. A world where human worth is gauged by skin tone, where education is a crime and torture is an every day occurrence. It's like a dystopian future, yet in the past, and constantly punctuated by the steady rhythm of cracking whips.

Either embracing or shying away has its own inherent negative ramifications, but whether McQueen is trying to simply portray his disgust at the horrors of our history, or is simply attempting to generate audience buzz from a shock factor is pretty much impossible to decide after the first twenty or so minutes. Then it is all downhill from there or uphill I suppose, depending on what side - if any - one falls on. If nothing else, them slaves sure can sing!

Also, with the fact that this is over two hours in length (closer to two and a half hours, than it is two), the overwhelming and consistent melancholia of the films tone ends up making it predictable. By the first hour, you've basically seen all you're ever going to see, if you haven't already seen it in so many similar movies, which I'm sure you have. As such later "twists" become boring because you know exactly what is going to happen, it'll always be the worst possible scenario.

Perhaps worst of all is that McQueen has seemingly never heard of the word 'subtlety'. His intentions of what he is trying to convey with his imagery are questionable, but the message he surrounds his characters with is not. He drowns his characters in his message so much, they become shallow and flat, lacking any sense of humanity.

My soul felt as beaten as the slaves by the end, but not as a mark of brilliant filmmaking, simply from the exhaustion of bad filmmaking. He tries so hard to make this complex and deep, creating slavers and their associates who are good people and creating slaves who we pity so much as they are so desperate, but there is no maturity here. When Slavers are evil, they are REALLY evil and I mean to the point where they feel more like cartoon villains, than a character that has any place in a movie like this. And when whitemen are good, the film goes on such extreme rants about injustice and equality that it actively pulls you out of the movie, and distracts you entirely. McQueen takes his message and lashes you with it until you scream in compliance. And that was never needed.

And it's such a shame as well, Ejiofor is an incredible actor, and he is magnificent in this, as is Lupita Nyong'o, but with such a shallow, limp wristed story and set of characters there is only so much they can do. They want Northup to feel transformed by the end, but it feels so incredibly contrived. They want Patsey to embody the loss of innocence, but it's so hamfisted in its approach that it simply feels like a cheap ploy to get investment from the audience. It's as if McQueen assumes no one in the audience has a shroud of human compassion anyway, that it must be cue carded for them. CRY HERE the movie screams. All I'm doing is groaning.

I've hard critics claim this movie 'smothering' and I think that is the best word to describe it. Ironically exploitation icon Tarantino seems to know better on this subject matter than McQueen does. Tarantino knew that the horrors of slavery could carry themselves, and he only stepped in when he took his film down paths of fantastical set pieces. McQueen on the other hand refuses to keep his nose out, not letting any point simply be, and after a while you get fed up of having your face rubbed in it.

The ultimate question in the end, that you'll be asking, is "where is the humanity?"

[KRX]

Quote:

Originally Posted by Locke

Haha, how come? But I'll look into the movie!

Aside from the fact that it is probably the best movie I have ever seen, I'm also curious about what your opinion of it will be.

[ryan]

I've not seen a lot of Segal films (in fact, I probably haven't seen one in 18 years0, but I've always considered myself sort of a fan of his work, so I picked up two cheap dvd multi-packs months ago, and finally started watching them.

Into the Sun (2005) - 6-7/10

I've heard people complain that Segal got fat, and while I wouldn't exactly say he's fat in this, he certainly looks more like somebody with a comfortable office job, than somebody who is supposedly some sort of CIA or FBI Special Forces.

The action was just okay. I remember really liking the way Segal's combat focuses so much on arm movements, but in this film it mostly ended up looking like slap fights. I don't know if it was the choreography, or the cinematography (too close up to see what's going on maybe).

Except for the opening scene, where Segal and some buddy (a black guy, guess what happens to him) are running from guys with AK-47s, trying to get to a choppa, just like their in a Vietnam movie, closeups of Segal and friend running are poor rear projection (or really cheap blue screen), they're clearly jogging in place, and poorly at that. And when the friend gets shot, Segal looks at the camera with an i don't know what kind of expression on his face, but if it was supposed to be grief, it wasn't. I think he'd look more up set if somebody kicked his dog. Overall, his acting wasn't very strong in this film.

Anyway. I liked the local, it takes place almost entirely in Tokyo, most of the actors spoke in Japanese and Chinese, using English subtitles - although both main villains also spoke pretty good English, the spoke in their native tongues quite frequently, which I appreciate. Segal himself spoke Japanese frequently (his character was raised in Japan), and possibly Chinese, I don't remember now, enough that I felt he actually has a decent grasp on the language.

I thought the story was okay, except for a few random leaps of logic - like the bad guys just out of the blue suddenly knew which chick was Segal's fiance, so they could kill her, though I don't remember seeing anything ever that indicated how they learned that. I also didn't like that his girlfriend (Kanako Yamaguchi) was an absolutely stunning looking woman, in her early-mid 20s, while Segal is looks like he's in his mid-late 40s (he was 53 in 2005). The two main villains, a Yakuza and a Tong who teamed up, were enjoyable enough.

In all, it was an average action film, but nothing special, other than the commitment to the location and culture.

Black Dawn (also 2005) - 8/10
The second film of this set was a much stronger film, as far as Segal goes. In fact, I'm surprised to learn they were released the same year. Although, in retrospect, I think Segal does less fighting in this film than Into The Sun, he does take out one guy with like two or three arm movements, and considering he was one of the primary villains, he is dropped with little effort and no fanfare. Segal does shoot a lot though. But he was more convincing as a deep cover black ops guy.

The lead actress (Tamara Davies) was really hot, and she had all the action sequences, she got in a fight with a guy 8-10" taller than her that was quite physical, though I suppose it might have been a stunt double, I didn't notice. I bought her as an FBI agent. Although, she hasn't acted since this film, so maybe I don't know what I'm talking about.

There was a fun action scene where Davies and Segal were on the back of a garbage truck speeding though the city, but all the tight shots were again, poor rear projection/blue screen, and when Segal's character climbs to the front of the truck and enters the driver door, the stunt double was really obvious.

But I enjoyed this film a little more than Into the Sun, because Segal's performance was better.

More cheap action flick reviews to come.

[Locke]

I watched American Hustle and The Impossible the other day. That was a great day.

American Hustle:

American Hustle's meta-genre is fast becoming my favourite. Akin to one of my favourites of last year, Spring Breakers, American Hustle is a smart movie pretending to be a dumb one. It provides more than enough surface thrills to appeal to a mass audience, but then for those with a few braincells who don't want to be simply passive observers, there is a whole other, beautifully complex, little movie just underneath.

The pity with all this is what makes American Hustle great, is largely going to go over their heads. And I fear that the backlash against American Hustle is much like what happened with Spring Breakers. People just didn't quite get it, and as a species we fear what we do not know and hate even more to be made to feel stupid.

However one of the most entertaining meta aspects of American Hustle is that as grandiose as its plot is, dealing with corruption, paranoia and hysteria, the most fascinating things are done by the costume designer. Both Adams and Cooper wear plunging necklines, and curl their hair with curlers, but the only joke here is that is just how it was in the 70s. Bale's combover is nothing short of incredible, and seeing him sculpt that with his gut hanging out on display is simply immense, especially as the only thing sagging more than his gut are his shoulders in his anti-fashion wardrobe.

Bradley Cooper is an actor I really don't appreciate a whole lot but Agent DiMaso is just great and under all the little quirky details of his characterisation, it allowed me to largely forget it was Cooper at all. I guess it certainly helps that he is the kind of character the audience laughs at, not with, as he is just a complete and utter nutter who gets completely in over his head. And it's just so satisfying to see him have the rug pulled from under his feet by the end.

And when your movie can even make Cooper enjoyable, giving an actor of Bale's calibre something to chew on forms something truly beautiful to see. His character, Irving Rosenfeld, is sorta like what I'd expect a Marlon Brando biopic to feel like, if Marlon Brando was played by Robert De Niro. If nothing else, you gotta love watching Bale shape his body specifically to his role, like he is a Ditto or something. He is just an utterly incredible actor, and even despite the plunging necklines, he is who you'll have all your focus on.

Oh yeah, De Niro is even in this, as an uncredited but utterly wonderful cameo role. As charming as Lawrence is, I'd rather talk about De Niro's one scene than Lawrence playing herself with an accent almost as dodgy as whatever Amy Adam's is supposed to be doing when her character, Sydney, pretends to be an English woman connected to London Banks.

Yeah Amy Adams is a complex one for me, when I think of a glamorous actress to flash her legs and grab the tape to avoid wardrobe malfunctions, she wouldn't be the first actress I'd have thought of. And then her accent is so bad, it only further suggests she was woefully miscast, which is a shame as her character at least is very interesting.

Then there is Renner, playing the eternally sympathetic Mayor Carmine Polito. He's a crooked politician, that thinks evil is a necessary thing, but his heart is so huge and he's such a naive moron, that you can't help but fall in love with him, much in the way Rosenfeld seems to.

These performances are, ultimately, what sets it apart from the unavoidable must mention 'The Wolf of Wall Street'. Scorsese's direction is flawless, turning Wolfy into complex haze of raw energy, passion and charisma. Russell attempts to do the exact same thing with his movie but let's be honest, Russell never stood a chance. On a technical level this just feels like the poor man's version of Casino. But, because it has such fantastic performances across the board - and when the acting isn't quite as strong, the characterisation picks up the slack - it just becomes that much more enjoyable a movie.

The Impossible:

The Impossible is the kind of film that succeeds on almost every level, and as it succeeds in such a complete fashion, it's the kind of film that worms its way into your soul, not just as a film, but as a cinematic event. I will tell you now, this is one of the closest things I've ever seen to a perfect movie.

On a technical level, the film is wonderfully staged. The disaster sequence has to be one of the most incredibly realised disaster sequences I have ever seen. It is spectacular in scale, but in both the epic and the tiny. The camera sweeps up to show the huge destructive wave, and the carnage it leaves in its wake, but the camera also takes a dive as well as we see the debris in the water and how that becomes a deadly weapon in itself, perhaps even more deadly than the wave.

Harrowing shots of toe curling injuries, and bodies by the truckload, are juxtaposed against the, now ruined, but once idyllic Thailand scenery. The dead, once tourists so full of joy and love, now lay still by the sides of the road or wrapped in bags. We watch as some scream, and run and try to survive while others are frozen in place unable to move. Those left behind desperately clinging to life itself, often literally, screaming over those they have lost but also over those they still have.

Most impressive though, is the way the film carefully edits itself, so it never feels exploitive. Bayona knows when imagery should be used, and at what point he should allow his audience to look away. It's nice to know that at least one director knows you can explore the horrors of something, without rubbing our faces in it.

It's a film that matches heartbreak, with heart warming, almost beat for beat, meaning for the two hour long running time, you're basically crying the entire time. I don't think I've ever cried this much at a film before, across the journey I went into some of the highest highs, and the lowest lows I've ever experienced in a film. It is the kind of experience, that by the end, you feel reborn.

Some have complained that it is a little too Hollywood by the end, involving a very contrived "just by chance" sequence that leaves a pretty dumb message lingering in the air but it's realised with such emotional poignancy that you can't help but love it in all of its clichéd glory. My God, you fucking need that happy ending.

The main theme of The Impossible though, is humanity. The extent and importance of human kindness, but also the sheer power of the human spirit and willpower. What I hated about Aftershock, that vile putrid stain, was that it painted humans as disgusting animals and revelled in pure sadism in a mean spirited rampage that set out to degrade all of humanity. The Impossible is the complete opposite, it has a huge heart, and paints everyone as heroes. They are all complete strangers, but they all share this grief, and in this grief they share they all become a family and families help each other no matter what. It's so incredibly rewarding, it's so incredibly beautiful and uplifting. I loved it.

If there was to be any issues with the film at all, I'd probably draw up question around the characterisation of the family. They changed the real Spanish family this film adapts, and turns them into a bunch of rich British people, why? Shouldn't you make an every man family that everyone in the audience can relate to? And worst of all, all this characterisation they create that ends up alienating the audience, is soon swept away by a much more important plot point...

And yes - let's address it. Almost 300, 000 people died, it effected four countries, but rather than seeing the suffering of the natives we only watch the suffering of a beautiful, white family. I understand how incredibly problematic this is, from both a storytelling perspective and also a wider cultural perspective. But at the same time...I don't care. I don't mean I don't care in the wider perspective, but having faces for the disaster, choosing to focus on a single family, it's what makes this so powerful and so raw. Would it have been even better if we actually had a family that really represented the countries affected? Of course. But just this once I think it worked well enough that perhaps we shouldn't get our pitchforks out.

Thankfully the actual acting is impeccable as well. Child actors normally suck but as you hear Tom Holland's Lucas scream for his Mum before his voice cracks and drops to whimper, you realise you're in a whole different ballpark. Lucas' character arc, his coming of age tale, is truly wonderful.

His mother, Maria, played by the forever wonderful Naomi Watts was admittedly a sucker punch for me. It was difficult to gauge the quality of her performance from my own emotional baggage coming into the film. But even with all the makeup, you're going to believe in her injuries, if nothing else.

Meanwhile Ewan McGregor is easily putting in the performance of his career here as a father whose life is slipping between his fingers, in such violent fashion and he's battling with all his might to simply try and hold everything together. His sorrow is so tangible you can practically hear your heart snap, but the elation when he finds his family again is so equally tangible that you can hear your heart coming back together again. And it feels great.

[ShockerCon]

Kick-Ass 2.