Saturday, December 29, 2012

What Are The Best Hollywood Action Movies Of 2013

What are the top 10 Hollywood action movies of 2013, The American Film Industry, or the Hollywood, as is commonly known, is termed as one of the most versatile industries in the world is also termed as decades ahead from any other film industry in the world in terms of imagination, filming, direction and acting. Be it action, drama, romance, comedy, science fiction, historical, theme based or any other cinema, Hollywood makes them all and excels at them most of the times. The number of categories being so many, it is difficult to list the best of them altogether, hence let's has a look at the upcoming best Hollywood Action movies of 2013 ones category wise.

The list of Top Hollywood action movies 2013 is a big comparison to last year 2012. After reviewing the movies as based on box office report, we picked the best ones. Some of them have great action with amazing quality of visuals. As the year goes on, the list will increase with some greatest upcoming English movies in action category.


1. G.I. Joe: Retaliation: In this sequel of G.I. Joe rise of the cobra, that released in 2009, Rob Moore, hired writers Rhett Reese and Paul Wernick to write the plot and the movie stars Bruce Willis and Dwayne Johnson with Channing Tatum, Arnold Vosloo, Ray Park, Jonathan Pryce, and Lee Byung-hun continuing their roles of the first part. The G.I. Joes have to not only fought their worldly opponent the cobra, but they are also forced to compete with the continuous threats from the government that bringing in danger the very existence of their department.

2. The Lone Ranger: This upcoming action western film is directed by Gore Verbenski and produced by Walt Disney Pictures. The leading role is played by stars Armie Hammer and Johnny Depp playing Tonto. This action comedy revolves around a masked hero who is brought to life via new eyes. Native American spirit warrior Tonto narrates the countless stories that altered John Reid, a man of the law, into a legend of justice. The two not likely heroes have to now work as team against the antisocial elements like greed and corruption.

3. Snitch: Scheduled to be released on February 22, 2013, this action thriller stars Dwayne Johnson and Susan Sarandon, directed by Ric Roman Waugh. The movie shows how a father becomes an undercover informer in order to expose a drug supplies group when his teenager kid is arrested for drug distribution and sentenced prison for a decade despite of being innocent.

4. Office Down: Directed by Brian A Miller, the movie is written by John Chase starring Stephen Dorff, Tommy Flanagan and Dominic Purcell. The plot revolves around a cop whose not so good past comes in his present and haunts him. Now the decisions to either do what's right or to bow down to the threats of his past connections.

We hope the above list helps you decide your watch list for the coming year. So it's just a few more days and you can start booking your tickets for the shows of these Top 10 Best Hollywood action movies 2013.

Friday, December 21, 2012

The Top Famous Feature Films This Year

Most film critics are list fetishists. And while I do enjoy stacking up movie titles at the end of the year, it's also a frustrating holiday ritual. First off, I've seen a few hundred movies this year, and yet inevitably a few slip by that, based on the buzz they are receiving, I suspect would rank on this list. This year those include feature films like Tabu and Once Upon a Time in Anatolia and documentaries like Brooklyn Castle and This is Not a Film.

Also, going over all the movies I saw this year, it was hard to let some go unmentioned. Sure, Steven Soderbergh had a great year with Magic Mike and Haywire, but how do those compare with The Turin Horse? I was also big fan of the insanely exciting Indonesian martial arts film The Raid: Redemption, but how do you compare that with Bernie? Then there are the films you list because, despite their flaws, they have a particular personal resonance. Sarah Polle's adept direction of Take This Waltz, and Michele Williams' endearing performance in that film, have not garnered mention on many other year-end lists, but the movie stayed with me for so many months I couldn't leave it off mine.


1. Amour (Dir. Michael Haneke)

Haneke's quiet movie about a dying woman and her devoted husband is simply unshakable. In it we encounter two of the most subtly rendered characters on screen this year, and their last days inside a modest Parisian apartment reveal so much about human interrelation. Here Haneke's penchant for starkly-drawn worlds allows for an exploration of character and affection that resists sentimentality and nostalgia. Instead, his straightforward rendering lays bare our longings, frailties, fears, and failings.

There are plenty of movies this year that try to engage with the peculiar confusion of contemporary life – from blinding violence to a splintered sense of self – but Haneke's film reminds us that perhaps what we often fail to grasp is a nuanced appreciation of the nature of a love that is hard-bearing, sacrificial, violent, open-ended, enigmatic, and necessary.

2. Holy Motors (Dir. Leos Carax)

Leos Carax's Holy Motors is befuddling, enrapturing, diabolical, exhilarating, infuriating, and beguiling. It is a movie-riddle that strikes at something unsettling close to the core of existence. In it, Denis Lavant delivers the year's best singular performance as a hard-to-pin-down actor who glides through Paris in a stretch limo, performing living scenes. It takes a while to begin to understand what Carax is up to with his film, which breaks down our expectations of what we take to be "true" or "real," initially in a cinematic sense, and then more broadly. Lavant plays a businessman, an actor, an artist, a performer, a beggar, a thief, a murder, a father, a scoundrel, a lover, a dying relative. He is lived contradiction, honesty manifested as a lie, whose presence serves as a foil both to society and existence.

Holy Motors is an unholy satire, an elusive and beguiling critique of life itself. Through his character, Carax breaks-down his audience, spinning Holy Motors into a carnivalesque hall of mirrors, an image play about images. "What is beauty if there is no beholder?" Lavant's character speculates at one point. The answer that emerges in the movie is that beauty is something equal parts seductive and horrifying — horrifying, perhaps, because, as we fear (and begin to suspect), in the context of Carax's vision of reality, it may be nothing at all.

3. Zero Dark Thirty (Dir. Katheryn Bigelow)

There has been no small amount of controversy surrounding Katheryn Bigelow's new film. Objections have been raised regarding its depiction of torture, its glorification of war, its blurred moral stance on human rights, its possibly racist depictions of Muslims, its conflicting characterization of feminist vigilantism, its suspected historical untruths and journalistic indiscretions, its flagrant breaching of national secrets, and what might be characterized as callous patriotic blood-lust.

The reason for all of these muddy and uneasy reactions to Bigelow's movie is that while Zero Dark Thirty appears in the form of an exciting Hollywood movie about search and capture of Osama bin Laden, it is equally a challenging critique – of the institutional structures that drove the manhunt, of the structure of human reason and capacity for understanding that deciphered the riddle of bin Laden's location, of the seek-and-destroy mentality that ended up leading a team of Navy Seals to the hated terrorist leader. And while Zero Dark Thirty is ostensibly a movie about hunting for bin Laden, it is also a piece of entertainment that raises its very entertainment as a crucial point of moral questioning. If hunting and killing bin Laden was a victory for America, than Americans share complicity in the murky and unsettling means to that end.

Friday, December 7, 2012

Here Are Some Top Fashion Movies

With today marking the beginning of NYFW, we thought we'd explore the best movies that revolve around fashion. We're not simply talking about those with memorable costumes, or this list will simply turn into an Old Hollywood love fest. Instead, we only wanted to highlight those fashion movies that dealt with characters working in some aspect of fashion.


1. "Funny Face"

Bookish Jo Stockton, portrayed by Audrey Hepburn, is transformed into a fashion model when Maggie Prescott, a fashion magazine editor, looks for the next big thing. Not only is the clothing to die for, there is also a great scene in the beginning about the color pink in fashion. The Prescott character has been said to be loosely based on Diana Vreeland, an editor for Harper's Bazaar and Vogue.

2. "Bill Cunningham New York"

Bill Cunningham has been a longtime fixture in the fashion industry. This documentary goes behind the scenes of Cunningham's photography. He explains his signature blue smock, why he doesn't cover celebrities and shows his apartment, which serves mostly as a storage space.

3. "The September Issue"

Anna Wintour has a reputation for being difficult, and it's something audiences can witness firsthand in this documentary following the Vogue's editor in chief as she works on the biggest issue of the year. Grace Coddington, the fiery fashion director, is shown as the only person brave enough to stand up to Wintour.

4. "L'amour fou"

The Pierre Bergé-narrated film touches on the first meeting of Yves Saint Laurent and his partner Bergé. It has vintage footage of a young Yves Saint Laurent, and goes into some detail about the life the two led.

5. "The Devil Wears Prada"

Miranda Priestly, editor in chief of Runway, has as much control in fashion as Anna Wintour does in real life. The movie follows Andy Sachs, an aspiring journalist with no experience in fashion, who ends up working as an assistant for Priestly. She proves to be an impossible boss, and Sachs soon sees how unprepared she is for the position.

6. "Coco Before Chanel"

Audrey Tautou is Coco Chanel in this film that follows her life before launching the brand.

7. "Zoolander"

Ben Stiller is model Derek Zoolander, who feels unsatisfied with his shallow life. He decides to quit modeling, but is lured back when designer Mugatu shows an interest in him for the first time. Zoolander has dumb model friends, a fierce rivalry with Owen Wilson and a pesky journalist following him around.

8. "Don't Tell Mom The Babysitter's Dead"

Sue Crandell is 17 when her mother takes a two-month trip to Australia. She and her siblings are left in the care of a babysitter, who dies. Faced with money issues, Crandell is forced to get a job. She tries fast food and sees it's not for her, so she lies on her resume and lands a great job in fashion. Though she has no experience, she ends up making contributions because she's in touch with the youth the company aims to impress.

Tuesday, October 16, 2012

These Tips Will Make You Enjoy Movies Better At Home

If you think you need to invest in an 80" HDTV and an elaborate surround sound system to have an enjoyable at-home movie experience — you're wrong. Turns out there are small things you can do to improve the mood of your media room and make it perfect for watching movies at home. Here's my tpis:


Improve sight lines: Everyone has a "favorite spot" at the movie theater. Mine is approximately four rows from the top, center. Think about your favorite spot and then determine how you can recreate that same sight line at home. It may mean your TV is too far away or too far to the left of your ideal seating location. Now, problem solve by moving your furniture or television.

Forget the "no food" rules for a day: Growing up, we had a pretty strict "no food rule" in the living room. At least, until the movies came on. Try to let your desire for a clean home go and pop an outrageous amount of popcorn. What are dogs and vacuums for anyway, right?

Pick your flick with care: I've invited my dad to watch a movie with my boyfriend and me and things are going great. That is, until a totally unexpected sex scene pops up. I know I'm not alone in this. Pick a couple movies in advance and read the reviews, even Google the movie title with terms like "sex scene" or "inappropriate for family viewing" to see if anyone else has already experienced this unfortunate fate.

Ask guests to bring extra pillows and blankets: Comfort is key, but if you're having friends over, no host could possibly have enough blankets and pillows for everyone.

Go for bottled beverages: Congrats on allowing food on your couch. Allowing people to drink beverages on your expensive furniture requires a lot of trust, so in this case, splurge for bottled beverages and avoid disaster.

If you're going to upgrade one thing, make it a sound bar: A full surround sound setup can be expensive, but most sound bars start in the mid to high $100s and are typically paired with a wireless subwoofer. It's a lot of extra sound quality without making a huge investment.

Turn off the lights (and lighted devices): It's easy to turn off lamps, but if your family and friends are constant phone checkers, here's a game to play. Make everyone turn off their phones and put the phones in a bowl in the middle of the room. The first person to break and reach for their phone has to do snack refilling duty the rest of the night. Texting at the movies is unacceptable — same goes for home movies.

Friday, August 3, 2012

2012 Shocking John Carter Movie

This is the 2012 shocking John Carter movie review we have all been waiting for. The movie is a bit all over the place and we think that it doesn’t deserve an 8. Taylor Kitsch plays John Carter. Carter starts off as a Civil War vet and gets transported to Mars where he meeds some strange inhabitants.
The movie based off a story by Edgar Rice Burroughs. The movie has a bit of everything and it can seem a bit drawn out at times.

John Carter from Earth gets extraordinary strength on planet Mars as he has come from a planet with less gravity. The story kind of jumps around a bit and the back story isn’t told that well. For kids and teenagers, it is an enjoyable movie and worth the ticket price.

The 3D animations are life like and done very well. These days you won’t find many movies that don’t use much special effects. With a budget of $250 million, the movie will have to do very well to make its money back. It doesn’t have the big advertising like other movies and will kind of struggle in the box office.
The movie runs for more than 2 hours and you get to see a lot of Taylor Kitsch and Lynn Collins. Lynn Collins plays the princess and she does it pretty well. She looks the part and has a nice screen presence.
We at egglets give this movie 7 egglets out of a possible 10. It just doesn’t have the compelling storyline that flows well. Its kind of a bit everywhere and there isn’t enough explanation of things.

Wednesday, June 20, 2012

End of the World Explores Human Behavior With Mixed Results

Steve Carell and Keira Knightley, together as a couple who've fallen suddenly and madly in love? Surely the apocalypse is nigh.
It's coming in three weeks, to be exact, in "Seeking a Friend for the End of the World," the feature directing debut from screenwriter Lorene Scafaria ("Nick & Norah's Infinite Playlist").
An asteroid 70 miles (113 kilometers) wide is hurtling toward Earth, ensuring destruction and doom for the entire planet. Scafaria explores how people behave when the rules of polite society are stripped away, a premise that isn't exactly novel — the world ended just last year, much more artfully, in Lars Von Trier's "Melancholia" — but one that's brimming with potential for absurdist, satirical comedy.
Within that setting, Carell and Knightley get thrown together. The pairing doesn't make a whole lot of sense on paper — in the real world or on the big screen — but for the most part they have enough unexpected, opposites-attract likability and find themselves in enough strangely amusing situations to make the movie work. The mawkish third act, however, nearly destroys all that appeal.
Carell's character, Dodge, is very much in the vein of the detached and depressed but wryly observant figures he's played before: He's an insurance agent whose wife takes off when news of the asteroid breaks. Knightley is his downstairs neighbor in the apartment building, Penny, a free-spirited, pot-smoking Brit with a penchant for classic vinyl records. She is your quintessential Manic Pixie Dream Girl.
Naturally, these two people need to go on a road trip.
All Dodge wants to do is track down his high school sweetheart, The One That Got Away, in hopes of rekindling the romance in his final days. (Clearly, she's meant to represent everything he wanted out of life and never achieved.) Penny, meanwhile, is fresh off a bad break-up (from a ridiculously self-centered musician played by Adam Brody) and all she wants to do is get home to England to ride it out with her family. Dodge knows a guy with a plane who can help her.
Their journey (Scafaria also wrote the script) is buoyed by individual moments, and by some of the inspired casting that's revealed at each stop along the way. Among the best scenes takes place at the beginning: an end-of-the-world party Dodge's friend Warren (Rob Corddry) and his wife (Connie Britton) throw, where civilized, middle-aged people cavort in wild ways because ... why not? Nothing matters anymore. Similarly, Dodge and Penny find themselves at a TGI Friday's-style restaurant called Friendsy's where everyone has clearly been doing Ecstasy and the possibility of indulgence and danger lurks in every fake Tiffany-lamped corner.
But enjoyably odd moments like these give way to sentimentality by the end, as if Scafaria didn't feel comfortable just letting her characters succumb to the inevitable. No, they have to "learn something." They have to find catharsis and redemption. They have to tidy things up before the end — and the film's ending itself feels too tidy, as well.
The mess would have been more interesting — and more real.
"Seeking a Friend for the End of the World," a Focus Features release, is rated R for language including some sexual references, some drug use and brief violence. Running time: 101 minutes. Two and a half stars out of four.

Tuesday, May 15, 2012

Sound Like A 19th Century Soap Opera, Sense And Sensibility Is An Awfully Good One


Sense and Sensibility shows how women in upper-class Georgian England, though privileged, had relatively few choices in life. Romantics and anyone with a penchant for this author's work will have a ball. This beautiful, humorous movie creates a buzz of excitement around the Dashwood sisters' romantic intrigue. Some of the characters you'll love to hate (the Dashwoods' horrible sister-in-law and gloating Miss Steele), and others you'll absolutely adore (little Margaret Dashwood, the future pirate).

Sense And Sensibility tells the story of the Dashwood family, who, after the death of Mr. Dashwood, lose all their wealth to the son of Mr. Dashwood's prior marriage. The four Dashwood women, the mother and three daughters (Elinor [Emma Thompson], Marianne [Kate Winslet], and young Margaret), must find a way to make ends meet as the elder daughters face the daunting problems of love and romance.

Competing for the affections of Marianne are the dashing playboy Willoughby (newcomer Greg Wise) and the upright Colonel Brandon (Alan Rickman). Meanwhile, Elinor finds herself falling for Edward (Hugh Grant), who, without spoiling the plot, isn't completely forthright with Elinor about his availability. Throughout it all, the high society gossips make everyone squirm with their constant chatter.

Sound like a 19th century soap opera? It is, and an awfully good one at that. But on top of a nicely-crafted story, Thompson has enriched what could have been a dull period piece (see Persuasion for a frightening example of this) with an unexpectedly hilarious series of vignettes that underscores the endless procession of romantic misunderstandings and entanglements that weave through the girls' lives. And oddly, though the romance and courtship of that bygone era is archaic, the scenes are equally relevant today. Of course, it's not all mirth and hilarity: judging from the bawling woman sitting next me, this film can really pull the tears out, too.

Thompson and especially Winslet (who was so exquisite in 1994's Heavenly Creatures are perfectly matched as near opposites who find some common ground as the film progresses. Grant and the other supporting cast members are also admirable. Taiwanese director Ang Lee infuses the film with some variety and cleverness, too. In all, the film really comes together as a whole.

What makes this adaptation so endearing is its loving depiction of the Dashwood family as a high-spirited and supportive clan. One trio of 12-year-old girls considers this a favorite and admits to watching it repeatedly. For them, the movie strikes the same wistful chord as the blockbusterTitanic, and it even ends happily!

"Sense and Sensibility" was the first and one of the least of Jane Austen's novels; she wrote it in 1795, but it was not published for 16 years, until she had found the courage to declare herself as a novelist. It was written by a young woman who ostensibly had little experience of the world - although her fiction proves she missed little that occurred on her domestic stage - and the story reflects that orientation, as a mother and her three daughters wait passively while all of the interesting men in the vicinity disappear on unexplained missions to London.

In a modern story, the women would have demanded explanations.

Forced to rely on the assistance of relatives in order to find shelter and subsistence, Elinor, Marianne, their mother (Gemma Jones) and younger sister Margaret (Emilie Francois) are shuttled from one set of relatives to another. Along the way, the contrary sisters each fall in love with two equally diverse men: Marianne, the roguish Willoughby (Greg Wise); Elinor, the loyal Edward Ferrars (Hugh Grant). A third romantic prospect arrives in the form of the devoted, yet dreary Colonel Brandon (Alan Rickman). However, obstacles soon enter into the picture. Relationships begin to sour and marriage becomes talked in survivalist, rather than romantic terms.

Expectations for Sense and Sensibility were certainly high amongst Austen’s acolytes. Prior to the release of Lee’s film, there had only been one solitary feature-length adaptation of Austen’s works, Robert Z. Leonard’s respected attempt at Pride and Prejudice (1940). In the fifty-five years between the release of Leonard’s Greer Garson vehicle and Lee’s Sense and Sensibility, Austen’s admirers curiously had to make do with less than a dozen British television miniseries. Yet, all of a sudden, six Austen adaptations appeared in the space of two years: including two television miniseries and Amy Heckerling’s Clueless, a modernized revamp of Emma.

In hindsight, there was arguably no better choice suited to recreate Austen’s novel of impulse and reason. Ang Lee’s previous experience in family dramas and comedies offered a foundation for his exploration of the intra-familial dynamics affecting Austen’s Dashwood sisters. Furthermore, as Ang Lee has often suggested in interviews before and after the film’s release, his filmography has frequently touched on the conflicting tensions between 'sense' and 'sensibility': free will versus responsibility to others (Pushing Hands; Eat Drink Man Woman); the fulfillment of personal desires versus society’s moral codes (Lust, Caution;Brokeback Mountain; The Wedding Banquet).

What gives "Sense and Sensibility" its tension and mystery is that the characters rarely say what they mean. There is great gossip within the women's sphere, but with men, the conversation loops back upon itself in excruciating euphemisms, leaving the women to puzzle for weeks over what was or was not said.

As the story opens, the Dashwood estate passes to a stingy male heir, who provides only a few hundred pounds a year to his father's second wife and her three daughters. The widow Dashwood (Gemma Jones) and her girls find themselves torn from the life of country gentry and forced to live on this meager income in a cottage generously supplied by a distant relative.

Sunday, May 6, 2012

An Education Comes Close To Perfection: Inspired Casting And Performances

An Education
Literature is full of cautionary tales of innocent young women seduced by smooth-talking rakes. Jenny, a dutiful student and a passionate consumer of modern novels and French pop records, has surely encountered more than a few such stories. But at 16 and in a terrible hurry, she seems less inclined to learn from the mistakes of wayward romantic heroines than to join their ranks. “An Education” is rated PG-13. Its sexual implications are not as troubling as they should be.
  
An Education is set in 1962, the heroine is 16-year-old London schoolgirl Jenny Miller (Carey Mulligan), the only child of conventional, lower-middle-class parents, and the film's title has a double meaning, one scholastic, the other sentimental. First, it refers to her sixth-form work at a Twickenham girls' school, the prize pupil of Miss Stubbs (Olivia Williams), her intense English teacher, and the imminent prospect of winning a place at Oxford that will transform her life. It also refers to the dangerous relationship that begins when David (Peter Sarsgaard), a seemingly wealthy charmer, gives her a lift home in his Bristol sports car one rainy day and that threatens to deflect her disastrously from this liberating future.
  
The world of the early 60s is well established: this period of Macmillan's "Never had it so good" Britain, immediately before 1963, that pivotal year apostrophised by Philip Larkin, when the Profumo scandal opened up to view a different, more corrupt nation, and the Beatles, the Stones and the great train robbers ushered in the swinging 60s and the permissive society.
  
This turns out to be both foreseeable and surprising. Jenny makes no secret of her relationship with David, which becomes the talk of her school, attracting the concern of a sad, kindly young teacher (Olivia Williams) and the fierce disapproval of the headmistress (Emma Thompson, taking a practice run at her inevitable portrayal of Margaret Thatcher).
  
But Jenny’s course is set. It’s not that she’s out of control — quite the contrary. She is deliberately and systematically, with what she imagines to be full knowledge of the consequences, seeking out what the vestigial Victorianism of her era would see as her ruin.
  
And the era itself is the real subject of “An Education,” which catches Britain around the time when, as Philip Larkin put it in his famous poem, “sexual intercourse began.” There is a bit of that stuff in “An Education,” but it’s more the symbol of other kinds of experience than the reverse. What Jenny craves is not the fact of sex — though she does make sure to schedule the loss of her virginity — but full access to an ideal of sexiness, a world that is the opposite of the boring little England she knows and loathes. Even as David is taking advantage of her innocence, she is, at first unwittingly and then more brazenly, using him to find her way to that world, which she identifies especially with France.

The script is more sophisticated than this précis suggests—an Oscar-worthy effort by the able Nick Hornby (High Fidelity, About a Boy), who adapted the short memoir by Lynn Barber originally published in Granta magazine (and about to be republished with other writings in book form this fall). Danish director Lone Scherfig ( Wilbur Wants to Kill Himself, Italian for Beginners) shows great affinity for the material, a director with a gift for making flawed characters likeable—everyone in the film, no matter how brief his or her part, comes across fully formed—and she gets the little things right. Jenny and her classmates read Penguin Classics in equally classic Tschichold-designed paperbacks; David sports blue serge with narrow lapels, neat pocket squares and too-jaunty trilbys, retrofitting Connery’s Bond with a dab of Niven’s; Jenny’s father, played alternately solicitous and supercilious by Alfred Molina, ties on a frilly apron to protect his pinstripes when helping with the dishes, a costume uncannily suited to his character. Cat’s-eye glasses, bouffant hairdos, patent-leather heels and pocketbooks seem stylish again: The film evokes the period with such affection, we wonder why we gave up nylons, skinny ties and cigarettes.
  
Ironically, the most accomplished member of the ensemble, Emma Thompson, strikes the film’s only false notes, although it’s not her fault. As the sour headmistress of Jenny’s school, she stands in for the clichéd close-minded parochialism of Britain (and America) before the baby-boomers liberated both countries from the cultural doldrums. It’s a thankless, heavy-handed role and a bit of dreary pontification in a movie that easily could have lapsed into a full-length lecture on moral turpitude.
  
Hornby and Scherfig, thankfully, eschew sententious sermonizing; in the end, everyone, including Jenny’s parents, conspires in her seduction, and ancient lessons are once again hard-learned. An Education drops a few parables (watch for the one about the money tree!), but the filmmakers allow us to draw our own conclusions about the action unfolding before us. If this tutorial on love and ambition closes with a too-pat ending, well, the pedagogy is happily free-form.

Tuesday, May 1, 2012

Face/Off Is Above All An Action Thriller


Face/Off
Has there every been a film with a title that almost makes you want to laugh at it? Well, of course there have been, but I think Face/Off beats them all. Sure, the title is awkward, but does it really matter? Absolutely not! Face/Off is full of so many radical ideas that anything it does makes sense. This is one of those films with hugely improbable concepts, but using skillful direction and taking itself slightly seriously, these concepts seem to be possible. Of course, it doesn't take itself completely seriously or it would have been ridiculous. The director, John Woo, takes the audience on a fantastic ride filled with as much action as possible, but also stopping to do something films like The Rock didn't do: it lets us into the emotional aspect of the hero and the villain.
  
That exchange of faces and identities is the inspiration for "Face/Off," the new John Wooaction thriller, which contains enough plot for an entire series. It's a gimme, for example, that as gravely injured as he may be, Troy will snap out of his coma and force a doctor to transplant Archer's face onto his own bloody skull - so that the lawman and the outlaw end up looking exactly like the other.
  
This is an actor's dream, and Travolta and Cage make the most of it. They spend most of the movie acting as if they're in each other's bodies - Travolta acting like Cage, and vice versa. Through the plot device of a microchip implanted in his larynx, Travolta is allegedly able to sound more like Cage - enough, maybe, to fool the terrorist's paranoid brother, who is in prison and knows the secret of the biological weapon.
  
The movie is above all an action thriller. John Woo, whose previous American films include "Broken Arrow" with Travolta, likes spectacular stunts in unlikely settings, and the movie includes chases involving an airplane (which crashes into a hangar) and speedboats (which crash into piers and each other). There also are weird settings, including the high-security prison where the inmates wear magnetized boots that allow security to keep track of every footstep.
  
Face/Off stars two of Hollywood's best actors. While I am not the biggest fan of Nicolas Cage, I respect him and I think he is very good. John Travolta is one of my favorites, and he gives the best line of the film. Travolta and Cage together, and you have a powerhouse cast. Add them to a Woo film, and you have a powerhouse, blockbuster film. Woo is well known in Hong Kong, and he is gaining popularity in America. He directed 1995's terrific Broken Arrow which also starred Travolta, but as a villain. In Face/Off, Travolta plays the protagonist, while Cage takes on the antagonist.
  
On top of the film, however, is the cast. Travolta steals the film, even though Cage is the hero throughout most of it. Both of them together make a solid team and it played with the audience's mind because we didn't exactly know who to root for. In one of the most powerful scenes of the film, almost every cast member in the opening credits of the film has a gun pointed at them. It's reminiscient of Tarantino's Reservoir Dogs and the following battle is nail-bitingly tense. Travolta gives the best line of the film during this moment, and I'm not going to spoil it by writing it here. Cage, on the other hand, doesn't quite have as much fun as Travolta does, but how can you when you are the hero? Not to be outdone are Joan Allen as Archer's wife, Eve. Allen gives a wonderful performance which is slightly overshadowed by the two top-billed stars. Gershon is just as good as Troy's ex-girlfriend. Dominique Swain gives a terrific performance as Archer's rebellious daughter, and she actually seems genuine. But Travolta and Cage dominate the film, as they do in almost any film that they are in. Oh yeah, that's Harve Presnell from Fargo as Archer's superior.
  
Face/Off is rated R for bloody and gruesome violence, plenty of gore (both surgical and not), some nudity from a cartoon, and language. While the film is a little predictable (who couldn't have guessed what the daughter was going to do with that knife?) the powerful performance and wonderful directing are easily able to jump over them. This is one action picture which will be sure to rake in the money, most likely from word of mouth (because, let's face it, it would have to be coming out against Hercules). I'm pretty sure I will see it again, and again. And I can't wait!
  
It's a fascinating film in so many ways. For example, both Travolta and Cage invest their dual roles with physical subtleties that reflect the other actor's character. John Woo's smart direction makes you really care for the good Sean Archer trapped in the bad Castor Troy. Added to this is a plot that is strikingly imaginative, preposterous, and yet strangely convincing - the actual mechanics of the identity swap have a superficial credibility built on convenient, simplistic explanations. But the film succeeds in overcoming its implausibilities because director Woo offers such a tantalising package. He seems to be saying "accept this and I'll give you one hell of a ride."
  
You see what thickets this plot constructs; it's as if Travolta adds the spin courtesy of Cage's personality, while Cage mellows in the direction of Travolta. Better to conclude that the two actors, working together, have devised a very entertaining way of being each other while being themselves.

Sunday, April 22, 2012

The Shawshank Redemption: Hope Can Set You Free


The Shawshank Redemption
One movie which is always presented in 'greatest movies of all time or top 100 movies' lists stands out as The Shawshank Redemption. Whilst the varying ideas of their creators can imply large variations in lists of this sort, this specific movie is regularly presented the #1 spot, and / or at the very least the spot inside the top ten. This appears just like a reasonably fine indication that in any other case the best movie of all time it happens to be undoubtedly one of the better and something just about every movie fan should certainly make an hard work to check out at least on one occasion within their life time.

The Shawshank Redemption is known as a movie based on a brief story by well-known publisher Stephen King that has observed many of his stories and little tales brought to living around the major display. The story centers around Andy Dufresne, a well proficient and delicate polite young man that's mistakenly found guilty of killing his spouse. Throughout his incarceration Andy befriends 1 his other inmates , 'Red' who, in contrast to him, are true crooks. The story accepts the tests that Andy faces imprisonment which include crazy sex-related assault and actual assault. He utilizes his skill sets being a businessman to garner favour along with the prison warden and resulted on associated in cash laundering. Nevertheless, Andy soon sees a strategy to outsmart the warden and transform equally his and Red's existence for a lifetime.

The peculiar thing in regards to the Shawshank Redemption is that it failed to gain an enormous level of success when unveiled in movie cinemas. Regardless of essential praise and considerably business hype regarding the storyline the box office saw quite unsavoury stats. Even though the movie had the additional stature which originated from having Stephen King's name attached to it, people came across as put off simply by the simple fact that it was initially a 'prison movie'. There are a variety of studies behind why the movie failed to meet expectations with regards to box workplace figures which range from rivalry from any other movies sharing the unleash date to people beginning to feel peculiar around a Stephen King movie that has not been a dread. What ever the cause, it were unable to carry out in addition as ended up being expected.

Whenever lists of the best movies are developed, they vary dramatically depending around the considerations employed to judge what tends to make a movie great. But, The Shawshank Redemption looks on nearly all of these list often close to the very best. It may properly be one of the ideal movies ever produced. It secures a universal attractiveness and uses a superb storyline while some world class acting to completely bury the viewers within the life of your roles. You could possibly not consult with for almost any more from a movie.

Over time, Andy and Red develop a close friendship, and Red procures a small rock hammer for Andy. As the years go by, he procures other items as well, the most interesting being Rita Hayworth. Red acquires a poster of the screen siren for Andy, and business continues as usual in Shawshank. Along the way, Andy ingratiates himself with the notorious prison guard Byron Hadley (Clancy Brown) and Warden Samuel Norton (Bob Gunton). Putting his outside skills to good use, Andy provides tax advice and tax preparation services to guards not just at Shawshank, but other prisons as well.

Directed by Frank Darabont, producer of such hit films as The Geen Mile (1999) and The Majestic (2001), The Shawshank Redemption is a film of absolute breathtaking perfection that ranks near the top of most lists of the best films ever produced. Thomas Newman's musical score, reused in countless films in the years since its release, blends together with brilliant casting, memorable screen performance, and masterful set design to create an unmatched and timeless epic. If you haven't seen The Shawshank Redemption, you aren't just missing out on a great film, but a great life experience as well. Do yourself a favor and see this movie.

Monday, April 16, 2012

"Lockout" Succeeds At Offering An Exciting Experience

Despite a solid headliner in Guy Pearce, the underwhelming marketing for Lockout, which makes the project look like a direct-to-DVD experience, has been enough to cause a lot of moviegoers to forget that the film was actually developed by well-known thriller writer/director/producer Luc Besson (The Fifth Element and Taken). While Besson outsourced directorial duties to untested feature co-helmers, James Mather and Stephen St. Leger, the fan-favorite producer was still instrumental in crafting the Lockout story – as well as overseeing production.

As a result, it’s no surprise that Lockout features plenty of Besson’s staple calling cards: most notably a snarky and rough-around-the-edges (but charming) leading man, as well as some hard-hitting action set-pieces, among other things. However, do Mather and St. Leger successfully carry Besson’s concept across the finish line – delivering an entertaining sci-fi thriller that’s more than just the sum of its tried-and-true parts?

While it’s certainly not a flawless movie, or a deep exploration of character (as depicted in Taken), Lockout succeeds at being an over-the-top thriller with surprisingly high production values for a $20 million film that has to make room for a Guy Pearce paycheck. It’s not the most visually-stunning movie in the genre and definitely has a “budget” look at times; however, the project ultimately succeeds as a result of Pearce – who delivers an enjoyable, albeit snide, performance as government agent-turned-one-man-army, Snow.

As with some Besson-produced projects, the Lockout story is pretty basic. After a government operation goes awry, agent Snow (Guy Pearce) is taken into federal custody on suspicion that he double-crossed one of his closest friends (and, subsequently, compromised the security of the United States). After refusing to cave during a brutal interrogation at the hands of secret service agent Langral (Peter Stormare) and one of Snow’s handlers, Shaw (Lennie James), the agent is about to disappear into the federal prison system forever – until the President’s daughter, Emilie Warnock (Maggie Grace), is taken hostage by inmates while visiting an enormous prison facility orbiting the Earth. Snow is given the option of rescuing the President’s daughter in exchange for his freedom, an offer Snow initially rejects, until he discovers that the key to clearing his name is also aboard the prison installation (which is rapidly plunging into inmate versus inmate pandemonium).

While the Lockout storyline gets the job done – presenting an intriguing sandbox for Pearce’s character to kick butt and fire off snarky one-liners – none of the characters in the film are anything but single-note caricatures. Some moviegoers will, no doubt, be unaffected by the lack of development, but compared to similar entries in the action-thriller genre, it’s not unfair to expect a more rewarding balance. That said, Snow is a likable leading man (thanks in part to Pearce’s approach to the role); however, the audience is only going to sympathize with him because of the way he’s presented in contrast to the rest of the story: he’s innocent, anti-establishment, and honorable (in spite of his rough exterior). The same can be said for the rest of the supporting cast – which is either going to be a sticking point for moviegoers hoping for something character-driven or a relief for viewers who would rather jump right into the action.

This dichotomy can be applied to how audiences will view other aspects of Lockout - as the story, despite a pretty robust sci-fi future, doesn’t bother with a lot of world-building and instead simply presents information (there’s a prison in space) without really exploring the film’s potentially intriguing universe.

Every moment of the movie (both good and bad) relies heavily on familiarity with pre-existing action-thriller genre archetypes, sci-fi concepts, and staple good versus evil caricatures – without developing anything or anyone, once established. As a result, the characters (and story) aren’t likely to offer many surprises along the way – as the film merely follows the presented elements out to the most logical (albeit somewhat cliched) conclusions. Even the action, which is clearly the priority here, doesn’t showcase anything new and isn’t going to outright drop jaws. However, the combination of Pearce’s reaction to a lot of these moments of tension still makes for a pretty enjoyable one-two punch – even if the moments aren’t mind-blowing on their own.

Surprisingly, the film actually succeeds because of its heavy reliance on things audiences have seen before – since a lot of them are tried-and-true onscreen ideas. As an example, there’s nothing unique about Joseph Gilgun’s Hydell, an inmate responsible for most of the mayhem occurring in the prison, but he’s still one of the more enjoyable characters to watch. Similarly, even though the film fails to capture the scale of the facility and the sheer number of prisoners that are running around, the prison break in space set-up is intriguing enough – and presents an adequate foundation for some tense moments and modest-but-cool action sequences.

Lockout is not going to rival the explosive set-pieces audiences expect in Michael Bay summer blockbusters, but it succeeds at offering an exciting, if somewhat thin, adventure. While plot holes and one-note characters keep the film from being a clearcut must-see, for thriller fans looking for an enjoyable-but-brainless popcorn flick, Mather and St. Leger have delivered a (mostly) competent Luc Besson actioner – thanks, in large part, to an enjoyable performance from Guy Pearce.

Friday, April 6, 2012

"Machine Gun Preacher" Will Definitely Help Raise Awareness For Childers’ Continuing Work

At first glance, for many moviegoers, Machine Gun Preacher might have sounded like some obscure graphic novel adaptation – especially considering the film stars kick-butt action man Gerard Butler. That said, for anyone unfamiliar with the real-life name Sam Childers, or the numerous non-profit organizations he’s founded, the story of Machine Gun Preacher is wrought with just as much danger and human drama as the pages of a superhero comic book.


That said, while Sam Childers and the story captured in his book, Another Man’s War are no doubt larger-than-life, that doesn’t automatically mean that Machine Gun Preacher is going to be a worthwhile film adaptation. Is director Marc Forster’s (Monster’s Ball, The Kite Runner) ”based on a true story” movie a compelling and inspiring representation of Childers’ experiences – or an over-stuffed biopic that gets lost in the twist and turns of real life?

Unfortunately, while Machine Gun Preacher definitely has a lot going for it – the film also routinely falls short of finding a good balance between the development of Childers’ worldview and on-the-nose dramatic beats that attempt to “explain” key moments in his evolution. The real life Childers’ story takes some sharp turns, and subsequently, the movie has to cover a myriad of events in a short period of time. As a result, Machine Gun Preacher is a pretty jumbled and drawn-out film that focuses on a series of important snapshots in Childers’ life, instead of telling a concise, focused, and thoroughly developed throughline of the overarching story.

The Hollywood version of Childers depicts a reckless and hate-filled ex-con and drug addict who, upon his release, continues his destructive downward spiral – until a rock bottom moment causes Childers to reject his prior life and embrace the values of the Christian church. While on a construction trip in North Africa (to build a mission church), Childers is exposed to the horrors of the Second Sudanese Civil War – specifically the large-scale murders and abductions of children. Upon returning home, Childers embarks on what becomes a life-long project: to rescue and protect children in warring nations. It’s a journey that rocks the foundation of his faith and threatens the stability of his home life – as well as bringing Childers face to face with the terrors of war-torn Sudan: assassination attempts, ruthless mercenaries, and child soldiers (among others).

The movie covers a lot of ground (about ten years in fictional time) that actually accounts for about thirty years of Childers’ actual life. As a result, Machine Gun Preacher takes a lot of liberties in an attempt to streamline the narrative – omitting Childers’ son entirely from the story as well as combining a number of people into single composites such as Childers’ “best friend” Donnie (played by Michael Shannon). However, despite attempts at tightening the story, the film is still a bloated and bumpy experience – with nearly every scene forcing a not-so-subtle story beat onto moviegoers.

As a result, each step in Childers’ evolution from drug-dealing biker to an impassioned “freedom fighter” appears to happen in a flash: his conversion to Christianity (which actually took years) practically occurs overnight and his growing frustration with American consumer culture (juxtaposed with the needs of the Sudanese children) comes to a head at a posh dinner party. It’s not that the scenes themselves aren’t interesting – it’s just that throughout the film many of these moments lack much buildup, as if each one is supposed to communicate a larger moral or act as a galvanizing experience to propel Childers forward. There are very few scenes that simply allow the audience to absorb what is happening – without throttling the story forward to the next “defining” set piece.

That said, a lot these moments are still powerful – even if they don’t come together to form a competent overarching story. Butler delivers a number of especially engrossing moments as Childers – and successfully transitions the man from a despicable and disappointing human being to someone the audience will want to root for, even when his actions challenge preconceived ideas of a “hero.” The supporting cast, which includes Michelle Monaghan as Lynn Childers, also rises to the occasion – even if the narrative sometimes bungles their contributions.

Machine Gun Preacher offers an interesting set of juxtapositions, i.e. a God-loving guy kills mercenaries to free children and becomes so overwhelmed by the horror around him that he loses faith in humanity and God; however, only some of the scenes are successfully able to make sense of the underlying thematic material. Surprisingly, for a movie about the power of human will in combination with faith, some of the more religious elements come across as caricature, not individuated examples of Christian communities. This cliched portrayal of Christianity is most noticeable when Butler has to deliver a lot of “preachy” dialogue.

Side note: The film is pretty violent (earning the biopic an R-rating) and featuring a number of graphic moments that will not no doubt be challenging for some moviegoers. The Machine Gun Preacher tone is actually pretty fitting, considering the have-gun-will-travel attitude of Childers, but audience members who are expecting a more straightforward story about faith-in-action might be overwhelmed – and will be confronted several times by especially disturbing scenes.

There’s no doubt Sam Childers is an intriguing lens through which to view the horrors of Joseph Kony and the LRA’s campaign in Sudan but some audiences are no doubt going to find that despite a competent leading man, Machine Gun Preacher tackles way too much material to present a cohesive onscreen experience. Anyone who is especially interested in the source story will probably find Machine Gun Preacher to be worth the price of admission, but not a standout experience.

Wednesday, March 28, 2012

"Tower Heist" Is An Action Comedy Caper

Tower Heist brings together an unorthodox cast of performers, but the biggest focus is undoubtedly on Eddie Murphy, who is officially making a return to more adult comedy, rather than the family-friendly fare he’s been pushing out for the last decade (with the notable exception of his Oscar-nominated performance in Dream Girls). But with a cast this eclectic, a heist plot which can easily unravel if not conceived right, and love-to-hate-him director Brett Ratner calling the shots, is Tower Heist a worthy comedy/caper flick?

Ben Stiller plays Josh Kovacs, manager of “The Tower,” one of Manhattan’s most luxurious apartment complexes (think Trump tower), and home to billionaire finance guru Arthur Shaw (Alan Alda). Kovacs has been a loyal and dedicated serviceman for years, so he takes it pretty hard when Shaw is busted in an FBI sting for trying to flee from some impending felony fraud charges. The situation is especially sticky since Kovacs trusted Shaw to invest the pensions of the entire Tower staff – an investment which ultimately goes bust, along with all of Shaw’s dealings. When he’s informed by brass-balled FBI agent Claire Denham (Téa Leoni) that there is little chance of recovering the lost pensions, Kovacs decides he must make amends by stealing the millions that Shaw supposedly has stashed in his penthouse.

However, Kovacs and his friends are not crooks, so they seek out the tutelage of a real crook to get the job done. Enter “Slide” (Murphy), a two-bit con man and thief who agrees to help the ragtag group of disgruntled wage slaves once he learns how much money is at stake. But as with any heist, there are twists and turns and betrayals to settle before anybody can walk away alive, free, and with the money in hand. And when Arthur Shaw sets his sights on revenge, Kovacs learns that the only thing more dangerous than a desperate man, is a powerful one.

In short: Tower Heist is a carefree popcorn movie ride that succeeds in being fun, often funny, and is generally very enjoyable – so long as you don’t look too hard at the plot and all of the many, many, holes that riddle it. Typically, a heist movie has to be somewhat believable in its execution of the actual heist, and offer a few tricks of misdirection and surprise along the way. Upon close inspection, very little of what happens in Tower Heist‘s third act can be construed as “believable,” the misdirection is pretty transparent, and the “surprises” will have you laughing out loud at the ridiculousness of it all. While these glaring issues would be deal-breakers in most other films, in Tower Heist they take a back seat to general sense of fun the movie offers.

Ratner keeps the film moving at a nice steady pace, and scene to scene, the movie tends to keep the viewer engaged and smiling. (There are also some fun nods and homages to other films – for instance, see if you can spot the twisted Ferris Bueller reference.) Ratner also has a penchant for odd-couple casting (for example, Rush Hour stars Jackie Chan and Chris Tucker), and on paper, a cast that consists of Stiller, Murphy, Alda, Leoni, Casey Affleck, Michael Peña, Precious star Gabourey Sidibe and Matthew Broderick (of all people) would seem pretty strange. However, this eclectic group has great chemistry and keep things light and humorous with sharp banter and funny character interactions. While the veteran comedians keep themselves relatively restrained, it’s Sidibe who gets to let loose and play things over-the-top as a Jamaican maid/safe-cracker who’s brought in on the heist. She’s wonderfully funny, and demonstrates a new side of the young Oscar-nominated performer. Broderick is clearly the odd man in the bunch, but even he still solicits a good amount of laughs. Nobody in the cast is wasted.

However, it’s Murphy that most people are going to wonder about. In the years since he turned to family films, the once-revered comedian has gone from foul-mouthed funny man to a walking caricature who is all hyper-exaggerated expressions and loud talk. Well, the exaggerated expressions and loud talk are still in effect here, but what Murphy manages to do is turn Slide into an actual character, and not just some hollow stereotype. There’s range and depth to who Slide is (an unapologetic crook) and Murphy keeps him just shy of the line between funny and annoying. Better yet, the actor is more of team player in this film, allowing his co-stars to carry some of the comedic weight instead of trying to ham it up all on his own. The interplay between Murphy and Stiller is especially well-balanced, which is somewhat surprising, considering how much emphatic energy each man commands on his own.

Alan Alda plays a great villain who is all elitist menace hid behind a friendly grandpa facade and squinted eyes. Arthur Shaw is so laid back about his ruthlessness and godly sense of entitlement that it’s hard not to root against him. Alda also uses his acting talents to make Shaw into an actual character, instead of the caricature of a snobby unethical businessman – which would have been so easy to do, given the current social climate. But Tower Heist wisely avoids social commentary, and simply settles for what is: a thin slice of escapist entertainment.

If you’re the type of person who can only enjoy a heist flick if the logic of it holds up under close scrutiny and examination, then Tower Heist is definitely not for you. From the idea of average Joe’s invading one of the most heavily-guarded structures in a city constantly under surveillance, to the totally incomprehensible way that the actual robbery is pulled off, this is a film that doesn’t make a lick of sense, logically speaking. However, if you can accept that the outcome is not so much important as the journey to get there, then this film will offer simple and satisfying enjoyment between the top and bottom of your popcorn bag. It’s a good re-introduction for Eddie Murphy – let’s just hope he goes upward to bigger, better, and funnier things from here.

Tuesday, March 20, 2012

"The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo" Is One Of The Most Provocative Films

The first installment in Stieg Larsson’s “Millennium Series,” The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo made its English debut in 2008 (the original Swedish novel was published in 2005). As the book was gaining momentum in America, production on a Swedish film adaptation from director Niels Arden Oplev and starring Noomi Rapace (Sherlock Holmes: A Game of Shadows) as leading lady Lisbeth Salander, was nearing completion – and would open to critical acclaim from international and American critics alike.

As a result, it came as somewhat of a surprise that despite the success of the series, fan-favorite director, David Fincher (The Social Network) was gearing-up for his own adaptation of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. Fans of Oplev’s film quickly dismissed Fincher’s attempt as an unnecessary American cash grab – while other moviegoers anxiously awaited what the celebrated auteur would bring to his own interpretation. Now that The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is officially available in theaters – can film fans just dismiss the American version or has Fincher managed to deliver yet another critical and commercial darling?

Fortunately, Fincher’s interpretation of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo isn’t just a worthy adaptation of Larsson’s novel – it’s a beautifully shot, gripping, and disturbing film with terrific performances from nearly every actor and actress involved. While some film fans and Millennium readers might prefer the Swedish version, it’s impossible to outright dismiss Fincher’s film – as his Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is potentially one of the most captivating films of 2011.

Source material purists will be relieved to know that The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo pulls double-duty – managing to succeed at staying true to the source material while still offering an intriguing and provocative film experience. Adaptations often have a difficult time with this balancing act and land farther on one side of the fence than the other – resulting in a chapter-by-chapter recreation (and a boring or convoluted film) or a serviceable movie experience that’s too far removed from the source material (and unrecognizable to fans). Fincher once again proves he’s deft at whittling a printed book down to its bare essentials (similar to his approach with Fight Club) and presents a tremendous amount of exposition through quick onscreen cuts and smart behind-the-scenes editing. As a result, despite serving two main characters (who don’t actually join forces until halfway through the film), as well as a flock of unique side-characters, Fincher manages to provide the audience with fascinating human drama and an exciting mystery throughout.

For non-Millenium series readers, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo introduces the character of Lisbeth Salander (Rooney Mara), an anti-social punk investigator/hacker type who lives paycheck to paycheck at the mercy of her state guardian – until she is pulled into a dangerous investigation by a disgraced investigative journalist, Mikael Blomkvist (Daniel Craig). Blomkvist has been hired by wealthy businessman Henrik Vanger (Christopher Plummer) to investigate the unsolved case of his missing niece, Harriet, who unexpectedly disappeared forty years ago. However, as the pair dig into the Vanger estate history, disgruntled family members and disturbing revelations don’t just complicate the case of missing Harriet – they outright threaten Blomkvist and Salander’s lives.

Film fans who haven’t been following The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo production may recognize star, Rooney Mara, as Erica Albright from the opening scene in Fincher’s The Social Network. Mara was responsible for one of the most captivating scenes in the “Facebook movie” but her exchange with Jessie Eisenberg is only a precursor to the physical and psychological transformation the young actress underwent to embody Lisbeth Salander – and it shows. While Daniel Craig is excellent as Blomkvist, along with a star-studded cast that includes Stellan Skarsgård, Robin Wright, and Geraldine James, there’s no doubt that Mara provides one of the most nuanced performances that movie fans will see this year (or possibly, ever). Together, Fincher and Mara don’t pull any punches and thrust their Salander into  some truly horrifying circumstances and Mara never falters in her depiction – even managing to keep the character grounded in some especially challenging scenes.

While the film’s two hour and 38 minute run-time is likely to turn off some moviegoers who don’t enjoy sitting that long for one movie in a theater, it’s hard to imagine any onscreen scene or exchange that doesn’t belong in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. The movie avoids following a standard pacing structure (it includes lengthy prologue and epilogue sequences) and sometimes dwells on story elements that aren’t related to the primary mystery of Harriet’s disappearance. However, even Fincher’s side-arc character drama manages to stay compelling – and it’s unlikely that many audience members will ever find themselves bored or waiting for something to happen.

Similarly, as anyone familiar with the book series can attest, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is not a simple murder-mystery that features damaged but ultimately cheery characters. The novel, as well as the 2011 film are very dark – and plumb some especially disturbing depths (think Fincher’s Se7en). In particular, one scene of sexual violence is exceptionally graphic and could be extremely disturbing to sensitive viewers. In addition, while a number of plot elements do get wrapped up, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is part of a larger trilogy – and withholds a lot of information in the interest of future installments (The Girl Who Played with Fire and The Girl Who Kicked the Hornets’ Nest). The main Vanger story comes to a sharp conclusion but less patient moviegoers will have to wait for future installments to really get to know the characters – and it’s possible that some viewers will get weighed down by the bleak and claustrophobic onscreen world that Fincher and his team have created.

Given the lengthy run-time, oppressive tone, and obvious withholdings for future installments, some moviegoers could have a difficult time with The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and, instead, might find a slightly less abrasive experience with the Swedish version (though Oplev’s version does present similar challenges). That said, The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo is without question one of the most provocative films of 2011 – and will deliver a compelling ride for die-hard fans of the book series, dramatic thriller enthusiasts, as well as anyone who enjoys Fincher’s darker works.

Monday, March 12, 2012

Plot of Movie Sex and the City

Set four years after the events of the series finale, the film Sex and the City  begins with a montage of Carrie (Sarah Jessica Parker), Samantha (Kim Cattrall), Charlotte (Kristin Davis) and Miranda (Cynthia Nixon) walking through New York City and a recap of what happened in the TV series as well as what happened between the season six finale and the film. It then jumps to Carrie and Big (Chris Noth) viewing apartments with the intention of moving in together. Carrie falls in love with a penthouse suite far from their price range, which Big immediately agrees to pay for. However, Carrie experiences doubts over the wisdom of this arrangement, explaining that they are not married, and as such she would have no legal rights to their home in the event of a separation. She offers to sell her own apartment, and quelling her fears, Big suggests that they get married.

Samantha (Kim Cattrall) has relocated her business to Los Angeles to be close to Smith (Jason Lewis), who is now a prime-time television star. She finds her five-year-old relationship humdrum and yearns for her old life—especially after witnessing the public sexcapades of Dante, the hot new neighbor. She takes every opportunity to fly East to be with the other girls.

Miranda (Cynthia Nixon) finds that balancing her home, work, and social life ever the more difficult, and confesses to the girls that she hasn’t had sex with Steve (David Eigenberg) in six months. She is devastated when Steve reveals he has slept with another woman, and immediately separates from him.

After an argument with Steve at the rehearsal dinner, Miranda, still upset about Steve's indiscretion, tells Big bluntly that he and Carrie are crazy to be getting married, as marriage ruins everything. On the day of the ceremony, Big cannot go through with it, but repeated attempts to telephone Carrie fail. A devastated Carrie flees the wedding. Big changes his mind and intercepts Carrie as he sees her limousine drive away. Carrie furiously attacks Big with her bouquet while he earns scathing looks from Miranda and Charlotte. The four women subsequently take the honeymoon that Carrie had booked to Mexico, where they de-stress and collect themselves.

Upon her return to New York City, Carrie hires an assistant, Louise (Jennifer Hudson), to help her move back into her old apartment and manage her administration. Charlotte learns she is pregnant after a visit to her doctor. Miranda eventually confesses to Carrie about what happened during the night of the rehearsal dinner, and the two have a brief falling out.

After reflecting on the argument she had with Carrie, Miranda agrees to attend couples counseling with Steve, and they are eventually able to reconcile. Samantha begins over-eating to keep from cheating on Smith with Dante, but eventually realizes that their relationship is simply not working, and that she needs to put herself first. The two break up, and she moves back to New York. Charlotte for several months is concerned that something might happen to the baby, because she feels her life seems to be too perfect.

A surprise encounter with Big at a restaurant leaves Charlotte so outraged that she goes into labor. Big drives her to the hospital, and waits until baby Rose is born, hoping to see Carrie. Harry passes on the message that Big would like her to call him, and that he has written to her frequently, but never received a reply. Carrie searches her correspondence, before realizing that Louise has kept his e-mails password-protected from her, after Carrie earlier announced she wished to sever all communication with him. She finds that he has sent her dozens of letters copied from the book she showed him in the weeks before their wedding, Love Letters of Great Men, Vol. 1, culminating with one of his own where he apologizes for screwing it up and promises to love her forever.

One hour before the locks are due to be changed on their shared penthouse apartment, Carrie travels to the home Big had bought for them to collect a pair of blue Manolo Blahnik shoes she had left there. She finds Big in the walk-in closet he had built for her, and the moment she sees him, her anger at his betrayal dissipates. She runs into his arms and they share a passionate kiss.

After they have spent the final hour in their apartment together making up, talking and apologizing to one another, Big proposes to Carrie properly, using one of her diamond-encrusted shoes in place of a ring. They later marry alone, in a simple wedding in New York City Hall, with Carrie dressed in the original dress she had bought in a vintage shop and the blue Manolos. After Big kisses the bride, he whispers into her ear "Ever thine. Ever mine. Ever ours," a line by Ludwig van Beethoven Carrie read to him from Love Letters of Great Men, Vol. 1 earlier in the film. They hold a get-together at a local diner with their friends. The film ends with the four women around a table in a restaurant, sipping cosmopolitans, and celebrating Samantha's fiftieth birthday, with Carrie making a toast to the next fifty.

Tuesday, March 6, 2012

"The Artist" Restores Your Belief In The Magic Of Performances


Just as you are on the verge of losing faith in the prominence of 'pure undiluted acting' in films, The Artist restores your belief in the magic of performances and simple storytelling over modern day high production values.

A heart-warming ode to the glorious era of silent cinema, The Artist proves 'Silence indeed speaks louder than words'! The 10 Oscar nominations and various wins at international festivals are very well deserving.

Set in 1927 Hollywood, French director/Writer Michel Hazanavicius tells us the lifestory of a famous movie star who rules the silent cinema but refuses to jump onto the bandwagon of the talkies. With younger actors preferred by studios, the ageing washed up superstar becomes reclusive with no hope of getting to relive his glory days.

The very talented French actor Jean Dujardin plays George Valentin, a leading superstar of silent cinema in Hollywood. From being a heartthrob of the ladies to being a no-body with no standing in the 'talkies', The Artist is the story of rise and doom of a movie star.

What happens when fame stops giving company and fans fancy new faces?

The film opens with George's cinema running to packed houses. Used to people's adulation, the good hearted celebrated hero poses for the press at his movie premiere.

Aspiring actress Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo) gathers outside the theatre to see George. She accidentally drops her autograph book as the crowd gets hysterical. As Peppy gets down to pick it up, she skips the security barricade thus stumbling into George. Love happens at first sight and only gets stronger as fate brings them together again and again. Years pass, tables are turned. Peppy's the rising star and George the fading one, what happens next?

Chances are The Artist will be your new favourite film. This French film has a fresh script, smart direction and a charming central performance by Jean Dujardin. Also, the film is in black-and-white and it’s silent. This French film has taken the world by storm, and is a front runner in all major categories at almost every awards ceremony so far this year.

Directed by Michel Hazanavicius, The Artist tells the story of Dujardin’s George Valentin, the quintessential star of the American silent film era. Everyone loves him and his films, but in a cruel twist of fate, a technological breakthrough becomes Valentin’s eventual downfall: the transition from silent films to “talkies” in the late ’20s and early ’30s (watch the trailer below).

As audiences yearn for these novel films with proper dialogue in the new Golden Era of Hollywood, silent films and their stars quickly become a thing of the past. In this new age of film, it’s all about the likes of Peppy Miller (Bérènice Bejo), a girl Valentin accidentally discovered, who becomes a superstar while Valentin descends into a life full of regret and frustration. All the former star has now is his loyal dog (Uggie), a definite scene-stealer, with whom he forms an endearing bond.

Hazanavicius’s direction is so authentic that The Artist could well have been an actual ’20s film. Nonetheless, the less one says about The Artist, the better. This of course is meant as a compliment, as viewers should find out for themselves just how absolutely sublime this film is. Jean Dujardin carries the entire film on his broad shoulders and charming smile – he is sure to go places. Berenice Bejo plays the seductive dancer-cum-actress very naturally. John Goodman and James Cromwell add some star value with their short but strong roles.

The Artist would be one film that, if it were to happen, would deservedly win a Best Picture Oscar. The attention to detail is amazing for this kind of film and every department has done a remarkable job. This film is an ode to good cinema, and a win for The Artist would really be a triumph for cinema itself. Yes, The Artist is authentic cinema in its true essence and this wholesome entertainer of a film has some true intelligence for which it should be lauded.

Friday, March 2, 2012

The Pursuit Of Happyness Is A Encouraging Movie


Will Smith doesn't seem the likeliest candidate to play a desperate, struggling man. Whatever the role (love coach, alien fighter, Ali), he projects speed and good times, an almost aerobic self-confidence. But in The Pursuit of Happyness, which is set in San Francisco in 1981, at the dawn of the age of go-go capitalism, Smith doesn't just wear a few flecks of gray in his hair. He slows himself down, playing a man who awakens to the reality that life is nickel-and-diming him to death.

It's a beautiful and understated performance, one that hums with a richer, quieter music than Smith has mustered before.

What hooks you in this shrewdly touching movie, based on a true story, is how specific it is about one man's economic perils. Smith's Chris Gardner is an earnest fellow in his late 30s who sells medical equipment — or, rather, one particular item, a high-density bone scanner that he hawks, with middling success, on a freelance basis. His mistake was to invest his savings in these contraptions, and now he's stuck, toting them around town like oversize typewriters.

His marriage has fallen apart, and when the prickly, impatient Linda (Thandie Newton) takes off, leaving Chris and his young son (played by Smith's son Jaden with a sly-eyed lack of fuss that matches nicely with his father's), he applies for the internship program at Dean Witter, where he'll compete to be a stockbroker. Smith makes Chris a go-getter with a hint of sadness — a bit of a fuddy-duddy, but a smart, dogged one. (He gets his foot in the door by solving a Rubik's Cube.)

In The Pursuit of Happyness, we don't just know Chris' dreams. We know his bank account, his tally of parking tickets, his back taxes. The fact that he's African-American is there at the margins — he would surely have gone to college had he come from a less hardscrabble background — but the real issue is the subtler one of class mobility in America. Since the internship is unsalaried,

Chris is forced to survive by other measures, and what this means is that the job is really geared to people who've already attained middle-class solidity. Chris has to pretend to be something he's not, and the power of Smith's acting is in the gentle, mounting fury with which he absorbs a hundred misperceptions and slights.

As compelling as the film is, it does have a rather single-minded, one-ordeal-after-another,

Murphy's Law quality. Yet the director, Italy's Gabriele Muccino, lends a humane touch even to the running joke of Chris getting his bone scanners stolen, and the plot is an inexorable chain of money logic: Chris' escape from a cabbie he can't afford to pay, his looming tax crisis, his move to a hotel and, finally, a homeless shelter. The lower he falls, the more Smith endows him with a ragged nobility and will. The Pursuit of Happyness speaks eloquently to the anxieties of our own time, when staying afloat, let alone movin' on up, has rarely been tougher.

Monday, February 27, 2012

The King’s Speech-Racking Up Award Nominations

The King’s Speech’ is a competent Oscar-baiting historical drama, but does the film stammer too much for the mainstream moviegoer? Read our review to find out.

Since it’s debut at the Telluride Film Festival back in September, The King’s Speech has been steadily racking up award nominations as well as several wins, including: The Producers Guild of America Award for Best Theatrical Motion Picture and The Golden Globe for Best Actor (Colin Firth).

There’s no doubt that The King’s Speech – a historical drama about King George VI’s pre-World War II  rise to power – is the type of film award shows love to celebrate. However, despite being a competent and beautiful film, is director Tom Hooper’s movie too stuffy to provide mainstream moviegoers with a satisfying trip to the box office?

Fortunately, the answer is no. Despite critical acclaim, some Academy Award-nominated historical dramas never get a wide release – in large part due to their limited appeal to the greater movie-going population. The King’s Speech, however, is an intelligent film with beautiful direction by Hooper, that manages to offer a charm and sense of humor that even audiences at the megaplex will enjoy (not just the local independent theater).

If you’re still unfamiliar with the story of King George VI, or subsequently The King’s Speech, here’s the official synopsis:

After the death of his father King George V (Michael Gambon) and the scandalous abdication of King Edward VIII (Guy Pearce), Bertie (Colin Firth) who has suffered from a debilitating speech impediment all his life, is suddenly crowned King George VI of England. With his country on the brink of war and in desperate need of a leader, his wife, Elizabeth (Helena Bonham Carter), the future Queen Mother, arranges for her husband to see an eccentric speech therapist, Lionel Logue (Geoffrey Rush). After a rough start, the two delve into an unorthodox course of treatment and eventually form an unbreakable bond. With the support of Logue, his family, his government and Winston Churchill (Timothy Spall), the King will overcome his stammer and deliver a radio-address that inspires his people and unites them in battle.

Based on the true story of King George VI, THE KING’S SPEECH follows the Royal Monarch’s quest to find his voice.

As mentioned in the summary, the entire movie revolves around the importance of voice. With the recent invention of the wireless radio, as well as the growing threat of Nazi Germany, King George VI is forced into a unique moment in history – where a King’s radio booth is suddenly more important than his throne.

Despite being the type of role typically labeled as “Oscar-bait,” Colin Firth’s performance as the stammering Prince Albert (George VI) is an honest portrayal that never oversteps the boundary between interpretation and caricature. While Firth’s stammering is certainly painful to listen to, it’s clear this is Hooper’s desired effect – and the director balances Albert’s stammers, as well as his succeeding frustration and anger, with a charming performance by Geoffrey Rush as the Australian speech therapist, Lionel Logue.

Like many dramas that revolve around a “burgeoning friendship” dynamic, many of the best moments in The King’s Speech are centered around the dynamic between the two would-be friends as Logue attempts to draw the stubborn Prince Albert down from his high horse, in order to truly address the root of the problem (Albert’s fear of being King). In the process, the audience is treated to a number of great moments: some humorous, some painful, and others that are genuinely inspiring.

That said, at times a few of these moments can follow the three act historical drama a bit too closely – resulting in several predictable character arcs. Without giving anything away, the end of the first and second acts are each punctuated with some misunderstanding or regression that tears at Lionel and Albert’s friendship. Surely the pair had their ups and downs in real life, and the framework doesn’t ruin the film or even take much away from the viewer’s enjoyment, but, because of where they’re placed, these moments end up coming across as the contrived movements of the plot, instead of the organic transition of the characters.

It’s a fine line, and certainly won’t bother most moviegoers, but in these moments it was easy to see the screenplay for The King’s Speech shining through a bit too clearly on the silver screen.

However, despite the over-obvious movie structure that, on occasion, gets forced onto the historical events depicted in the film, The King’s Speech is a terrific film with great performances by the cast, as well as an inspiring, not to mention charming, story about a man who not only finds his voice, but finds his place as one of the most important leaders in history.

Monday, February 20, 2012

Development Of The Lord of The Rings Film

The Lord of the Rings film trilogy comprises three live action fantasy epic films; The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001), The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002) and The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003). For simplicity, the titles are often abbreviated to 'LotR', with 'FotR', 'TTT' and 'RotK' for each of the respective films.
Set in Middle-earth, the three films follow the young Hobbit Frodo Baggins as he and a Fellowship embark on a quest to destroy the One Ring, and thus ensure the destruction of the Dark Lord Sauron, but the Fellowship becomes broken, and Frodo continues the quest together with his loyal companion Sam and the treacherous Gollum. Meanwhile the Wizard Gandalf and Aragorn, heir in exile to the throne of Gondor, unite and rally the Free Peoples of Middle-earth in several battles cumulating in the War of the Ring. The Wizard Saruman is defeated, the Ring is destroyed, and Sauron and his forces are vanquished.

The movies were directed by Peter Jackson and released by New Line Cinema. The trilogy is based on the book The Lord of the Rings by J. R. R. Tolkien and follows its general storyline, despite some deviations. Considered to be one of the biggest movie projects ever undertaken with an overall budget of $280 million, the entire project took eight years, with the filming for all three films done simultaneously and entirely in Jackson's native New Zealand.

The trilogy was a large financial success, with the films being the 25th, 17th and 5th highest grossing films of alltime respectively, unadjusted for inflation. The films were critically acclaimed, winning 17 Academy Awards in total, as well as wide praise for the cast and innovative practical and digital special effects. Each film in the trilogy also had Special Extended Editions, released a year after the theatrical release on DVD.
Director Peter Jackson first came into contact with The Lord of the Rings when he saw Ralph Bakshi's 1978 film, which he found confusing. Afterwards, he read a tie-in edition of the book during a twelve-hour train journey from Wellington to Auckland when he was seventeen. Jackson's reaction was, "I can't wait until somebody makes a movie of this book because I'd like to see it!

In 1995, Jackson was finishing The Frighteners and considered The Lord of the Rings as a new project, wondering "why nobody else seemed to be doing anything about it". With the new developments in computer generated imagery following Jurassic Park, Jackson set about planning a fantasy film that would be relatively serious and feel "real". By October, he and his partner Fran Walsh teamed up with Miramax boss Harvey Weinstein to negotiate with Saul Zaentz who had held the rights to the book since the early 1970s, pitching an adaptation of The Hobbit and two films based on The Lord of the Rings. Negotiations then stalled when Universal Studios offered Jackson a remake of King Kong. Weinstein was furious, and further problems arose when it turned out Zaentz did not have distribution rights to The Hobbit; United Artists, which was in the market, did. By April 1996 the rights question was still not resolved. Jackson decided to move ahead with King Kong before filming The Lord of the Rings, prompting Universal to enter a deal with Miramax to receive foreign earnings from The Lord of the Rings whilst Miramax received foreign earnings from King Kong.

When Universal cancelled King Kong in 1997, Jackson and Walsh immediately received support from Weinstein and began a six-week process of sorting out the rights. Jackson and Walsh asked Costa Botes to write a synopsis of the book and they began to re-read the book. Two to three months later, they had written their treatment. The first film would have dealt with what would become The Fellowship of the Ring, The Two Towers and the beginning of The Return of the King, ending with the death of Saruman, and Gandalf and Pippin going to Minas Tirith. In this treatment Gwaihir and Gandalf visit Edoras after escaping Saruman, Gollum attacks Frodo when the Fellowship is still united, and Farmer Maggot, Glorfindel, Radagast, Elladan and Elrohir are present. Bilbo attends the Council of Elrond, Sam looks into Galadriel's mirror, Saruman is redeemed before he dies and the Nazgûl just make it into Mount Doom before they fall. They presented their treatment to Harvey and Bob Weinstein, the latter of whom they focused on impressing with their screenwriting as he had not read the book. They agreed upon two films and a total budget of $75 million.

During mid-1997, Jackson and Walsh began writing with Stephen Sinclair. Sinclair's partner, Philippa Boyens, was a major fan of the book and joined the writing team after reading their treatment. It took 13-14 months to write the two film scripts, which were 147 and 144 pages respectively. Sinclair left the project due to theatrical obligations. Amongst their revisions, Sam, Merry and Pippin are caught eavesdropping and forced to go along with Frodo. Gandalf's account of his time at Orthanc was pulled out of flashback and Lothlórien was cut with Galadriel attending the Council of Elrond. Denethor, Boromir's father, also attends the Council, and other changes included having Arwen rescue Frodo, and the action sequence involving the cave troll. Arwen was even going to kill the Witch-king. Most significantly, there was an all-new sequence. A Ringwraith kills Saruman and attacks Gandalf at Orthanc. Seeing this from the Seeing Seat, now at Emyn Muil rather than Amon Hen, Frodo puts on the Ring and draws him all the way to the Seat on his Fell beast. Frodo manages to save Sam and stabs the wraith in his heart.


Trouble struck when Marty Katz was sent to New Zealand. Spending four months there, he told Miramax that the films were more likely to cost $150 million, and with Miramax unable to finance this, and with $15 million already spent, they decided to merge the two films into one. On June 17 1998, Bob Weinstein presented a treatment of a single two-hour film version of the book. He suggested cutting Bree and the Battle of Helm's Deep, "losing or using" Saruman, merging Rohan and Gondor with Éowyn as Boromir's sister, shortening Rivendell and Moria as well as having Ents prevent the Uruk-hai kidnapping Merry and Pippin. Upset by the idea of "cutting out half the good stuff" Jackson balked, and Miramax declared that any script or Weta Workshop's work was theirs. Jackson went around Hollywood for four weeks, showing a thirty-five minute video of their work, before meeting with Mark Ordesky of New Line Cinema. At New Line Cinema, Robert Shaye viewed the video, and then asked why they were making two films when the book was published as three volumes; he wanted to make a film trilogy. Now Jackson, Walsh and Boyens had to write three new scripts.

The expansion to three films allowed a lot more creative freedom, and Jackson, Walsh and Boyens had to restructure their script accordingly. Each film is not exactly based on each volume of the book, but rather they represent a three-part adaptation, as Jackson takes a more chronological approach to the story, whilst Tolkien retold chunks of his fictional history. Frodo's quest is the main focus, and Aragorn is the main subplot, and many sequences (such as Tom Bombadil and the Scouring of the Shire) that do not contribute directly to those two plots were left out. Much effort was put into creating satisfactory conclusions and making sure exposition did not bog down the pacing. Amongst new sequences, there are also expansions on elements Tolkien kept ambiguous, such as the battles and the creatures.

Above all, most characters have been altered for extra drama. Aragorn, Théoden and Treebeard have added or modified elements of self-doubt, whilst Galadriel, Elrond and Faramir have been darkened. Boromir and Gollum are (arguably) relatively more sympathetic, whilst some characters such as Legolas, Gimli, Saruman and Denethor have been simplified. Some characters, such as Arwen and Éomer, are given actions from minor characters such as Glorfindel and Erkenbrand, and generally lines of dialogue are somewhat preserved or switched around between locations or characters depending on suitability of the scenes. New scenes were also added to expand on characterization. In the meantime, during shooting, the screenplays would undergo many daily transformations, due to contributions from cast looking to further explore their characters. Most notable amongst these rewrites was the character Arwen, who was originally planned as a warrior princess, but reverted back to her book counterpart, who remains physically inactive in the story (though she sends moral and military support).