I'm just a guy who loves stories, whether they be past, present, future, movies, TV Shows, video games, whatever. If you came to get an average guys thoughts on film, you've come to the right place.
So I actually intended to watch this movie about 2 weeks ago. This was actually one of the movies that was on my Netflix List that I was looking forward to the most. There's a lot of good actors in it and it's all about spies and intelligence gathering during the Cold War. Everything sounded so awesome...
So why was this movie so boring and confusing?
Tiinker Tailor Soldier Spy is set in the middle of the Cold War and centers on a British Intelligence agency called, "The Circus". After an operation involving an intelligence officer (played by Mark Strong) in Budapest goes wrong, the director the Circus, codenamed Control (played by Jon Hurt), is let go. He takes with him another agent by the name of George Smiley (played by Gary Oldman).
Control passes away from illness but not long after, George Smiley is brought out of retirement in order to investigate the rumors that there is a mole within British Intelligence for the Russians. He brings on a young agent by the name of Peter (played by Benedict Cumberbatch) and the two of them begin an investigation into the rumors to see if they are true and uncover the identity of the mole selling British secrets to the enemy.
An interesting part of the film is that it doesn't exactly feel like an espionage film at all, it feels more like a detective mystery with much higher stakes. I believe George Smiley is based off a character of a long running novel series and based off the small amount of knowledge I have of the character, he seems a lot more like a Sherlock Holmes sort of character but of the intelligence world and that is a pretty good example of what you're in for with Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy.
The rest of the cast is made up of a lot of talented actors who are members of the Circus. There's a couple of well known names like Colin Firth, Tobey Jones, and Ciaran Hinds. They play members of the higher brass of the Circus and they make a lot of the decisions, especially when it comes to intelligence gathering on the Russians which is a big part of the story.
And because there is a gallery of really talented actors in this movie, the acting is pretty good. I believe that Gary Oldman was nominated for an Oscar for his performance and I will give the movie credit, he does give a good performance along with everyone else in the film.
Here's the issue though...
This is an EXTREMELY boring movie!
Again, you'd think since it is a movie about spies with such good performance by a wide array of talented actors, this would be a suspenseful thriller.
But man you have to be leaning in closely and paying attention to every single word in this movie because it is a little bit of a snoozer.
I swear, the first 10 minutes of this movie is just Gary Oldman walking around the streets of London going about his daily activities and man is it boring.
There are a couple of moments in the movie that are pretty good and the performances do help those moments and scenes along but there's so much going on that I'm not always sure there's enough cohesiveness to pull everything together into a story that makes sense.
Now, to be fair, I was very confused by this film because it is very dry. British films can often be that dry storytelling and this is the driest of dry, especially in a genre that could be the juiciest spy suspense we could get.
For example, you have the character Tom Hardy plays. Without giving too much away, there is a section in the film where George Smiley sits him down and he explains his contribution to this mole hunt. He tells the story of how he fell in love with a Soviet Spy's wife and begins this relationship with her, at first to gain intelligence, but later because he loves her.
This is a really interesting part of the film but I first didn't totally know how it connected to what was before and how it connected to the rest of the story. I had to go in and read the synopsis on Wikipedia after I finished it to get the full story and even what I gathered while watching was confusing and not always clear.
Now don't think that I was absolutely clueless and had absolutely no idea what was going on. The basic plot that there is a mole in the British Intelligence is pretty clear and there is a path George Smiley is going on to discover the identity of that mole. But all the twists and turns are not always clear and again, you REALLY have to be paying attention to get every single bit of the movie.
And I would say that I'd like to go back and check this movie out for a second time so I pick up everything but that becomes incredibly difficult when the the movie just isn't that interesting.
I guess it's unfortunate that this was the only time Gary Oldman has been nominated for an Oscar because the guy is an incredibly talented actor.
I need to stop putting so much stock into the Academy Awards because they're not always accurate in pointing out the best of the best. But remember how everyone was bummed that Leonardo DiCaprio hadn't gotten an Oscar yet? I'm more of the camp that I want Gary Oldman to get an Oscar one of these days!
I think the best recent comparison I can bring this movie to is Jane Got a Gun, a very dull boring movie that I watched earlier today. While both movies were very wordy and had less action than I think was needed, I think Jane Got a Gun succeeded in my book more because of two reasons. As slow as that movie was and as wordy as it was, I totally understood what was happening and at the end of the film it all led up to something. Again, I don't want to give anything away but Tinker Tailor Solider Spy is not easy to follow unless you are giving this dull movie 110% of your attention, and at the end I didn't feel like it culminated to anything spectacular.
I thought it was a very standard mystery and there weren't enough twists and turns for me to really say that it was worth the dry boring parts that populated most of the film.
Like I said, I was originally supposed to watch this film a couple weeks ago but I couldn't because I kept on falling asleep.
Overall, this movie was a struggle for me. I like espionage movies and I even like them when there isn't a lot of action in them. But Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy was so scattered that it was hard to pay attention and that was something you really need to do in this film. If you're up for sitting in front of the TV and taking notes during a movie, this one might be for you. But for the rest of us, I don't think that Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is necessarily a movie you absolutely need to see, unless you want to fall asleep.
But those are my thoughts, what did you think? Are there other films that Gary Oldman should have been nominated for an Oscar for that I don't know about? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @cmhaugen24 as well as send me your requests for films I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.
I'll leave you with this. It's not related at all! But since it is the Christmas Season, why not get a laugh and check out Liam Neeson auditioning for a role as a Mall Santa. It's pretty good. Enjoy!
So I'm at a crossroad. Either I am all Westerned out and I think I will probably not watch another one for a long time now that all of the Westerns are off my Netflix list... OR I am now on a Western kick and am gonna be replaying Red Dead Redemption all throughout Christmas. I haven't totally decided yet.
Jane Got A Gun is a story set in the Old West and starts with the main character Jane Hammond (played by Natalie Portman) seeing her husband Bill (played by Noah Emmerich) returning home badly wounded from a gun fight. He is able to inform her that The Bishop Boys are coming for him and that she needs to run. But it is soon discovered that Jane is not the kind of woman that goes and runs from danger.
She leaves her daughter with a friend and then goes off to prepare for the coming of the Bishop Boys, a band of outlaws led by John Bishop (played by Ewan McGregor) and his younger brother Vic (played by Boyd Holbrook).
But Jane can't fight off this gang alone.
She recruits the help of her former fiance, a man by the name of Dan Frost (played by Joel Edgerton) to help defend her farm and her husband.
What follows is a pretty slow movie where Jane and Dan are preparing the farm for the upcoming attack by the Bishop Boys as well as the two of them uncovering the truth of what happened in the 10 years since they were engaged and what happened to Jane to make her fall in love with another man and leave Dan.
Now half way through this movie I was getting a little bit bored. Because like I said, this is just Natalie Portman and Joel Edgerton preparing for an attack. There's not really any action in the second act of this movie because they're just sitting around waiting for Ewan McGregor to show up for the final gun fight.
The real drama in this movie comes from when they are discussing what happened to Jane after Dan left for the Civil War and how she became associated with the Bishop Boys.
And halfway through the film, I couldn't help but get a little bit bored because I didn't know what the hell all this was leading up to.
That is until the end.
I have to give the movie credit, it does have a pretty good twist at the end and you do finally understand where it all comes together.
The problem is, this movie is as slow as molasses. I tried to turn it on late last night and even from the very start of this film, I could tell this was a movie I needed to be alert for because otherwise I was going to fall straight asleep.
So while the twist and the culmination of all the flashbacks is actually pretty good, I'm not sure the long route they took to get us to that ending doesn't exactly redeem the movie.
Now it sounds like this movie went through production hell with a bunch of director changes and a bunch of casting issues. Apparently Joel Edgerton was originally cast as Ewan Mcgregor's character but then people dropped out and roles were switched. And big names were attached to this film as well! Names like Michael Fassbender, Jude Law, and Bradley Cooper all were attached to this film at one time and they eventually came down to Ewan McGregor.
But here's the thing. I actually liked the cast.
While I could potentially see Joel Edgerton in the role that Ewan McGregor played, I imagine he would have been a more rough and tumble version of that outlaw. Instead Edgerton's Dan Frost is a rough rider type but definitely has those soft eyes that make you feel sorry for him. I guess it just speaks to the versatility of Joel Egerton that he can play both a very good guy and a very bad guy in the same movie and the director thought it was a good idea to just make the switch. I personally liked the choice.
I definitely need to watch more of Joel Edgerton's work because I can't say I'm totally familiar with all the work he's done. I think 2016 has been the year where I've been exposed to it more, but besides the hype that I always hear about the performances he's been dealing out as of late, I honestly still see him as young Owen Lars from the Star Wars prequels. The guy can act and this might be the movie that introduces me to more of Joel Edgerton as a serious actor. Well this and Midnight Special but I'm excited.
And speaking of the Star Wars Prequels, let's talk Ewan McGregor.
So I'm of the suspicion that this movie had to change directions a little bit when Ewan McGregor was cast as John Bishop because I'm going to be honest, when I heard he was an outlaw, I couldn't quite picture it. I love Ewan McGregor and I was worried I was going to be a little bit biased in this review but when I first saw him I was a little bit worried how they were going to make this work.
But McGregor gives a good performance and is actually a pretty good villain. I don't know if it's the same villain that Joel Edgerton was originally reported to play but I think McGregor made it his own and played to his own strengths with this character.
Instead of making him a flat out outlaw, they sort of make him an entrepreneur who is definitely still a bandit but seems to be making an enterprise out of his criminal life. I think this was well done and it feeds into the story really well.
But at the end of the day, this was supposed to be Natalie Portman's moment to shine.
Now Natalie Portman's performance goes very much in tandem with the rest of the movie. At times it gets really good and there are some really powerful moments in the film. But then there are a lot of moments where there is just kind of dead space and it gets kind of boring.
There are two really great moments in this movie where Natalie Portman reminded me that she is a really good actress and those were probably my favorite parts of the film.
Like I said before, the backstory that they have going while Jane and Dan are preparing their house for the upcoming attack is pretty good. I almost wish that was the movie instead of the boring game of fortress they set up with little to no reward.
The last shootout scene is not bad, but I've definitely seen better and I'm not totally sure it was worth the hour of exposition and really boring sitting around and talking scenes that set it up. The action is good but that's really only when it happens and it doesn't happen nearly enough. I had moments in the film where I was interested and drawn in, but those moments were like blips on a radar of a really, REALLY slow movie.
I originally picked Jane Got a Gun this morning because I was already in a Western mood from True Grit and I saw it was only about a one hundred minute movie which worked for me because I wasn't ready to sit through another 3 hour movie like I did with Boyhood yesterday.
But this movie felt much longer than it was.
Overall, Jane Got a Gun was actually an interesting story, its just the execution of it was all wrong. As much drama there was with the casting, I actually thought the performances were pretty good and I thought everyone did a good job. However, the script and atmosphere of the movie was so slow that it got pretty boring at times.
Everyone has been telling me that I have to finish Westworld and I'm worried that if I don't I'm going to get it spoiled for me. If I am still in a Western mood, I might be moving into the more sci fi western genre with Westworld, but Jane Got a Gun made the whole genre a little bit boring for me right now.
But those are my thoughts on Jane Got a Gun! What did you think? Did you enjoy it? What did you think of the casting how it finally got put together? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @cmhaugen24 as well as send me your requests for films I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.
I'll leave you with this. So similar to having a bias towards Ewan McGregor, I probably have a bias towards Natalie Portman. It's probably a Star Wars prequel thing, but I want to see those people succeed. This new Portman movie, Jackie actually looks pretty good. Enjoy!
Okay, so right off the bat, I have to give the director and creators of this movie credit. This is a lofty project and it could have gone totally wrong in so many place so it's pretty impressive the result that they got given that this was a 12 year project.
Okay, now that that's out of the way, let's really talk about the movie Boyhood.
Boyhood centers around a young boy named Mason (played by Ellar Coltrane). Mason has a mother (played by Patricia Arquette) and a father (played by Ethan Hawke). And the entire movie is him wandering through 12 years of his life, the majority of them being in the 2000s. His parents are divorced so he is split between the two of them and he experiences all these different but normal childhood events over the course of a three hour long movie...
And that's pretty much it.
There's not much of a plot to this film and there's not much of a connective theme, I don't even think there was a connective script that ran through this movie because it's just a literal coming of age story and I basically spent the last 3 hours of my life watching this kid grow up and do his thing.
It's a really interesting idea and definitely something worth making note of when it comes to film making, but damn this movie could have been an hour shorter and you probably would have had the same result!
There are some good parts about the movie.
Put aside that this is one big gimmick that actually really paid off, part of it is just watching this family grow and go through life in the most unfiltered and "organic" way possible. You don't just see this kid grow up over 12 years, you see Ethan Hawke grow up, you see Patricia Arquette, you see the sister (played by Lorelei Linklater) grow up as well. And while it may not have any connective tissue to make any lick of sense, it's still a fascinating concept to run with and regardless of anything that I think of the film, the one thing I can say for sure is that this gimmick paid off big.
But the real parts of the film that work out the most are Ethan Hawke and Patricia Arquette. For a while, I thought this was going to be a less higher stakes version of To Kill A Mockingbird, where you see the kids grow up and their issues are out in front but the real story is about Hawke and Arquette and how they're growing just alongside Mason in this film.
That's not really the point, but Arquette and Hawke give really solid performances throughout the film and remember, that's not just over the span of the production of the film, that's over the span of 12 years!
There are some really hard felt moments where Patricia Arquette's character is going through some very serious stuff and I was hoping and praying that they would stop following this wide eyed starring kid and just focus on her story because that was the more interesting one throughout.
There's a part in the movie where she's married to one of her former college professors. Now a lot of that section of the movie is again, just Mason and others around him doing their normal run of the mill stuff. But then there's actually some conflict when you figure out that her second husband is an alcoholic and is abusive towards her and the kids. That's a really interesting part of the film and I wanted to see where that went, but it's really only mentioned a few more times after it happens.
I wanted to get some closure on that story, I wanted to figure out what happened to the second husband's kids. I wanted to know the lasting effect having some glass thrown at you and watching your mother get beat would have on a kid. Instead, he just keeps on starring into nothingness and it's not really addressed later in the film except for one conversation he has with Ethan Hawke.
And that's the thing that probably bothered me the most about the main character, Mason.
Mason doesn't really react at all to the events that happen around him.
I get it, he's just a kid and they would have probably had better chances at winning the lottery than finding a kid who can act brilliantly at age 7 as well as keep it up for 12 years. I mean, let's be honest, Ellar Coltrane is not the greatest actor in the world. The same kind of goes for Lorelai Linklater. They're not the worst, but I got bored watching them instead of Ethan Hawke and Patricia Arquette. I couldn't really tell if he was sad about something, amused, disappointed, it was all just starring into the abyss and questioning what's the meaning of life in the most pretentious ways possible.
I suppose there is a certain amount of leeway given as these kids are filmed at some of the most awkward times in a child's life, and if you look at the side by side pictures of them progressing over the years, they have awkward phases.
I say that because I myself had awkward phases and probably am still going through one as I grow up.
But the problem is they barely address that. If you watch the interview below, you notice that Coltrane mentions that the director let him grow his hair out however he wanted and kept acne visible to show a realistic transition of time during Coltrane's boyhood. But beyond the subtle hints like that, there's really not any mention of the real things kids go through in life.
If this is supposed to be the world's ultimate coming of age tale, where's the point where Mason has his first kiss, or has sex for the first time. There's a point where he starts drinking and smoking and I guess that the subtle passiveness of not really addressing huge life events like that is how it actually goes, but then what the hell is this movie about?
I think they could have either focused on the little things about Mason's life and made bigger deals about them, or gone the opposite and made an actual cohesive story that ran throughout with drama and tension like they sort of did with the alcoholic abusive second husband Patricia Arquette has. But instead Boyhood kind of gives us this loosy goosey free roam outline of a story that just sort of ends when Mason is no longer in his "boyhood".
Yes the issues of children are not going to be the biggest issues in the world, but that's exactly what a coming of age story has. This comes more off as a really artsy film class project that had a bigger budget and goes on for 2 and a half hours too long.
If they just wanted to go through this kids life, they could have had a montage of very small moments put in the span of a short film run time and it probably would have given the same result.
Instead we get Boyhood, an overly long and directionless art project that it kind of seems like the director just got tired with and said, you know what, let's end this all when he gets to college and call it boyhood!
There are definite good elements of this movie and Ethan Hawke and Patricia Arquette do give really good performances. But this is not the kind of movie that is going to last with you. I think it was bold but it's really only famous for the production that took over 12 years to create. If this movie had been made in the same time any other coming of age tale takes, it would have been critically tanked. But because it's the same kid over 12 years, it's suddenly given praise. I just don't agree with that.
Overall, Boyhood is not really a movie that I would recommend. If the acting from the main kid was better I might be a little more impressed, but that is a tall order because that is basically lightning in a bottle. If you want to see Ethan Hawke and Patricia Arquette give good performances over 12 years, this is a movie to check out, otherwise, I'd skip it.
But those are my thoughts on Boyhood. What did you think? Do you think I'm missing the point of this magnum opus of a film? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @cmhaugen24 as well as send me your requests for films I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.
I'll leave you with this. I'm going to leave the link to the honest trailer because it is pretty good, but this interview with the main kid is actually pretty telling to the insight that was put into this movie. I don't know, what do you think? Enjoy!
So I won't lie, the only reason this movie is on my list is because I want to eventually watch the Coen Brothers remake made in 2010. I wanted to watch this first because while I have an appreciation for older movies, I just get a feeling that I am going to like the Coen Brothers version better and if I watched that first, I probably wouldn't go back and watch this one.
But I haven't seen a lot of John Wayne's filmography, I thought it was also a good opportunity to see the legend in action.
True Grit takes place in the Old West and begins with a man by the name of Frank Ross being murdered by a man he hired by the name of Tom Chaney (played by Jeff Corey). Chaney is on the run and Frank's daughter, Mattie (played by Kim Darby is looking to get revenge and bring her father's killer to justice.
While she's in town collecting her father's body, Mattie begins making a plan to go and track down Tom Chaney and plans to hire a US Marshall by the name of Rooster Cogburn (played by John Wayne) who is known as one of the most ruthless Marshals in the territory. Cogburn is a bit of an alcoholic and we soon discover he's a bit of a lone wolf, but Mattie describes him as having "true grit" and worthy of going after her father's killer.
On the other side of things, a man by the name of La Boeuf (played by Glen Campbell) also wants to track down Tom Chaney for a price on his head in the state of Texas. Eventually the three of them decide to work together to track down Chaney as well as the band of criminals he runs with like "Lucky" Ned Pepper (played by Robert Duvall). Together they try and take down the criminals and bring justice to young Mattie and her family.
That's a quick synopsis and of course films are going to take a little bit of time to build up that story and make it something interesting...
But Holy Crap! This movie takes so long to get moving! The first hour of the movie is them figuring out how they're going to go on this man hunt and negotiating the prices and gathering supplies and a lot of pointless stuff. When it first starts off it is a little bit interesting, especially building up the character of Mattie as a self reliant woman who has to prove herself in a man's world but eventually it just gets boring as hell! Based on what I know of the story, I know that eventually these three start working together so why does it take so long for them to finally start working together? Another part of it is the fact that Mattie is a young girl and Cogburn and La Boeuf don't think she can handle herself. And yeah I understand that too, but there's a whole scene of Mattie negotiating with a horse trader even though it really has nothing to do with the rest of the film!
They could have streamlined a lot of the first hour and made the movie more focused on these three very polarizing personalities going on this adventure together, instead they spend so much time talking about stuff that barely comes up later in the film!
Let's talk about John Wayne.
I understand the appeal of the man. He starred in a crap ton of movies and people definitely went out to go see him because he was and probably still is a staunch sign of masculinity.
But let's be honest, John Wayne doesn't really delve into his characters. While I may not be a huge connoisseur of Wayne's filmography, I know that it's a lot of the same shtick and it's to be expected.
I do think that Rooster Cogburn is a complex character, being both a lawman and an incredible drunk and when he finally shows off that masculine John Wayne shootout at the end, it's what you want at th end of the film. And yeah, its hokey, but I think they were making exactly what audiences wanted to see at the time. We wanted to see the hero fight the bad guys and while Rooster Cogburn is a little bit more of a complex character, hence the black hat and the eye patch, he's still the white hat fighting the black hats. The important part with John Wayne's performance was that it's not Shakespeare but I don't think that's what he's going for and I don't think that's what audiences wanted. They wanted to see John Wayne kick some ass as a cowboy!
Something that actually kind of surprised me was the performance of Kim Darby as Mattie. I originally thought I was going to be really annoyed with this character just with her high pitched voice and how much she whines. But I ended up kind of enjoying her in this film because of her wits and her resolve to solve any problem in front of her.
The relationship with her and Rooster is done pretty well and you see her melt ice block that is Rooster when he does care about her safety.
Funny piece of trivia, apparently John Wayne couldn't stand Kim Darby and they barely spoke off camera. It's kind of fun to look back at these old movies and figure out the stories behind the camera.
But I liked these two and despite any behind the scenes drama, they work well together and make for an interesting story.
Kim Darby gives a pretty human performance of a girl going out of her depths and willing to do whatever it takes to get her father's killer. I think it's kind of annoying but that's also how Cogburn and La Boeuf feel as well with a girl who they obviously see as out of her league here.
And then there's La Boeuf and... I wasn't a fan of him.
Now there's a little bit working against Campbell here because unlike John Wayne, he's not really a name I recognize and therefore I need to depend on his character and performance to really pull something I enjoyed from it like I did with Kim Darby.
The thing is, La Boeuf is kind of the white milk toast of the movie. He's kind of boring and a little bit of a nuisance if I'm being honest.
I'm glad they had that character in it because he does bring a very sharp clash of personalities with not only Cogburn but also Mattie. But there wasn't a lot to go off of and at the end of the day, I remember this movie more for the performances of Darby and Wayne more than I do Campbell.
The overall story was pretty interesting to me when it actually moved towards the goal of finding Mattie's father's killer. I didn't go into this thinking there was going to be a lot of action as it was made in 1969 and the movie is rated G. I was surprised by the amount of violence I did see and there were a couple of scenes that actually made this a bit of a gritty movie.
I think the rest of the cast was pretty good. It's actually kind of funny watching this movie now and seeing all the familiar faces beyond John Wayne. Robert Duvall is in this film (this is the second film in a short time where it's been an old film and shown a younger Robert Duvall). Even Dennis Hopper has a small role in the film that I did not recognize the first time around.
I'm trying to give a fair analysis of this film, especially for the audience that watches movies today.
The truth is, people don't really watch Westerns anymore unless they are populated by sentient robots in Westworld, or if they are directed by Quintin Tarantino. On top of that, I don't know a lot of people who go out and watch old John Wayne Western films anymore. I'm interested to see the Coen Brothers reboot because I think I had the wrong impression of it back when it came out in 2010 but I still have yet to judge.
I think True Grit is a good call back to a bygone era and how cowboy films used to be made. I'm not going to sit here and say that this movie is better made than Western films I've seen in recent years because that's just not true. Budgets are larger, Rating systems allow for more graphic and realistic to the times content, and performances are just better.
But True Grit perfectly exemplifies a simpler time when you just needed an adventure and an iconic face to go off and ride off into the sunset at the end. I'm not totally sure I can answer if the movie still remains relevant to this day, but if you have two hours free and want to jump back in time to that simpler way of making film, True Grit is a good vehicle for that journey.
But what do you think of the 1969 True Grit? Is it definitely worth checking out the remake? How do they compare? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @cmhaugen24 as well as send me your requests for films I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.
I'll leave you with this. I was looking for the trailer for the 2010 version to wet your appetite for when I finally get to that review... but instead I found this trailer... which might be a little bit more awesome. Here's the link to the true trailer but in the meantime, Enjoy!
Once again, if you haven't been tuning into the last few reviews, you'll know that I am currently blazing through my Netflix list so I can start 2017 on a clean slate. So if some of these films seem like odd out of the ordinary choices, it's because they are. Usually I'm not sure if I would be watching a film like The Double, but there is actually a really good reason as to why it was put on my list.
I had heard a couple of things about this film from different movie outlets but not enough to warrant it on the list quite yet. I originally put it on when I heard the Jesse Eisenberg was going to be Lex Luthor in Batman v Superman. This is the state my Netflix list is in, I'm pretty sure this movie has been on Netflix for over a year and I'm pretty sure it's been on my list that entire time. You understand now why I want a clean slate for 2017?
The Double follows the story of Simon James (played by Jesse Eisenberg). Simon is a nice guy but he is a little bit of a quirky weirdo (I know big surprise for a Jesse Eisenberg character). He's always being pushed around and he can never seem to be noticed by anyone, especially the cute girl who lives in the same apartment complex and works at the same place he does.(played by Mia Wasikowska).
He can never get the courage to talk his neighbor Hannah until a freak accident brings them together... sort of. It seems that Simon has the chance to turn his life around a little bit until one faithful day when a new person comes to work that has the exact same face as Simon and calls himself James Simon (also played by Jesse Eisenberg).
At first, James seems to be very friendly to Simon and almost seems like the two of them could be very good friends. But soon James becomes out of control and starts messing with Simons life. The entire movie is basically the torture of this quirky awkward but sweet kid who's life is getting demolished by someone who just so happens to be his doppleganger.
The story is based off the Fyodor Dostoyevsky novella of the same name. Now I have no read this particular story by the author but I know the style as I have read Crime and Punishment and I know that his style of stories are not exactly the most merriest and happy. Like I said, it's a lot of just making this guy's life a living hell driving him to the point of almost insanity.
Now this is an independent film and because of that, it does have some really interesting visuals and creative cinematography for what I assume was done on a pretty limited budget. And sometimes I'm a fan of that and sometimes I'm not. This was a case where I was a big fan of the visuals and way this movie was shot. It was very cerebral and while I may not understand all of the shots and their meaning, I liked how unique the film was but also how digestible it was. It's unique, but just unique enough to make it feel like you can pay attention to the story without needing to pay attention to the visuals to totally understand it.
But above all, the element of the film that I liked the most was the dual performance of Jesse Eisenberg. Like I said before, this was the movie everyone was pointing to when Eisenberg was named Lex Luthor and this was the film that everyone said might give him some credit that he has the chops to be Lex Luthor
Honestly, I'm not sure which would have been more depressing, watching this movie before Batman v Superman and thinking that Jesse Eisenberg would have been a good Lex Luthor, or the way it worked out and watching it after Batman v Superman and realizing that Jesse Eisenberg can give a good performance and the one in BvS was not good.
Now, I won't say he does anything totally new in this film. Eisenberg usually has two versions of his performances anyways, the quirky, awkward, shy type, or the quirky arrogant asshole type. He pretty much plays those two roles in this movie. However, I felt like he pulled out his man voice finally in his portrayal of James (the bad one) and hell if James would have been what he did during Batman v Superman, I would have actually kind of enjoyed that! So again, it's a little depressing either way because this is actually a good movie.
And Mia Wasikowska!
I only know her from those stupid Alice and Wonderland reboots. But in this she actually has a personality and show me that she can act.
I think her character was a little bit lacking at times and they could have done more with her, but at the end of the day, this is Jesse Eisenberg's movie and the focus is mainly going to be on him.
Other performances in the movie include Wallace Shawn who did a good job as well. I think this was the movie any Jesse Eisenberg doubters needed to prove he has talent because I really enjoyed this movie a lot more than I thought I was going to.
Now I'm not sure if this movie is going to be for everyone. Like I mentioned, it's one of those independent films that are pretty cerebral and it may not be everyone's cup of tea. However, I can actually really recommend this film because the story was pretty strong and you actually get a pretty good performance by Jesse Eisenberg, something I didn't really think I was ever going to see.
But those are my thoughts on The Double. What did you think? Does this change your mind on Jesse Eisenberg, maybe not as Lex Luthor, but as an actor? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @cmhaugen24 as well as send me your requests for films I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.
I'll leave you with this. I'm throwing up a random Jesse Eisenberg interview on here because I actually need to be out the door pretty soon. I am going to see Rogue One! Enjoy!
So I've been doing this blog for close to 4 years now but I remember the first time I got really interested in award winning films and I remember the Oscar season that I was interested in for the first time. It was 2008 and I remember watching a little bit of the Oscars and hearing so much about this movie called No Country for Old Men. Now that's a totally different story and a review for another time, but one of the movies I heard just as much acclaim for that year was There Will Be Blood.
I also can't say I've watched a lot of movies with Daniel Day Lewis, even though in many circles he is considered one of the best actors of our generation. There Will Be Blood has been on my Netflix list just because of all the critical acclaim and hype that I have heard about this film. I thought it was finally time to watch the film and figure out what all the fuss is about.
There Will Be Blood follows the story of Daniel Plainview (played by Daniel Day-Lewis) at the turn of the 20th century. Plainview is a silver miner in the beginning of the film but soon discovers the immense profitability in the oil drilling business and starts drilling for oil in several locations in the United States.
Plainview spends about a decade leasing land and drilling for oil making quite a profit but he has a bigger scheme in mind and that comes to him when a young man named Paul (played by Paul Dano) comes to him with an offer of a plot of land that would be perfect for him to drill in. Daniel takes this location as an opportunity to not only drill the oil from the land but to create a larger enterprise and set him and his son (played by Dillion Freasier) up for the rest of their lives.
The rest of the film is the enterprise and the lengths that Plainview will go to see his oil empire go and he will go to any lengths. But at the end of it, when he has everything he wants but he's sacrificed everything, is he fulfilled. The entire movie is basically a rags to riches story with Daniel Plainview as a character study of someone who would do anything to get his fortune and fame.
Paul Dano also plays the twin brother of the man that tipped Plainview off of the land and that twin's name is Eli. Eli is a preacher at a church and is a bit of a religious fanatic. The movie is also a very interesting look into the extremes, Eli being a man of fanatic faith to the point of paranoia and Plainview being a man of fanatic self reliance to the point of paranoia. The film has some interesting view on faith and again, it ties into the rags to riches story that Plainview must go through to find his fortune.
Now the first thing to mention in this film is that this is the movie that Daniel Day-Lewis won an Oscar for Best Actor for in 2008. And yeah, it's a really good performance. I don't know for sure but this might actually be one of the first movies I've seen Daniel Day-Lewis in. I know it is probably the first one I've reviewed for sure. And yeah... it's pretty good.
I want to keep watching his films because a part of me wonders if the idea that he is this very talented actor comes from his performances or if they come from the fact he only does a film every 3 or 4 years and then just disappears for a time. I think the last film he did was Lincoln and that was in 2012. I think people are more drawn to rare commodities and a Daniel Day-Lewis performance is a commodity.
But theories aside, I was really drawn in by the character of Daniel Plainview. I would almost say they try and make his story Shakespearean in a way.
I once again find myself watching a movie about a character that in the traditional sense should not be the hero of the story. This film, Filth and Nightcrawler were all the films on my Netflix list that followed the story of the bad guy and I think that this one probably drew me in the most. Unlike Nightcrawler and Filth where I'm shown right off the bat that those characters were a little bit off or the shady type, There Will Be Blood's Daniel Plainview could instead be seen as a tragic figure who just wanted success and isn't necessarily doing bad things for the sake of doing bad things, but instead is doing them because he believes he's doing the right thing. I know it's not that simple for films like Filth and Nightcrawler, but I immediately understood Plainview's situation and his callousness and "bad guy" features are more for personal gain for him and his son.
Speaking of which, I thought the relationship between Plainview and his son was fantastic. There's this really fun dynamic between them and you really do see it as a family business with HG Plainview as an almost equal partner.
And that makes it all the more tragic when events in the movie unfold and that relationship is strained. There's a part in the film where HG just isn't around and I actually thought this was a wasted opportunity because there could have been so much more about him and his son that would have made this story even more interesting. But the way that it went down worked out well enough and this is seriously the best relationship in the film.
And the second best is the dynamic between Plainview and Eli Sunday.
Like Day-Lewis, I also haven't been exposed to a lot of Paul Dano's work and the stuff I have I really don't remember him in the film, like 12 Years A Slave, I really don't remember him being in that film.
But Dano is in this one and he creates an interesting rival to Plainview in this film. I already mentioned some of it with the relationship of faith and human independence but I really enjoyed Dano in this film. At first I didn't think much of the plain looking creepy guy played by Dano but while you're not supposed to really like Plainview if you're a moral person, you are REALLY not supposed to like Eli Sunday.
Now here's the thing. It's probably been about 12 hours since I've watched this film and my initial thought was that it was not really a movie for me but I understand why people thought it was good and why it was nominated for Best Picture in 2008. Since then, I've been able to sleep on it and recognize some more good things about the film.
However... I still come to the conclusion 12 hours later that this is a slow as molasses movie.
Holy crap it's just a long drawl of a film. I legitimately needed to piece it up in parts because I could really not watch it in one sitting. I used to do this with a lot of movies, especially longer ones, but I feel like I've been getting better and keeping my ass in the seat while I watch a film. There Will Be Blood might set me back in that progress because this is a long, kind of boring movie at times.
Now, it was a lot more interesting than I originally thought a movie about oil drilling at the beginning of the 20th century would be like. I originally thought this movie was going to be boring as shit. And hey, at least it's not like Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy where I couldn't get through the first 15 minutes of it!
But I feel like you need to be hopped up on caffeine before you watch this movie because it is a slow one. Since watching this movie I have figured out that people put this movie at the top of their list of films from 2007 and some put it in their Top lists of favorite movies of all time. That I do not understand.
I do understand that it is a well made movie. Daniel Day-Lewis's character is a great anti-hero and the themes of a rags to riches story really hasn't been done this well in a long time. But I feel like a lot of the movie is more pompous huff and puff.
The strongest part of the film is of course Daniel Day-Lewis's performance and yes, this is a really interesting character study. But if someone asked me if they needed to watch There Will Be Blood, I would say watch it if you want, but it's not anything you're going to regret not watching at the end of your life.
I put this movie on my list because of all the hype and acclaim this movie garnered in 2007. I didn't go out and see it in 2007 and if I hadn't heard so much about it, I probably wouldn't have gone out and watched it now. Again, I understand that it is a well made movie and there are some really great elements of the film that are the source of it's acclaim, but personally, I probably won't watch it again and I won't say you absolutely need to see it.
But hey! At the end of the day, if you watch this film, you will actually know the joke behind the line, "I DRINK YOUR MILKSHAKE", which I will not lie... was half the reason I wanted to watch this film.
But those are my thoughts on There Will Be Blood. Am I totally out of wack? Is this a modern day classic and I just don't recognize that? What did you think of it? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @cmhaugen24 as well as send me your requests for films I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter, you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.
I'll leave you with this. Here's a video of Daniel Day-Lewis and his thoughts on his method of acting. Only time and a couple other movies will prove to me if he's actually one of the most talented actors out there or just very, VERY selective. But we will see. Enjoy!
When I was younger, I would go and spend time at my grandparents house and the thing I loved to do was watch their collection of movies. Now for some reason, my grandparents never had the classic Disney films and if they did, I didn't watch them because those were films I could watch at home. There was one movie that I always used to watch that I could never watch at home and that was the animated version of The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe.
I would actually love to go out and find this movie on DVD because I have such fond memories of watching this movie over and over and over again. Looking at some of the Google images, I've realized that the animation probably wasn't that great, but it was the first introduction I had to the world of C.S. Lewis before I was able to actually read.
Fast forward to 2005, I was a little bit older and Lord of the Rings had recently finished it's trilogy. I talked about this in my review of King Arthur, but around this time, every movie was trying to recreate the lightning in a bottle that was the Lord of the Rings trilogy and unfortunately, that was a little bit of the case with The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe. However, in 2005 I was over the top excited for this movie.
The Chronicles of Narnia (I'm not going to type out The Lion The Witch and the Wardrobe because it is a long title) follows the story of four young children in the midst of World War 2. They are sent to the country like many British children were to get them away from the bombing raids and these kids find themselves in the custody of an aloof professor (played by Jim Broadbent).
These children are Peter the oldest (played by William Moseley) Susan (played by Anna Popplewell), Edmund (played by Skander Keynes) and Lucy, the youngest (played by Georgie Henley).
The children are trying to get along while being away from home and they eventually find an enchanted wardrobe that leads them into a totally new world called Narnia. Lucy is the first one to find it and of course initially they don't believe her.
Eventually though, they all find their way into this magical world and they discover that it is being ruled by an evil sorceress called The White Witch (played by Tilda Swinton).
At first they stay in the world out of necessity and the need to make sure that everyone gets home safely, but eventually they figure out they are fulfilling a prophecy to end the reign of the White Witch and bring forth the coming of Jesus... I mean Aslan the Lion (voiced by Liam Neeson).
So the first thing to point out in this film is that C.S. Lewis was a very strong Christian and a lot of the Narnia series pulls a lot of inspiration from the Bible. That's not to say that this movie is preachy or even a religious film, but there are a lot of Biblical analogies and they're really hard to miss.
The other thing to point out is that while Disney I think was trying to create their own Lord of the Rings franchise, this is not any kind of substitute for Lord of the Rings. Narnia and Lord of the Rings were such different stories told by two very talented and very different authors. At the end of this film there is a giant battle that is very Lord of The Rings based, but the story of The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe was never meant to be a fantasy epic, it was more of a small children's story. The better comparison would be to compare this to The Hobbit (not the movies) because that was more the Tolkien story that was just a child's story, and not a huge fantasy story. I think when I watched this movie back in 2005, I, like a lot of people, was hoping for a fantasy epic and that's why I think the movie didn't do as well. It spawned a sequel but it was never something Disney was fully invested in I think, especially when the sequel didn't do as well.
But it is more of a kid friendly adventure and you get a lot of creative ideas. People think Tolkien was the king of fantasy novels back in the day (and don't get me wrong he is) but I think people sometimes forget how much of a creative genius C.S. Lewis was.
Two of the creatures they run across are talking Beavers. Yeah, a lot of the creatures they run across are your typical fantasy creatures like Centaurs and minotaurs but they're all together and I have to give the movie credit, there are a lot of cool creature creations and CGI done in this film. Watching it 11 years later in 2016 might make the CGI look a little bit dated at times, but re-watching this film made me realize that a lot of time and effort was put into this film and it wasn't just a Lord of the Rings rip off.
This is definitely a difficult story to adapt because it is such an out there concept and not a lot of it makes sense.
For example, Lucy goes into the wardrobe and the first thing she sees is a gas lamppost and a faun (played by James McEvoy before he was really popular). There's not really rhyme or reason to the things that exist in Narnia but because it's more of a children's story, you're not really supposed to question it. Recently, we've gotten so entrenched in the politics of fantasy worlds like Game of Thrones and Lord of the Rings that it's nice to go a little bit more into the traditional story telling where not everything needs to have a backstory or a whole culture and language behind it.
Now I'm sure that there is those elements in the Narnia series, but the story of The Lion, The Witch, and the Wardrobe is more of a fairy tale than a fantasy epic and if you go into it with that mindset, it's a lot more fun.
I go back and forth with the performances of the kids in this film. Because on one hand they are kids
and they are going through this adventure that like I just said, isn't supposed to be taken so seriously that you're asking questions like why is Peter put in charge of an Army when there's a centaur right there who probably has more military experience than this young boy.
But at the same time, if you're watching this as an adult, you kind of are asking those questions. And while Disney does a pretty good job at containing this to a fairy tale, I have to go back to the time this movie came out and that they wanted to have that Lord of the Rings appeal.
If I am bringing up Lord of the Rings too much, it's because that was probably the biggest elephant in the room when this movie was being made and that's the one downside of this film. I had forgotten that Disney made this film and in retrospect, I do see the time and care that was put into this film, but I also know the context of when this movie was released and what they were trying to do simutaneously.
But the kids!
They give good performances overall. Again, they're put in an awkward scenario but they do a good job. I think the issues I have with them are more how they are written and the personal development they go through.
For example, you've got the character of Peter.
When I was a kid, I of course wanted to be Peter because he was the leader and the one with the cool sword. And I even noticed in the viewing I had that there was a story kind of in the background that Peter had, especially in the beginning when he sees a Soldier going off to war about his age and he's going off to be safe in the country.
Unfortunately, that's never really addressed in the movie because it was never really addressed in the book. It's a good thing to think about but they never really address it and make Peter an interesting character. Now again, this is a fairy tale so Peter ending up as King of Narnia is more something you'd have to suspend disbelief for. And going back to the cartoon that I watched as a kid, I never questioned that. But the difficulty of a live action remake of this is that you see the emotion and naiveness of these characters and your suspension of disbelief comes into question, especially if you're my age.
But I do have to pull back and remember that this is a kids movie. A kids movie that is a fairy tale. And when you accept that in this film, it actually works really well. Just don't think about it too hard like I probably did.
So overall, I thought the kids gave good performances and they make for good heroes in a children's film. I don't think it's the best performance given by children in a film like this, but it's serviceable enough to have a good time and watch them go on this adventure.
Can we all just recognize the brilliance of Liam Neeson as Aslan?
Of all the iconic characters that Liam Neeson has played, I think Aslan kind of gets put on the back burner but it's a great role for Neeson and it makes so much sense!
I never really realized until this viewing that Aslan doesn't actually do a lot in this story. But the part I love is how much suspense is built up to meeting Aslan. That was always something really great about reading the book and watching the animated cartoon was the hype built up for Aslan. And fortunately, this movie gives the same suspense and gravitas to a character and having Neeson do the voice is a great bonus.
Now when the movie came out I didn't know who Tilda Swinton was. It's funny because since this movie came out, this is the first Tilda Swinton role I always think of. Maybe it's because this was the first role I ever saw her in, but it could also be from her performance.
Tilda Swinton is pretty freaky as the White Witch. Swinton has this ability to be a sort of chameleon and really morph into the characters she portrays and looking back on the films I have seen her in, especially this year like Trainwreck and Doctor Strange I'm figuring out that Swinton is actually a really underrated actress.
Now I've been talking a lot about this movie and it's relationship with Lord of the Rings and that's because at the end of the film there is a huge battle that is definitely the biggest sign of Disney trying to draw in that same crowd and get the people excited for an epic.
Now one of the things that hampered this movie from either going full Lord of the Rings rip off was the rating. Again, this is a kids film and like I've said, Disney did put work into making a kids film. But when it came to the big battle scene to try and bring in those Lord of the Rings fans, all you get is a PG battle.
But what I will say, especially on a second viewing is that the scale of this film is actually really well done and the battle, while it is pretty tame, especially compared to other epic battles, it's about as well done as it could have been.
I do know that this battle isn't something that they just threw in, it does happen in the book so don't get me wrong and think they just threw it in to try and recreate LOTR. Overall, the battle is done creatively and given as much leeway as it could get for a children's fairy tale.
And that's my overall thought for this entire movie. I have a little bit of a bias because I have such a soft spot for this particular story. Regardless of any of the gripes I have with the movie, I love the story of The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe and watching this movie has made me want to go back and read the book just to relive the story from my childhood. The important part of this movie is that you have to remember it's just a children's story.
I would actually love to see this franchise rebooted and attempted again 11 years later. This would allow the movie to be freed from the expectations I think a lot of people had for it and just make a fun fantasy adventure children's story.
I don't know if that's ever going to be a thing or if that's even a good idea, but who knows? Maybe in a couple years we might see this franchise revitalized and given time and effort past the first film.
But for what this movie is, it's a fine movie. It doesn't go down as one of my all time favorites due to my opinion that it doesn't totally nail the source material down precisely, but if you haven't heard the story of The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe, this is definitely a good version to check out and you won't be disappointed.
But those are my thoughts on The Chronicles of Narnia: The Lion, The Witch, and The Wardrobe. What did you think? Did you ever watch the original cartoon? Do you think this version adapts a book that is already very difficult to adapt? Comment and Discuss below! You can also send me your thoughts on Twitter @cmhaugen24 as well as send me your requests for films I should review in the future. If you follow me on Twitter you can get updates on future movie news and reviews coming out of this blog.
I'll leave you with this. So I found the entire cartoon version on YouTube! Depending on how much time I have in the next few weeks, you might see a review of this cartoon. But if you have time, check it out, it's actually a pretty good version. Enjoy!
