Lawless [2012]

Lawless is a 2012 drama movie about the lives of three brothers (Jack, Howard and Forrest) who fight to survive and keep their business afloat in the prohibition era. John Hillcoat directed a Nick Cave script based on a book written by Matt Bondurant.

One of the most anticipated movies of this fall, Lawless features an ensemble cast with big names like Tom Hardy, Jessica Chastain, Shia LaBeouf, Gary Oldman and Guy Pearce, and promises a hell of a ride, not only by looking at the names involved, but also by checking out the synopsis and possible outcome. Many say it's a gangster movie; it is set in the prohibition era, when liquor was hard to find and distribute, and there are a lot guns and violence used. Actually, when it's violent, it's fucking violent- a lot of force and strength, hard hitting punches and blood-heavy moments. Some scenes are unsettling to watch and this kind of violence affects you more than the usual guns firing or horror movie killings. The story follows the Bondurant brothers of Franklin, Virginia, who were one of the very few people who didn't give in into the pressure of the petty thugs and protected their business with all costs during those hard times. Guy Pearce, as Charlie Rakes, is the classic monster, villain and all around bad guy, giving probably the standout performance of the film, while Gary Oldman, as Mafia man Floyd Banner, kicks ass and proves his ability from the start, giving a very believable gangster performance in under 1 minute; he has a surprising change in character development, but is underused. Maybe that's where the problem lies with this film - the little flaws of the script that are not visible immediately, but that ultimately affect the overall opinion of it: underdeveloped characters, unbelievable stories and lines, and so on.

Otherwise, Lawless is pretty wonderful to watch. It has beautiful cinematography, it's well directed and the soundtrack is appropriate to the action. The sets and costumes are very good and it has the right feel of the era. As for the casting, there was little to no fault to it, although I had my doubts with Shia LaBeouf, mainly because I just find him to be quite annoying. By the end, he proved me wrong, in most scenes, but then again, I don't think he had a challenging part to play. The two best performances definitely come from Guy Pearce and Tom Hardy. The first one, as the wild, control-freak, obsessed, dirty police force, proves to the world, yet again, his immense talent, and I am pretty sure we will definitely see him around the awards ceremonies this year for his Supporting Role. Tom Hardy is probably one of the best and the most underrated actors of our time and his performance in Lawless just enforces this opinion- he plays the grumpy, distant, no-emotions Forrest in an amazing way, demanding attention and respect for his courage, unwillingness to surrender and loyalty. Other big names are, unfortunately, underused, and that was a shame- Gary Oldman barely had 10 minutes on screen, and the two leading ladies, Chastain and Wasikowsa, could have had more developed and complex characters to base their performances on, but still, they did a good job.

In the end, you will leave the cinema thinking "That was a very good movie", but not being too impressed by it. I liked it and I suggest you should see, but don't go in with high expectations- somehow, somewhere, it doesn't quite deliver its promises all the way.

The Dark Knight Rises [2012]

Before going in to see the film, I didn't read the reviews or the spoilers- I didn't knew who was the villain (except Bane) or the character reveal at the end; all I remember was reading a tweet that said the film had a lot of plot holes. Besides that, nothing, so I went into the theatre with normal expectations, trying to have a clean view on it.

Ladies and gentlemen, sorry to say, but I was not that impressed. Yes, it's a very good action movie, with great visual effects and fight scenes, grand, magnificent and brave, but it didn't do it for me. It didn't have Dark Knight's tight, intriguing and slightly crazy storyline, or Heath Ledger's complex character type, it didn't help people connect with the characters; moreover, the movie seemed to try too hard in achieving greatness and darkness at times, some plot holes were too obvious and I honestly didn't understand half of the things Bane said. It still has the Batman/Nolan magic, but it's not better or more exciting than the first two.

I love, for most of it, Nolan's direction and vision. I understand where he is going and I appreciate and admire his ways, but sometimes it was too much (Bane taking over the city and all his speeches). He creates epic movies, with many subtleties that are surely missed at the first view (I remember seeing Inception for the second time and understanding so much more then); on one hand, it plants a doubt or an intrigue on your brain and you remember it, but on the other hand you leave the theatre unsatisfied and that leads to a not so stellar opinion overall. If I would have to classify his movies, I would put Dark Knight and Inception above TDKR, if not others, too.

See, that was my problem- this need for an epic finale of the Batman trilogy, with huge action scenes, and end-of-the-world speeches and moments, felt sometimes too fake and over the top...and this is where the plot holes come in. Struggling for almost a year to get of the worst prison in the world, Bruce Wayne climbs to the top, and without any money, passport, transport, he arrives safe and sound and with clothes in the most protected, craziest and secluded place in the world. Should I even mention the fact that if a bomb would really explode in the middle of the ocean or bay, it would probably trigger a tsunami so strong that could wipe out a city? And how did he have time to get out of there in time? Also, when did he have time to write his will leaving all of the buildings he previously lost AND indications for a specific character before being forced into the pit? I'm sure there are more and more important than this one, but I'll leave it at that.

Before I continue, I know most of you are probably rolling their eyes right now, saying "Come on, it's an action movie/blockbuster/different world, why is it so important?"- it isn't and I probably wouldn't have noticed or mention it, if it wasn't for the fact that overall, the movie failed to impress or excite me. You could argue that Avengers had a worse script or bigger plot holes, yes, but that movie had me on the edge of my seat, entertained and excited for most of the time.

But, you see, there are some amazing details in The Dark Knight Rises that need to be talked about. Firstly, the splendid Hans Zimmer score, who was perfectly chilling and powerful for the story. Secondly, the visually beautiful cinematography, from the close ups or wide shots, to the dark tone of the film. Thirdly, the fantastic casting: I love Michael Caine- his sweet, wise, caring and noble personality, and most especially, his last scenes, as they were, probably, the only moments where my emotions got to me (and, of course,the goodbye scene). Christian Bale, mister Batman himself, continued his line of great performances by delivering a suffering, dark and lonesome Batman. Tom Hardy's was good, but that's the thing- he didn't actually stand out in any way, which is probably ok, since his character is just a toy of the main villain, just a man fighting someone else's war, because of love. Anne Hathway was a lovely surprise and I really liked her portrayal of Catwoman, and Marion Cotillard was stunning as usual- got to say, I was not expecting that twist at the end. As for Joseph Gordon-Levitt, well, yet again, nothing out of the ordinary until the last scenes, were I was, once more, taken back by the reveal. My friends seem to think we will definitely have a continuation because of that, do you think so, too?

I admit, the last part was pretty amazing and I loved all the character revelations, the way Nolan tied up loose ends by giving Alfred his dream ending and so on.

To sum things up, The Dark Knight Rises is a fantastic summer blockbuster that fails to connect in some places. Wonderfully made and full of action and power, but doesn't reach its maximum potential, as it clogs in a sea of details, characters, storylines and a need for epic proportions. If I really had to rate it (something that I never do, as you must have noticed), I would give it a 3.5, maybe 4, out of 5. That's still good, right?

The Ten: Best Actors of All Time Relay

Nostra from the very entertaining blog myfilmviews.com started a great series/blogathon called "The Ten: Best Actors of All Time Relay". The idea is

 I’ve created a list of what I think are the best actors. At the end I, just like in a real relay race, hand over the baton to another blogger who will write his own post. The blogger will have to remove one actor (that is an obligation) and add his own choice and describe why he/she did this. At the end the blogger chooses another blogger to do the same. The idea is to make this a long race, so that each blogger gets a chance to remove and add an actor. We will end up with a list (not ranked in order) which represents a common agreement of the best actors.

The Previous Entries:

• My Film Views
• The Focused Filmographer
• Front Room Cinema
• I Love That Film
• FlixChatter
• All Eyes On Screen
• Time Well Spent
• The Warning Sign
• moviesandsongs365
• And So It Begins…
• cinematic corner.
• Andy Buckle’s Film Emporium
• Duke and the Movies
• Southern Vision
• Defiant Success
• Cinematic Paradox
• Encore Entertainment
• Okinawa Assault
• Amiresque
• Flickers 

The actors

Humphrey Bogart

Marlon Brando

Daniel-Day Lewis

Robert De Niro

Ralph Fiennes

Paul Newman

Jack Nicholson

Richard Burton

Peter Sellers

Jeff Bridges

After mulling over the top ten, I have decided to remove Peter Sellers just for the slightly embarrassing reason of not seeing a lot of his work. 


OUT                                                                           

When I was asked to add my pick, I had 4 or 5 choices that stuck into my head for a couple of days: Gary Oldman, Anthony Hopkins, Dustin Hoffman, Al Pacino, Viggo Mortensen. I settled on one- I may change my mind and decide I was wrong, but it would be too late by then. So I have decided to go with 


IN                                                 

Gary Oldman is my choice for one simple reason: DIVERSITY. The man has been everything from Sid Vicious (Sid and Nancy-1986), to an Irish American Gangster (State of Grace- 1990), Lee Harvey Oswald in JFK (1991), to Dracula (1992) and had the part of the dreaded villain more than once in his lifetime (Leon, The Fifth Element, Air Force One). Now he is known and loved for portraying universally loved characters such as Sirius Black in the Harry Potter film series, James Gordon in Christopher Nolan's Batman trilogy, and George Smiley in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (2011). Only one Oscar nomination under his belt, but I think you all agree that it is too little for this man. Diversity for me is one of the crucial things that an actor should have in order to survive and stand out from the rest of the film world and I believe Gary Oldman proves it in the roles he chooses. Oh, and he is damn fine at what he does. If he weren't, he wouldn't be here, right? 

I hope you agree! I'm always rooting for the underdog, so here is one for your list :)

I now officially pass the torch to the lovely Ruth from "...let's be splendid about this"

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy [2011]

Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy (from now on called TTSS) is a classic British spy thriller set in the 1970s. It has all the right elements: bleak atmosphere, silent, monotonous characters, grey colours, cigarettes and secrets. A lot of secrets, well-hidden and carefully guarded.

George Smiley, played by Gary Oldman, is forced back from his retirement, to find out who the mole in the Circus is. Alongside Peter (Benedict Cumberbatch) and Mendel (Roger Lloyd-Pack, who I immediately recognized from Harry Potter), they start the search inside the "company", rulling out one by one.

Now, as I said, it can be a rather dull movie for some- for me, it was the first part, but right around the middle, or even before that, when Tom Hardy comes back into the picture and talks about his long lost Russian love and Cumberbatch steals information, I am sucked into the story and guess what? I am starting to enjoy myself- the plot thickens, the characters get more shadier, the secrets start pouring over, the music ascends....and in the end, we get our mole, all wrapped up with a bow. I have to admit it wasn't perfect and there are some loose ends, but overall, for a spy thriller, it was pretty damn good- well executed, great performances, fantastic sets and costumes and an interesting premise.

Acting-wise, you can never go wrong with Brits- they always seem to be on point. Colin Firth offers a swift change and a shocking turn in actions, Tom Hardy is convincing as a spy who falls in love with a Russian diplomate and tries to save her (I am starting to like him, I didn't before) and Toby Jones got my attention, he always surprises me. As for Benedict Cumberbatch- what can I say? This is was the first time I have ever seen him in a movie, and I actually loved him- although he has such a weird appeareance, not very attractive to say so, he is still very charming and has an appeal some work on for years; it's effortless, just like his performance.

Last, but not least, Gary Oldman- the man, the legend. I usually consider the wild, unpredictable, maniac performances to be the best, as they are rare to find in the real world, but mister Oldman proved me wrong tonight. He showed not only me, but everyone, that control is sometimes ten times harder to perform then a wild act. He played Smiley with such restraint and calm, that I do believe he deserves a lot more attention for this part that he is given now.

Overall, I think TTSS is a good movie and you should see it, if you have the chance! Brits rarely mess up and they didn't this time, either! Enjoy!