First time watching this.
Now I shall wait for you to stop hurling abuse at me, please begin reading the review when you have recovered your composure.
Set in the 1800s at the beginning of the American Civil War, Gone with the Wind follows the young, selfish daughter of a plantation owner in the South and her turmoil love interest in two men: a married man and a handsome rogue.
So there's one reason and one reason only that I hadn't actually seen this film before. It is four hours long. I know, I know: "Cinema Cocoa you've surely watched the Lord of the Rings Extended cuts multiple times by now!" but actually you'd be wrong, I've only watched each of them once.
It is also a romance epic, generally not a genre I tend to watch in my free time, especially when it requires a third of my day.
Apparently this is a troubled time to watch Gone with the Wind. Despite it making $1.6 billion in ticket sales (adjusted for inflation) upon release and being regarded as one of cinema's most crowning achievements, winning eight Academy Awards, there has been some recent dispute about the film, to the point of it needing to be banned. This came about the same time as recent debates over the representation of the Confederate flag...
There are some extreme views against Gone with the Wind as pro-slavery, what with its point of view glamorising and even (at times) humourising the upper class society found on the plantations.
Indeed, watching Gone with the Wind after the production of such films as 12 Years a Slave or even Django Unchained. It can feel quite... uncomfortable.
But I don't want to read too far into it; this controversy is completely unnecessary in my eyes. Audiences should appreciate that regardless of which side of a war, there are still people; and the film represents people suffering in events outside of their control.
Plus, I gotta say, if the character of Scarlett (Vivien Leigh) is supposed to be our heroine... let's just say the film isn't being kind in its representation of our "protagonists". Scarlett is completely insufferable!
The first act of Gone with the Wind (a film that is edited as a theatre production, with intermissions, an Overture and Exit Music) is aggravating and painful to sympathise with. Scarlett is prancing around, flirting with every man in the myriad of parties ignorant of other women's feelings, being a complete egomaniac born from luxury and riches. But as this act went on, I realised that I was supposed to feel this way towards her, and during the second act when the war begins and her life is broken, it was fully realised.
Perhaps my favourite aspect of this film was Clark Gable as Rhett Butler, the outsider who is completely aware of how lost and selfish Scarlett is, more than she knows herself, and who slowly becomes obsessed with her. He has this quizzical expression for every situation that befalls Scarlett, a shoulder-shrugging amusement at her inner plight that sarcastically screams: "Well, you deserve it".
It is a wonderfully shot and acted film with almost every scene in four hours of footage being beautifully composed and lit. It is sometimes hard to fathom the scale of it, such as when you see a massive wooden building burn to the ground, or a near endless field of dying men. No smoke or mirrors, no effects, just real film-making of the time.
Like a lot of drama epics, I found myself floundering towards the end. I guess after so much carnage and loss I felt beaten over the head by it all, and yet one character (yes, I am trying to not spoil a film that is seventy-five years old) apparently not feeling the same, and not learning anything! It was hard to comprehend and quite infuriating.
But again, perhaps that was the point.
It is hard to generalise such a huge film, and I am sorry that I must. It did not feel as laborious as I was dreading it would be; it is a packed film and keeps its pacing well, it never feels too much or too little in terms of content or drive. It has great performances, great music and great visuals and remains a classic piece of cinema regardless of (or perhaps more so with) its mildly controversial perspective.
The important thing is, I do feel bad having not watched it until now. It may not be my "type" of film, but I appreciate it now more than ever.
An intensely bleak and frank look at five soldiers lives within the confines of a tank at the final moments of World War Two, Fury doesn't pull its punches and proves to be one solid war movie.
Brad Pitt heads the story as tank "Fury's" captain Don Collier during the conclusion of World War 2 and the allied forces merciless push deep into enemy territory in Germany. With the enemy more fraught and zealous than ever, Allied forces are being cut down in what is an exhausted, pointless phase of the war. His tank crew are one of the few survivors on the spearhead.
The film begins with one of their five man crew killed in action and a greenhorn rookie is recruited in to take his place. This recruit is little more than a typist, played by a fresh-faced Logan Lerman, and given the task of co-driver, so you can see immediately where our character development comes from. Lerman's character Norman is the audience surrogate and introduces us to not only the bleak reality around him but also how aggressively inhuman his crewmates have become over the months of war.
The acting here is superb. Director David Ayer apparently drove his actors hard here and you can see it. Pitt's recent career has been debatable but he is great here! Transformers star Shia LeBeouf is playing a very downplayed character role here, which is also impressive; he works well as one of the tank crew veterans.
The action and tank battles are also excellent; the film works in plenty of quiet and morose moments to exaggerate the moments of carnage in comparison. Most of Fury is quiet, bleak and consuming to watch, but the action is intense and fantastic to see. Tanks aren't often shown so completely in movies, and Fury shows quite how vulnerable humans are both outside and inside the vehicle! Whenever someone so much as pops their head out of the vehicle you start wincing, fearing some sudden shot will kill them at any moment!
It is a very effective character piece and a solid portrayal of wartime artillery in the guise of Hollywood action. It does suffer from fairly predictable story elements and progression, like I said, our surrogate is a rookie surrounded by veterans, and while you might not be surprised by the time the film ends, you should be moved enough by the acting on show that it more than makes up for these short comings.
I recommend it, it isn't rife with American propaganda, in fact it muddies what is right and what is wrong as war time so often does very well. Setting the story near the end of the war gives you a real vibe of how senseless and wasteful events truly became.
I didn't like my original review for Gareth Edwards' Godzilla, it is too much of a rant for my tastes, so I took the time to watch the film again. It really has been 2014's most divisive film yet and I wanted to be sure of my original opinion (You can't say I'm not fair!) But, despite a bit more forgiveness this time, I still find it to be a poorly executed film.
Is there need for a synopsis again?
Doctor Serizawa (Ken Watanabe) has been following an ancient parasitic organism and tracked it down to a nuclear plant explosion in Japan. He finds one of the physicists there to have information he needs on the creature (known as a MUTO) but as the creature hatches and causes global destruction, Serizawa believes the military is not enough... and that an equally ancient creature is their only hope...
Now I'd like to stress, first and foremost (and despite my first ranting review) this is not a bad film, it is simply very easy and very necessary to view the many problems it has. I like the film's audacity: in a time were big monster/robot movies are light or popcorn munching flicks (Transformers, Pacific Rim etc) this Godzilla attempts to merge what is a very rich legacy of films. On the one hand, we have the original 1954 film, for its time it is an edgy, morose and compelling blockbuster, but on the other hand we have the ridiculous and often laughed at monster battle movies that Toho Studios are famous for.
Here, Gareth Edwards appears to be wanting both. An atmospheric, realistic (and almost philosophical) monster battle movie. We don't just get Godzilla, we have other monsters for him to fight, as well as human interests to follow! That is a big ask, for a film just two hours long, and I do respect the attempt.
The film looks great; there are some proper moments that are very cool and give a great sense of awe and enormity (Godzilla is staggeringly huge in this rendition) the marine "halo jump" scene is an intense sequence. I like the monsters as well, both traditional and new. The music too, upon the second viewing, is great! Going from low, trembling fear to bombastic chaos in a heartbeat. Ken Watanabe is also good in the film, giving a sense of origin to this otherwise all-American story.
But... (and it is a big, Godzilla-sized but) the storytelling, premise, motivations and character arcs are absolute garbage.
I honestly have trouble understanding people saying this has better character motivation and emotion than say the aforementioned Pacific Rim or Transformers. This film is choked with some of the most unnecessary cliches of any typical blockbuster. "Oh no, mass destruction of a major city, BUT WILL THE DOG SURVIVE!?"
There are some terrible oversights in logic also, making the military depicted appear completely incapable of rational thought, while the characters themselves work off an asinine script (something Gareth Edwards "claim to fame" Monsters also suffered from, a terrible script) All of this makes the human subplot, or should I say main plot, appear confused and redundant.
Ugh, to stop a rant from developing again I will move on.
Bryan Cranston from Breaking Bad features heavily in the film's trailers, yet his part has almost zero bearing on the film's story. Don't believe me? Watch it again. You could cut him out from the story completely. He should have been the focus of the film; he gave the most impassioned performance, but no, we follow instead his son, Aaron Taylor-Johnson's Ford, a cardboard soldier who is forever under the feet of these monsters regardless of which country he's in. I know Aaron Taylor can act, I liked Kick-Ass, but here both the script (and mostly likely the director) gave him nothing to work with.
A cynic could say, and I do, that Bryan Cranston's involvement was merely to boost ticket sales.
It is a difficult film to like; I can see a lot of it working (a sequel as a lot of potential for improvement) but it becomes so frustrating over time and two hours starts to stretch on for eternity. The monster fights climax wonderfully, but with literally one hundred minutes of build up, either of teeth-grindingly tedious character fluff, or continuously teasing grand battles with merciless edits and cut-aways (dare I say this is as bad as Cloverfield) the entire experience becomes a frustrating endurance.
I don't see why we needed a first act that is nearly pointless. Cranston's character could have been cut and replaced with more of Ken Watanabe's character giving Godzilla (you know, the titular character!) an actual backstory. We have an audience who believes the Roland Emmerich 1998 Godzilla is "the original"! That is blasphemous; Japan and Toho actively distance themselves from that film. This was the opportunity to tell western audiences about Godzilla... and the film fails to do that.
Additional Marshmallows: That's a whole half-cup of cocoa more than the first review's rating, how come!? That half-cup is basically for the soundtrack, which I hadn't appreciated until much later.
I hope this review proves to be more... constructive than the first "rant" review. Incidentally the first review will remain available on this blog!
Like some overzealous knee-jerk reaction to the campy, indulgent movie disaster Gozilla '98, director Gareth Edwards brings us one of the most infuriatingly tedious and disappointing monster movies since his own Monsters in 2010.
An organism as old as the dinosaurs has grown into monstrous size and devastates a nuclear reactor in Japan. Fifteen years later scientist Ichiro Serizawa (Ken Watanabe) teams up with a nuclear physicist who lost his wife in the attack on Japan, both uncover a monstrous egg which soon hatches. The insect-like creature craves radioactive material, and while the military struggle to stop its global tirade Serizawa believes a more ancient power, known only as Gojira, can stop it.
On paper, this sounds amazing. In the trailers, it looks amazing. In director Gareth Edwards' execution....... it feels like all of the worst cliche elements of blockbuster films combined into a laborious slog.
To get the best bits out of the way first because its easier, the film has great photography. The atmosphere is intimidating, almost everything is shown from ground level to give a sense of scale, shots are well framed, I like the monster designs. Those parts of the trailer, the halo-jump and the monster? Those are great! (shame you've already seen those in the trailer...)
Literally beyond the shots in the trailer, there is little, little else. Let's start by saying this is not a remake of 1954's Gojira (and no it is not a sequel to the 1998 film!) it is its own creation. Godzilla himself is an existing creature of Japanese legend, Doctor Serizawa perked my interest at first, but there is no connection to the 1954 film; it is just a name drop.
Now onto the major problems. We are here to see Godzilla aren't we. Well, tough. All those bits in the trailer? Yeah, that's your lot, near enough. The entire film is centred around our human characters Aaron-Taylor Johnson's Ford Brody, an army bomb disposal expert and Watanabe's Dr. Serizawa, weighed heavily towards Ford and his army colleagues as they struggle to deal with the giant monsters.
Enter a lot of hoo-hah; military focused action where the monsters aren't even involved. The film dedicates entire sequences to securing a bridge to cross, or arming a bomb, or pushing a boat out from a pier! No monsters! What's worse, this military seems to ignore logic as much as they did in the 98 film, I kid you not! The new monsters (not Godzilla) emit an EMP field, all electronics die immediately within a wide proximity. By the finale of the film the military are STILL sending aircraft into the area! What happens? Buildings are destroyed as fighter planes crash into them. No s*** Sherlock!
And that's only the tip of the iceberg of nonsense this film pulls. For a giant, lumbering and surprisingly fat Godzilla he sure can sneak up on people! Scenes are constantly set up for suspense, even after the monsters are revealed to be towering colossals. No, you can't and shouldn't be playing the suspense card over and over in a kaiju movie, it doesn't work!
Not convinced yet? Here's the real issue. While we are forever chained to our human characters and their distinctly unorthadox melodramas ("I need to get on that train to get back to my family!" He then instead continues to take train so he can face off with the monsters and a nuclear bomb) the film deprives us of seeing the monsters! In a monster movie, in a Godzilla movie, we hardly see them battling until the last ten minutes; the film shyly cuts away whenever a battle begins! Not once, not even twice but several times, all for the sake of following humans as they run away.
WHAT?
I've gone on a lot, but this film's apparent reluctance to show the monsters was infuriating, making its two hour runtime feel like an eternity. This needed some of Pacific Rim's spectacle, some of Michael Bay's frenzy (yes, I just said that) some logic from its human characters to make their cause even remotely important!
There was so much promise in the trailer, there was promise at the start of the film, but no, you'll find your suspension of anticipation worn out with melodrama and a endless line of teasing! If you aren't asleep by the end, you will probably be smirking as the film missteps and trips over its own feet.
So ask me, go on: Is it worse than the 1998 film??
I'll be honest, there are things that even that pile of nonsense does better but, I prefer this film for its atmosphere and its (misguided) respect for the original material.
Oh, and a life tip: When giant monsters attack and your husband is right in the middle of it, you should leave your phone in the other room so you can't hear it when he calls. If you think you should hold onto it for dear life and pray he isn't dead, you'd be wrong.
Additional Marshmallows: You might be wondering, "Cocoa, you didn't mention Breaking Bad's Bryan Cranston at all!? What's wrong with you?"
There's a reason for that. Don't get too invested in his character. That's all I'll say...
*trying to not think about that song by the Fugees*
Compared to the vast majority of films released these days, Killing Them Softly is a straight-forward, no nonsense and short film; there aren't any twists, no over the top gun battles, screaming or shouting.
The film shows three down-and-out young criminals steal money from the Mob and an mercenary hitman is hired to restore the ensuing financial turmoil.
Set in 2008, recession-struck America, the film is bleakly shot and casually paced. Director Andrew Dominik (famous for another American orientated feature: The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, a film I am ashamed to say I found long and tedious) does his best to shoot this bleak, loveless world with artistry, and it is short enough to not outstay its welcome.
But there is one thing that bothers me, and that is the film's intense political angle. Regardless of the metaphors and allegories one could read into the characters and their actions, the film's relatively narrow focus on localized crime stupidity is juxtaposed with archive footage of George W. Bush and Barack Obama making speeches. Brad Pitt's business-orientated hitman pessimistically snapping at what he hears, as it turns out all mobsters and local bars watch political speeches 24/7.
The film's casual nature and dark setting does wonders for the gun action when it happens. The shooting is what it is; short, blunt, unforgiving and horrific. There is one set piece were the director uses slow-motion beautifully. Rather randomly, all things considered, but wonderfully executed in this day and age where slow-mo is abused without end.
If you like traditional, no frills crime thrillers, you can do worse (and if you are looking for a cynical, pessimistic view on American politics, you'll love it!) I can't say it riveted me, the political sledge-hammering was far too blaring, but watching it doesn't feel wasteful either.
In 1980 a top secret operation was carried out by the CIA to rescue civilians from a revolutionary movement in Iran. The story was declassified only recently, and Argo tells the principle story of how one man's unlikely plan was the only option.
The film's title Argo, is the title of a science fiction film script that was never put into production yet was the linchpin of the CIA operation. Tony Mendez (Ben Afleck) would go to Iran, find the six American Embassy workers in hiding, and give them safe passage out of the country under the guise of the film's production executives.
Putting aside the film's obvious credibility as an eye-opening true story, it is a solid piece of film making to boot! I can't say I've been bothered about Afleck's struggling career as director and actor (The Town was sorely lacking) but with Argo he appears to be maturing and gives this serious historical account an honest telling. It isn't Hollywood or glamorous; it is shot extremely well, using a lot of retro set design and costume design, as well as - presumably - television footage from the original News coverage.
Bonus points for Afleck's rather silent protagonist. If you don't like his acting, he has given himself the least to do. While Tony Mendez has family and he is risking his life, Afleck's mood throughout the film is delivered with stony stares and control (he has to though; the character is leading six paranoid strangers on a wild, dangerous mission). It is clear they did a precise job casting each of the characters involved, very good doppelgangers... except for Afleck.
It is a grim affair to be sure, we see Iran in a state of conflicted identity and merciless prejudice, yet the film does have moments of relaxation, after all, they are pretending to shoot a fake science fiction movie! Enter John Goodman as John Chambers (real life film make-up artist legend, who had worked on Planet of the Apes and Star Trek, and before that making prosthetics for war veterans) who gives some great tasteful comedy relief.
It is an intense ride towards the end; the last twenty minutes are fraught with paranoia and fearful glances as the group try to escape. (The film made me think of a contemporary The Great Escape) It has great pacing, its two hour run time flies by.
It is an insightful and intense thriller, and isn't just Afleck's best effort but also an excellent film in general.
