RSS Subscribe

Enter your email address:

Delivered by FeedBurner

Archives

LAMB #393

Large Association of Movie Blogs

1001 Movies Club

Grade Scale

  • A+: Never say never
  • A: A masterpiece
  • A-: A near-masterpiece
  • B+: Very good movie
  • B: Good movie but some minor flaws
  • B-: Pretty good but some flaws
  • C+: Slightly above average
  • C: Average
  • C-: Mediocre
  • D: Bad movie!!!
  • F: Atrocious, avoid at all cost!

1001 Movies: Se7en (1995)

David Fincher’s Se7en is a crime thriller that has become one of my favorite film of all-time. It initially appears as your typical run-of-the-mill serial killer movie but manages to go against all the viewer’s expectations. Fincher crafted an incredibly dark and bleak movie and the absolutely shocking final twist takes you aback like very few movies I have seen have ever managed to do. Since this movie has been released nearly 15 years ago, this review will contain important spoilers, I STRONGLY advise against reading beyond this point if you plan on seeing this movie.

As the film begins, we meet Detective William R. Somerset (Morgan Freeman), a disillusioned and burnt-out homicide detective who is set to retire within a week  and only wants to get as far away as possible from this gloomy and decaying city. Alongside Detective David Mills (Brad Pitt), a brash and cocky young police officer who is set to replace him, Somerset investigates a series of murders inspired by the seven deadly sins.

Structurally, Se7en is unlike most movies of its genre. We never witness the acts of violence, only their aftermaths. There is also only one single action scene, a thrilling chase sequence mid-way through the movie. On the other hand, Se7en is very heavy in terms of dialogue and character development and we spend a lot of time getting to know the 4 main characters. Finally, one of the first thing you will notice is the oppressive atmosphere. The interior scenes are almost unequivocally extremely dark, damp, and cramped. You can almost smell the stench of putrefaction. This was achieved thanks to the cinematography by Darius Khondji and the sets design by Arthur Max. They set a dark and gloomy atmosphere for most of the movie and the omnipresent rain on outdoor scenes only adds to that effect.

Fincher repeatedly plays with the viewer’s expectations. Somerset states at one point that John Doe is eventually going to make a mistake and that’s our expectation after having been conditioned by dozens of crime movies where the criminal ends up making a stupid mistake that leads to his own demise. However, in Se7en, John Doe is always in control from beginning to end. He surrenders himself to law enforcement but everything is still under his terms. He is given substantial amount of dialogue and we discover that he is not only a cunning and extremely intelligent individual but also extremely articulate and almost too convincing when trying to explain his”work”.

Morgan Freeman gives an outstanding subtle performance which elevates the performance of his co-stars. This is exactly the type of acting I’m talking about when I speak about conveying a character’s background without the viewer actually having to be told. We get to know Somerset’s life with very little dialogue and this is what makes Freeman a superb actor. We can see his personality evolve as he takes Mills under his wing after a relatively cold beginning to their relationship.  He begins as this cynic and tired cop who has seen too much over the years but the layers start to peel away as he interacts with the young Mills and more importantly Tracy, who reminds him of innocence he hadn’t witnessed in so long. Beautiful Gwyneth Paltrow, as Mills’ wife Tracy, provides the few rays of brightness and hopes amid the oppressively gloomy settings and I would have liked to see more of her character.

Brad Pitt gives a somewhat uneven and uni-dimensional performance (I’m harping here, he is fine). His character would have been more likable, had he been infused with another layer of complexity beyond the all-brawn personality he displays for most of the movie. Finally, Kevin Spacey embodies the personality of the most dangerous people on Earth, fanatical individuals with nothing to lose and nothing to gain. Here, he is simply pitch-perfect, giving John Doe an aura of mellow and collected detachment that is incredibly creepy.

A masterpiece of the 90’s, Se7en is an oppressively dark and grisly crime thriller that has aged very well, so far.

A

Notes: Rated R for grisly after-views of horrific and bizarre killings, and for strong language. 127 minutes.

VN:F [1.8.5_1061]
Don't forget to vote! What did YOU think about the movie?
Rating: 9.6/10 (7 votes cast)

Sherlock Holmes (2009): OMG BFF ROFL!!

Let’s get it straight right away: Sherlock Holmes, directed by Guy Ritchie, is  quite a riot and one of the most entertaining movie of the year. To be honest, I was quite mortified when I learned that Guy Ritchie ended up at the helm of the movie. Ritchie had been misfiring badly since the awesome Snatch all the way back in 2000 after all. Here, he gives us a movie which suffers from a sloppy screenplay and overbearing editing but is action packed, gorgeous looking and quite funny.

Synopsis: Just fresh off capturing and witnessing the hanging of Lord Blackwood (Mark Strong), an occult serial killer, Sherlock Holmes (Robert Downey Jr.) and Dr. Watson (Jude Law) are stunned to hear rumors that he has resurrected back from the dead and resumed his killing spree. To complicate matters, Watson is planning to get married to pretty Mary Marstan (Kelly Reilly) and move out of good old 221b Baker Street to Holmes great despair. Holmes, hilariously resolved not to let that happen, attempts to sabotage his friend’s proposal while hunting down Lord Blackwood. Holmes perks up considerably though when his tempestuous old love interest, the fetching Irene Adler (Rachel McAdams) pops back in town for some mysterious business.

Some “purists”, who should probably re-read Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, will complain that the movie is not true to Sherlock Holmes’ essence. However, it is made clear in the written stories that he is a martial art expert and an avid boxer (“The Adventure Of The Empty House“). Why would a man who often puts himself in danger not come into some physical confrontation at one point or another and you know… use his fighting skills? Next, it is often described that Holmes tends to come alive when his mind is kept busy with enigmas but he tends toward depression when his mind idles. Watson is his closest friend so it would not be so far fetched for Holmes to disapprove of Watson’s impending marriage for his own well-being. Guy Ritchie only attempts to break the old preconceptions of the characters while staying faithful to the material, which is actually highly open for interpretation. People have this preconceived image of this stern detective in a deerstalker hat, smoking a pipe, and saying “Elementary, my dear Watson” (which he never does in the novels by the way). I’m glad Ritchie gave a modern face-lift to the character because the original work itself is extremely conducive to a successful movie franchise and would bring a new generation of people to get interested in Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s work.

Many things are already assumed as the movie begins, keeping Ritchie from having to  go through a laborious introduction of every single aspects of  Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s work. The best thing going for Sherlock Holmes is the lively homo-erotic relationship between the eccentric Holmes and the proper Watson. The two have been best of friends and been cohabiting for the longest of time. Hence, the upcoming proposal by Watson to Mary Marstan throws a big wrench into that idyllic picture in Holmes’ mind. The casting of the lead roles was simply perfect. It was daring for Guy Ritchie to cast an American actor to play a quintessential British figure and the charismatic Robert Downey Jr doesn’t disappoint: An articulate and quick-witted performer, he is one of the few actors who can play an eccentric genius convincingly. His Sherlock Holmes is unkempt, arrogant, socially awkward and has his vulnerabilities especially his feelings toward Watson and Irene. Holmes is also street-wise, larger than life, and a genius badass altogether. Jude Law gives a strong performance, holding his own opposite Downey. Without Watson, there is no Sherlock Holmes and this describes their relationship in the movie as well. Watson is  not pictured here as some inferior acolyte like in most previous interpretations. He is a smart and tough cookie, an Afghan war veteran who knows how to take care of himself. Downey and Law obviously had great fun shooting the movie and it shows. Together, they have excellent chemistry and absolutely nail the hilarious and constant cat fights they have over anything and everything.

The near-total focus on Holmes and Watson hurts the supporting cast who tends to get lost in Ritchie’s frenzied excess. Nevertheless, the always reliable Eddie Marsan is perfectly cast as Scotland Yard’s hapless inspector Lestrade. Lestrade is rigid and does everything by the book which puts him at odds with Holmes unconventional methods. Lord Blackwood presents an intriguing case because of the arcane and supernatural aura of his character which challenges Holmes’ rigorously scientific mind. British actor Mark Strong showcases another solid job as the character in a role that could easily have been one dimensional. Strong has a deep booming voice which makes him ideal for bad guy’s role and it helps him here to turn his thinly written character into a somewhat worthy adversary.

The first victims in action movies, when it comes to cutting scenes, are usually the women and Guy Ritchie does the ladies no favors with terribly underdeveloped roles for the Irene Adler and Mary Marstan characters. Their story line could have been more compelling if they didn’t disappear for large chunks of the movie at a time. In the stories, it is made clear that Holmes has no interest or respect whatsoever for women except for his weird admiration for Irene Adler, the only woman to ever outwit him fair and square (“A Scandal in Bohemia“). She is here reinvented as an American adventuress with a personal agenda who randomly pops in and out of the movie and it is obvious from the trailer that several of her scenes were left on the cutting room floor to keep the movie at a reasonable duration. Her motives are kept mysterious throughout the movie but it is implied she is being used by some powerful man (guess who?) who is obviously the real bad guy. Aside from looking delicious, poor Rachel McAdams is completely wasted in a thankless supporting role but finds the resource to rise above her lady-in-distress part. She blends her femininity with guile, feisty mischief, and some affecting vulnerability but ultimately isn’t given much of anything to do!!! (Yes, I want to smash my screen with the keyboard). This may be a trick to expand on her character organically in the sequel but it’s not a good one at all!!!! In the meanwhile, the lovely Kelly Reilly is just as underused and given little to work with. Thankfully, she manages to give a spirited turn as Watson’s love interest in a nondescript role.

It’s true that Guy Ritchie has always been more about style than substance and this doesn’t change here as the movie starts with an eye-opening action sequence. Ritchie and his writers, however, were patient and smart enough to stay true to the original material. Sherlock Holmes’ fans will notice the numerous nods to Sir Arthur Conan Doyle’s material such as Holmes’ prized picture of Irene he stole in “A Scandal in Bohemia” or the references to Holmes’ defining traits and past experiences. The action unravels at a frenzied pace and are a nearly unrelenting mix of action and chase sequences. Much like in Snatch, the action scene progressively ramp up and when you think that you can’t possibly go higher, Ritchie tops it off with an even more extravagant sequence. In terms of solving the mysteries, Ritchie also avoids the laborious dialogues that have become so cliche and uses nifty visual flashbacks instead to great effect. At the end of the day though, it is the lively banter between Downey, Law and McAdams that keeps Sherlock Holmes together and the movie tends to slow down dramatically when Holmes is by himself.

The intermittently sagging and overlong screenplay, written by an army of scribes (ok, more like 4), doesn’t take anything seriously which makes it tough for the viewer to believe that the main characters are ever in serious harm’s way. The plot is easily the weakest part of the movie and felt overly intricate and yet too simplistic for a Sherlock Holmes story. You know what? It’s all right if everyone has no idea what’s going on as long as it unravels neatly because it’s the same way with the written stories. Please don’t dumb it down to the level of a 4th grader. On a good note, the screenwriter did a nice job of setting up the next movie by leaving some parts of the plot open-ended. The movie has a feel reminiscent of Batman Begins in that it’s only a stepping stone to establish the main trio, a couple side characters and the world they live in.

Wait a minute…

The weakness in the plot are somewhat compensated thanks to award-worthy production values. The movie was shot in and around London and its Victorian recreation has a brilliant Gothic feel with the city shown as a slimy, filthy, and murky place. The action sequences are well shot and the climactic scene above the Thames River is a highlight. The costumes and period sets are so painstakingly detailed that they merit a mention. Sherlock Holmes’ costumes are rumpled and bohemian looking to emphasize his lack of personal care. On the other hand, Watson’s clothes are neat and very proper to reflect his military background and his discipline. Irene’s dresses and suits are particularly colorful and detailed to highlight a woman ahead of her time, living on the edge of the law and straddling the line between love and distrust in her relationship with Holmes. The sets were carefully built and if you only take your eyes out of the action for a minute, you will notice the incredible details in the background which contribute to create a breathing, living world. On a final note, the musical score by Hans Zimmer is original, ostentatious, strangely memorable and completes the action on the screen well. I would almost call it a work of genius.

Despite significant screenplay flaws, Sherlock Holmes is a fluffy but entertaining action-oriented interpretation of the beloved characters which will please its targeted 15-30 male-based audience. Robert Downey Jr. and Jude Law form one of the most entertaining action duo in recent memory and give the audience a nice Christmas gift. Has a new franchise begun? Elementary, my dear Watson!

B+

Notes: PG-13 for intense sequences of violence and action, some startling images and a scene of suggestive material. 128 minutes.

Related Links: Sherlock Holmes Basics (Yes, I thought of you)

VN:F [1.8.5_1061]
Don't forget to vote! What did YOU think about the movie?
Rating: 8.2/10 (10 votes cast)

Movie Review: Public Enemies (2009)

public-enemies

Michael Mann is one of my favorite directors of all-time as you can see in my favorite movies list. His latest movie, Public Enemies stars two powerhouses in Johnny Depp and Christian Bale in a gangster movie set in the 1930’s. Depp plays John Dillinger, a notorious bank robber who lives openly in Chicago with little fear of being apprehended and is deeply in love with Billie Frechette (Marion Cottilard). His crime spree gets the attention of FBI director J. Edgar Hoover (Billy Crudup) who appoints Melvin Purvis (Bale) as the head of the Chicago office with the main objective of catching Dillinger dead or alive. Purvis soon finds out the reality on the ground of hunting a skilled criminal while Dillinger is seeing his prospects dim as the snare tightens.

The movie has some of your usual Michael Mann quirks such as the intense, fluid and gritty action scenes, interlaced with the notorious quiet and slow-building sequences. As expected, Public Enemies is well written, well directed and well acted. The performances from Johnny Depp and Christian Bale as well as the supporting cast are top notch. Depp gives an effortless and charismatic interpretation of John Dillinger, a character driven by the excitement and ease of robbing banks for a living as well as his romantic involvement with Billie Frechette. Bale gives Purvis his trademark intensity which is almost too predictable but it works… It would be nice to see Christian Bale actually having fun with his character instead of his robotic ultra-intense acting which does get tiresome after a while. Marion Cottilard gives a feisty and steely performance as Frechette but unfortunately, her characters doesn’t get enough screen time after the halfpoint of the movie.The action scenes are excellent with most notably a firefight in a pitch dark forest which we are somehow able to follow. Let’s face it, it’s always a treat to watch a recreation of gunfights during this fascinating era of American history.

public-enemies-bale-1

The main problem with Public Enemies is that it never really fully grabs the viewer emotionally and lacks that “it” factor that allows movies to take it to the next level. You would expect the movie to analyze John Dillinger but Mann backs away from a character study and the characters never really develop beyond their appearances. Dillinger is portrayed as some sort of populist Robin Hood, which could be argued, but we never get to really see why. He feels that his moment in the sun is about to be over but he never considers retiring before it’s too late. His associates die one by one but we never grew any kind of attachment to them. The romance between Dillinger and Frechette could have been used as the main driver for the movie but it is not. We also do not get a feel for the hardship of the depression era. In all, the movie lacks a compelling emotional driver.

Public Enemies is a technical feast as you would expect from Michael Mann and the compelling performances from Bale and Depp make the movie interesting enough. Nevertheless, Public Enemies feels too superficial and is somewhat lacking in terms of enjoyment and emotional intrigue.

B

Notes: R-rated for violence and language. 140 minutes

VN:F [1.8.5_1061]
Don't forget to vote! What did YOU think about the movie?
Rating: 6.5/10 (4 votes cast)

Movie Review: Snatch (2000)

Directed by Guy Ritchie, Snatch is a low-budget movie that has attracted a fairly significant cult following since its release in January 2001. Featuring a large ensemble cast including Jason Statham, Brad Pitt, Benicio Del Toro, Vinnie Jones, and Dennis Farina, the movie has a convoluted and twisted story that is pretty difficult to summarize so I won’t even try but let’s just say there is a massive 84-carat diamond in the mix which is supposed to be passed from a robber (Del Toro) to a middle-man (Mike Reid) to a New York gangster (Farina) but every Russian, American and British gangsters in London know about it and are vying for it. Add to that a parallel story of fixed boxing matches and a boxer (Pitt) with a wildly unpredictable behavior.

snatch

Snatch is absolutely piss-your-pants hilarious with sharp dialogue, stylish direction and dark comedy. Add to that brilliant editing and a solid musical soundtrack and the movie got most of it right already. Sure, it might be a little too over-the-top for some but Guy Ritchie doesn’t look back and keeps the momentum going into a brilliant climactic sequence while juggling the various plot-lines and the dozen characters with flair. The characters all have distinct and funny names like Brick Top, Gorgeous George, Bullet Tooth Tony or Franky Four Fingers. The acting is outstanding with Brad Pitt giving, perhaps, the best performance of his career as the unpredictable Mickey. He nailed the hilarious and unintelligible accent and it doesn’t sound forced at all while his boxing scenes are top-notch. Best of all, he was also able to play the serious parts just as convincingly. We also get solid performances from the rest of the cast, most notably Dennis Farina, Vinnie Jones and Alan Ford. Finally, I’m not one to laugh at dog comedy but the dog was hilarious! “The dog is squeaking!”

On a negative note, the movie is definitely not for everyone given the wildly convoluted narrative which can be confusing to some. You also get your usual Guy Ritchie music video sequences throughout the movie but I didn’t felt they were heavy-handed. It could be said that the movie tries to be as flashy as possible to make up for what it lacks in substance and it is probably true but so what? That was the point of the movie. I also felt the movie could have used more vibrant colors instead of the darker colors it was shot in as Snatch is just really gray.

Snatch is a chaotic, wildly twisted, and outrageously hilarious movie. Love it or leave it!

B+

Notes: R-rated, 102 minutes

VN:F [1.8.5_1061]
Don't forget to vote! What did YOU think about the movie?
Rating: 9.3/10 (3 votes cast)

Movie Review: American Gangster (2007)

Directed by Ridley Scott, American Gangster is a treat. Blessed with an outstanding performance from its cast all the way around and a believable rich atmosphere, the movie is inspired from the real life of Harlem Kingpin Frank Lucas. Recommended
B+
VN:F [1.8.5_1061]
Don't forget to vote! What did YOU think about the movie?
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Movie Review: No Country for Old Men (2007)

This movie left me completely speechless. I guess I’m not going to say anything except

WOW!

Maybe someday, I will recover from it and actually post a review…

EDIT: A-

VN:F [1.8.5_1061]
Don't forget to vote! What did YOU think about the movie?
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)

Movie Review: Gone Baby Gone (2007)

Fresh off my mind, I can say that this movie was simply outstanding. The movie plunges you in its own dark atmosphere and makes you think what you would do given the same dilemma. The cast is exceptional with old-timer such as Morgan Freeman and Ed Harris to go with the fledging Casey Affleck. Acting wise, the highlights were Amy Ryan, the pitiful low-life “mother” of the kidnapped girl. I swear I would have punched her if I met her in real life, that how good of a job she did) and the always excellent Ed Harris, a police detective. They even accumulated more ugly weird-looking people I have ever seen to realistically enact the degenerate population of Boston. Given the settings, profanities fly on a constant basis. The plot is well constructed although slightly confusing as we get farther into the conspiracy. Surprisingly, the end is NOT what the audience wants although we know it was bound to happen. Gone Baby Gone is one of those rare Hollywood movies that is morally complex and intellectually engaging.

A-: Well-constructed, great cinematography, terrific atmosphere, excellent casting, Gone Baby Gone gives its audience a real moral dilemma. Overall Ben Affleck may already be a better director than an actor.

VN:F [1.8.5_1061]
Don't forget to vote! What did YOU think about the movie?
Rating: 0.0/10 (0 votes cast)