While there's nothing I'd like to see less than a bunch of testosterone filled jocks hugging each other, Superbowl did not disappoint when it came to upcoming movies. Yes most were jumped up toy movies but that didn't take away the fact that most of them looked fun on the bun.
Lets start with the bad though...
Angels and Demons looks to be as long and boring as The Da Vinchi Code. I hope the film isn't too bad as it would cap off a great year for Ron Howard whose Frost/Nixon was pretty damn good.
Fast and Furious looks like it has a lot of teen masturbation imagery going for it (hot girls, Vin Diesel, fast motors) but now the franchise seems to have gone so far over the top that it misses the cheesy point break charm that made the original memorable (to me at least).
But the good....
Transformers: Revenge of the fallen looks set to be the robot movie to see. It's 30 sec T.V spot makes the film far more interesting to see than the whole trailer of T4. For me the first movie seemed to be a uneven mixture of fanboy nostalgia, story elements ripped off from Independence Day and action which varied from brilliant to blocky. ROTF however looks set to sort some of that shit out. Just one thing Mr Bay....please can we have a story this time? I'm sick of Micheal Bay movies that have 30 mins of story and plot within a 2 hour plus movie.
G.I. Joe: Rise of the cobra I was never a G.I Joe fan although I did have one 1985 manual once. The action in the T.V spot....looks pretty slick in my view although the film looks very likely to suck balls in the plot and acting department (looks like well known actors sleepwalking though lines again.
I'm now really looking forward to Star Trek. I've never given a shit about the program or films before until now. It looks like it could be a blast. (fuck the fanboys)
My favorite however will have to be UP by Disney Pixer....I have never seen a Pixer film that disappoints me and this looks to be business as usual.
Plus can someone tell me whats going on with Simon Pegg on the Star Trek trailer web page? seriously.....he looks fucking weird.
Tuesday, 3 February 2009
Sunday, 25 January 2009
Review: Frost/Nixon
Year: 2008
Director: Ron Howard
Screenplay: Peter Morgan
Starring: Micheal Sheen. Frank Langella, Sam Rockwell, Oliver Platt, Kevin Bacon
So I got up today feeling like crap. I didn't sleep properly, it was raining outside, I missed the end of Sunday Supplement due to the girlfriend wishing to watch Buffy instead (she hates football, it's a tragedy) and apart from Sunday lunch, I didn't have nothing to look forward to. My Girlfriend suggest going to the cinema but I really couldn't be arsed, reason being? It's January and it's difficult to get into the mood to go to the cinema when the choice of movie seemed to fall into three categories: Depressing, Seen it, Nazis. I could be be up for a depressing Nazi movie tomorrow, but today nothing was biting.
I knew I wasn't going to get out of this so I asked my girlfriend to pick the movie. She picks Frost/Nixon. "It seemed the best out of a bad bunch." I thought to myself. Considering the material the film was based on, I couldn't see this being a "happy" film. So off to the cinema we go and after my other half yelling at traffic we manage to park up, get our ticket and go into the movie. After two hours my mood was relieved, reason being? Frost/Nixon was bloody brilliant.
The film is a fictionalized account of the build up and filming of the infamous interviews between Frost and Nixon. Despite being fictionalized, Howard does his best to blur the lines between the fact and fabrication and delivers a tense drama which shows how much television has affected politics. Also despite historical inaccuracies Howard delivers a film which helped me "discover" more about these two men. I knew them by name but I honestly didn't know very much about the interviews and lets be honest I feel there's a lot of people my age that probably don't. I personally feel my generation can be very ignorant when it comes to aspects of history, myself included. It's a testament to the filmmakers that after I watched Frost/Nixon i wished to know more about the scandal and the interviews. In face I wanted to read up more about Nixon than the film, so while the film isn't historically correct, it is insightful enough for viewers to become more interested in political history so they can search for the information themselves.
Credit must go to screenwriter Peter Morgan who once again delivers characters full of complexity and depth. None of the characters are strictly black and white, just shades of gray. He wants us as an audience to make up our mind. Did Frost "win"? was Nixon truly as sinister and devious as he was made out to be?
The beauty of the drama lies within the screenplay displaying every person as flawed human beings. At one moment we see Nixon as a political powerhouse, his presence and stature is almost regal. The more we see of him as the film goes on the more the vulnerability appears. We see the cracks in the veneer as we see the hints of guilt eating away at him. Frost on the other hand is full of charm and grins a man of much talk and very little action. The early stages of the film show a true David/Goliath mismatch as Frost first comes across as a car salesman more than a hard hitting presenter.
The script shows us the type of people both used for the interviews; Frost has a team filled with rabble rousers and a long suffering producer, while Nixon has a trusty team of right wing yes men. By the end of the first act I really wondered "is this the guy who does breakfast with frost?". Nixon looks like he could batter Frost away with a hand wave. How the script sets up the two titular characters make the outcome even more entertaining and with that said the script does not disappoint as the film takes hold with a vice grip and never releases the tension until the credits.
Ok ok babbling now. But I loved the screenplay. The only thing I liked better? The cast. Micheal Sheen and Frank Langella don't play the roles as charactures. They fully embody what made the men at the time. Sheen plays Frost as slickly as possible, full of cheeky grins and knowing winks. What makes him so watchable is the lack of knowledge about what he's taking on. It's this ignorance that makes Sheen so watchable in the later stages when he falls upon a moment of luck and seizes on it like a jackal. Langella makes sure his Nixon isn't all big cheeks and sweat and locks into a nobility that makes him extremely watchable. Howard does a great service of bringing some of the best working character actors for the support. Kevin Bacon puts in a solid effort as Jack Brennan it's a role so good that you could swear he was a Republican (if he is then brownie points taken away). I haven't seen Oliver Platt so good in a movie for ages while Rockwell is his reliable self again despite needing more to do in the movie. Kudos must also go to Matthew Macfadyen as Frost long suffering producer John Birt, his interaction with Sheen is brilliant.
Howard directs the film with a nail biting tension in nearly very scene but keeps the films pace swift throughout. I'm not the biggest fan of his films, so to see him bring out such an engrossing drama like this (haven't seen Apollo 13 yet i know, shame on me!) is great. Especially as his film before that was the dreary Di Vinci Code. He also (with the help of the screenplay) humanizes Nixon to a great extent, which to me is a great thing. In softening the former president, not only he makes him more accessible but also helps remind the audience that not only this President was a man but also one that wasn't all bad. We see the good as well as the bad in Nixon and while I don't condone what he did...I left the film with a larger amount of respect for him. Nixon was hated but compared to the one who just left...well the less said the better.
My review for Frost/Nixon is over long, rambling and muddled..however the film is not and it's entertaining to boot. Go see it.
Director: Ron Howard
Screenplay: Peter Morgan
Starring: Micheal Sheen. Frank Langella, Sam Rockwell, Oliver Platt, Kevin Bacon
So I got up today feeling like crap. I didn't sleep properly, it was raining outside, I missed the end of Sunday Supplement due to the girlfriend wishing to watch Buffy instead (she hates football, it's a tragedy) and apart from Sunday lunch, I didn't have nothing to look forward to. My Girlfriend suggest going to the cinema but I really couldn't be arsed, reason being? It's January and it's difficult to get into the mood to go to the cinema when the choice of movie seemed to fall into three categories: Depressing, Seen it, Nazis. I could be be up for a depressing Nazi movie tomorrow, but today nothing was biting.
I knew I wasn't going to get out of this so I asked my girlfriend to pick the movie. She picks Frost/Nixon. "It seemed the best out of a bad bunch." I thought to myself. Considering the material the film was based on, I couldn't see this being a "happy" film. So off to the cinema we go and after my other half yelling at traffic we manage to park up, get our ticket and go into the movie. After two hours my mood was relieved, reason being? Frost/Nixon was bloody brilliant.
The film is a fictionalized account of the build up and filming of the infamous interviews between Frost and Nixon. Despite being fictionalized, Howard does his best to blur the lines between the fact and fabrication and delivers a tense drama which shows how much television has affected politics. Also despite historical inaccuracies Howard delivers a film which helped me "discover" more about these two men. I knew them by name but I honestly didn't know very much about the interviews and lets be honest I feel there's a lot of people my age that probably don't. I personally feel my generation can be very ignorant when it comes to aspects of history, myself included. It's a testament to the filmmakers that after I watched Frost/Nixon i wished to know more about the scandal and the interviews. In face I wanted to read up more about Nixon than the film, so while the film isn't historically correct, it is insightful enough for viewers to become more interested in political history so they can search for the information themselves.
Credit must go to screenwriter Peter Morgan who once again delivers characters full of complexity and depth. None of the characters are strictly black and white, just shades of gray. He wants us as an audience to make up our mind. Did Frost "win"? was Nixon truly as sinister and devious as he was made out to be?
The beauty of the drama lies within the screenplay displaying every person as flawed human beings. At one moment we see Nixon as a political powerhouse, his presence and stature is almost regal. The more we see of him as the film goes on the more the vulnerability appears. We see the cracks in the veneer as we see the hints of guilt eating away at him. Frost on the other hand is full of charm and grins a man of much talk and very little action. The early stages of the film show a true David/Goliath mismatch as Frost first comes across as a car salesman more than a hard hitting presenter.
The script shows us the type of people both used for the interviews; Frost has a team filled with rabble rousers and a long suffering producer, while Nixon has a trusty team of right wing yes men. By the end of the first act I really wondered "is this the guy who does breakfast with frost?". Nixon looks like he could batter Frost away with a hand wave. How the script sets up the two titular characters make the outcome even more entertaining and with that said the script does not disappoint as the film takes hold with a vice grip and never releases the tension until the credits.
Ok ok babbling now. But I loved the screenplay. The only thing I liked better? The cast. Micheal Sheen and Frank Langella don't play the roles as charactures. They fully embody what made the men at the time. Sheen plays Frost as slickly as possible, full of cheeky grins and knowing winks. What makes him so watchable is the lack of knowledge about what he's taking on. It's this ignorance that makes Sheen so watchable in the later stages when he falls upon a moment of luck and seizes on it like a jackal. Langella makes sure his Nixon isn't all big cheeks and sweat and locks into a nobility that makes him extremely watchable. Howard does a great service of bringing some of the best working character actors for the support. Kevin Bacon puts in a solid effort as Jack Brennan it's a role so good that you could swear he was a Republican (if he is then brownie points taken away). I haven't seen Oliver Platt so good in a movie for ages while Rockwell is his reliable self again despite needing more to do in the movie. Kudos must also go to Matthew Macfadyen as Frost long suffering producer John Birt, his interaction with Sheen is brilliant.
Howard directs the film with a nail biting tension in nearly very scene but keeps the films pace swift throughout. I'm not the biggest fan of his films, so to see him bring out such an engrossing drama like this (haven't seen Apollo 13 yet i know, shame on me!) is great. Especially as his film before that was the dreary Di Vinci Code. He also (with the help of the screenplay) humanizes Nixon to a great extent, which to me is a great thing. In softening the former president, not only he makes him more accessible but also helps remind the audience that not only this President was a man but also one that wasn't all bad. We see the good as well as the bad in Nixon and while I don't condone what he did...I left the film with a larger amount of respect for him. Nixon was hated but compared to the one who just left...well the less said the better.
My review for Frost/Nixon is over long, rambling and muddled..however the film is not and it's entertaining to boot. Go see it.
Thursday, 22 January 2009
Review: Bride Wars
Year: 2009
Director: Gary Winick
Screenplay: Greg DePaul, Casey Wilson, June Diane Raphael
Starring: Kate Hudson, Anne Hathaway
Plot: Two best friends become rivals when they schedule their respective weddings on the same day
Jean-Luc Godard on cinema: Truth twenty-four times a second. He really wasn't talking about a film like Bride Wars. A film which condescends to it's main audience that when it comes to the customs of marriage. Love doesn't matter, The men certainly don't matter, all that matters is the big day for the Bride, that's it. The filmmakers pretty much boil everything down to the bride looking perfect. This wouldn't be too much of a problem if the "comic" material used within the film is weaker than a third rate sitcom.
I know this film wasn't "made" for me but I dislike the idea that if I'm dragged out to watch a Rom-Com then i really don't want to see shallow, materialistic, bitchy women whose only purpose in life is to wear a white dress. I'm sick of women in powerful occupations (Kate Hudson's character is a lawyer) turn into dibbling mess as soon as a sight of a ring appears. I'm sick of the idea of marriage being dragged into the mud and generally being an all round joke. I'm also sick of Hollywood Rom-Com's giving off a unreachable "perfect" vision of Romance. With Divorce rate finally lowering, do you think it's a good idea showing these ridiculous visions of relationships? I may be going over the top with this but with the amount of people bitching and whining about the amount of sex and violence in movies i feel i can rant about this. Seriously, it's not just violent films that cause people to lose it.
Ok so I'm over reacting. But Bride Wars really is a jumped up T.V movie with A-list actors. I would forgive the unoriginality and cliche if it wasn't for the fact that Bride Wars isn't funny. If you've seen the trailer, not only have you seen all the comic set pieces within 2 and a half minutes, but if you didn't laugh then....it's every unlikely you'll laugh at the full thing. Jokes are constantly falling by the wayside (seriously not even titters from the audience at times) due to the lack of bite within the writing and most of all the lack of comic timing portrayed by the two leads. Both are extremely attractive and can put butts on seats, but they aren't aren't funny. I could be if they had ok material but unfortunately no.
I may be considered a slight hypocrite yes but there's a reason why Four Weddings and a Funeral made a shitload while this will be forgotten in an instant. And please...when am I going to see Kate Hudson in a kick ass role again? it's been 8 years.
Director: Gary Winick
Screenplay: Greg DePaul, Casey Wilson, June Diane Raphael
Starring: Kate Hudson, Anne Hathaway
Plot: Two best friends become rivals when they schedule their respective weddings on the same day
Jean-Luc Godard on cinema: Truth twenty-four times a second. He really wasn't talking about a film like Bride Wars. A film which condescends to it's main audience that when it comes to the customs of marriage. Love doesn't matter, The men certainly don't matter, all that matters is the big day for the Bride, that's it. The filmmakers pretty much boil everything down to the bride looking perfect. This wouldn't be too much of a problem if the "comic" material used within the film is weaker than a third rate sitcom.
I know this film wasn't "made" for me but I dislike the idea that if I'm dragged out to watch a Rom-Com then i really don't want to see shallow, materialistic, bitchy women whose only purpose in life is to wear a white dress. I'm sick of women in powerful occupations (Kate Hudson's character is a lawyer) turn into dibbling mess as soon as a sight of a ring appears. I'm sick of the idea of marriage being dragged into the mud and generally being an all round joke. I'm also sick of Hollywood Rom-Com's giving off a unreachable "perfect" vision of Romance. With Divorce rate finally lowering, do you think it's a good idea showing these ridiculous visions of relationships? I may be going over the top with this but with the amount of people bitching and whining about the amount of sex and violence in movies i feel i can rant about this. Seriously, it's not just violent films that cause people to lose it.
Ok so I'm over reacting. But Bride Wars really is a jumped up T.V movie with A-list actors. I would forgive the unoriginality and cliche if it wasn't for the fact that Bride Wars isn't funny. If you've seen the trailer, not only have you seen all the comic set pieces within 2 and a half minutes, but if you didn't laugh then....it's every unlikely you'll laugh at the full thing. Jokes are constantly falling by the wayside (seriously not even titters from the audience at times) due to the lack of bite within the writing and most of all the lack of comic timing portrayed by the two leads. Both are extremely attractive and can put butts on seats, but they aren't aren't funny. I could be if they had ok material but unfortunately no.
I may be considered a slight hypocrite yes but there's a reason why Four Weddings and a Funeral made a shitload while this will be forgotten in an instant. And please...when am I going to see Kate Hudson in a kick ass role again? it's been 8 years.
Oscar Nominations are out....
So the Oscar Nominations are out and once again they do not surprise me. Many would have wished for The Dark Knight to win an award but please guys seriously, the academy hates fan boys. It was never going to happen. And so it shouldn't!
Why? Because the snubbed films are usually remembered more than the ones that win. Chicago, A Beautiful Mind, Ordinary People anyone? Remember them? People still argue more now about Pulp Fiction being the most definitive film of the 90's than Forrest Gump that film that oust it in 94. So to be fair I'm happier a film like The Dark Knight will be remembered more by it's record breaking audience than the stuffy academy.
I am happy however that Slumdog Millionaire has got a best picture nod. I remember coming out of an advanced screening and stating to a work colleague. I loved it, but no way is it getting anywhere near an Oscar. Sometimes it's nice to be wrong.
Because life sucks, we're only just getting a lot of the Nominated films in just now, and I will probably spend a lot of the next few weeks watching them to be up to date. However after seeing he Wrestler I hope Rourke blows everyone out of the water and claims the best actor award and right now until I see more I'm backing Slumdog for pretty much every thing else!
One thing though....I have seen Revolutionary Road (Review coming soon) and I'm not sure if I want Micheal Shannon to win Best Supporting Actor for his excellent turn as the troubled John Givings. While Ledger is probably favorite (and superb) in his role as the Joker, Shannon gives a brilliantly nuanced performance that made a dreary film worth watching (and he's only in two scenes!).
Well only time will tell and of course every film wanker will complain that the film/actor they wanted to win was robbed but lets hope that the whole event is a good one all together.
Why? Because the snubbed films are usually remembered more than the ones that win. Chicago, A Beautiful Mind, Ordinary People anyone? Remember them? People still argue more now about Pulp Fiction being the most definitive film of the 90's than Forrest Gump that film that oust it in 94. So to be fair I'm happier a film like The Dark Knight will be remembered more by it's record breaking audience than the stuffy academy.
I am happy however that Slumdog Millionaire has got a best picture nod. I remember coming out of an advanced screening and stating to a work colleague. I loved it, but no way is it getting anywhere near an Oscar. Sometimes it's nice to be wrong.
Because life sucks, we're only just getting a lot of the Nominated films in just now, and I will probably spend a lot of the next few weeks watching them to be up to date. However after seeing he Wrestler I hope Rourke blows everyone out of the water and claims the best actor award and right now until I see more I'm backing Slumdog for pretty much every thing else!
One thing though....I have seen Revolutionary Road (Review coming soon) and I'm not sure if I want Micheal Shannon to win Best Supporting Actor for his excellent turn as the troubled John Givings. While Ledger is probably favorite (and superb) in his role as the Joker, Shannon gives a brilliantly nuanced performance that made a dreary film worth watching (and he's only in two scenes!).
Well only time will tell and of course every film wanker will complain that the film/actor they wanted to win was robbed but lets hope that the whole event is a good one all together.
Monday, 19 January 2009
Review: The Wrestler
Year: 2008
Director: Darren Aronofsky
Screenplay: Robert D Siegel
Starring: Mickey Rourke, Marisa Tomei, Evan Rachel Wood
Plot Summary
When I came out of The Wrestler first considered it to be about the films lead, Mickey Rourke, An actor whose taken more than a few hard knocks both professionally and personally. A man who still believes that his best work is still ahead of him. I reconsidered once more...This is a film about wrestling. Every detail is right on the head. If Raging Bull is the boxers movie, then this must be the Raging Bull of pro wrestling.
My friends and readers...it is those things and then some.
Aronofsky's film is a multi layered drama with some of the most grounded, well drawn out performances I've seen in a long time. While Rourke falls this role with ease and plays it with extraordinary aplomb. He is backed up by two affecting female roles which could have easily have appeared as tired and cliched if it were not for the performances of the actresses and the way they are written. Those who know their wrestlers (I myself am a closest fan) will smile slyly in agreement to the nods towards the blading, the drugs, the guest signing. Some who couldn't care less about the "sport" may be surprised by what they see. I myself was astonished by the amount of detail the filmmakers went into. The matches are predetermined yes but the performers feel every bump, every bruise and of course every injury.
The film delves into the ins and out of wrestling so well it can feel like your behind the scenes at an independent live event. However, more importantly, the film goes into the lives of these people after the bright lights have died down. Not everyone can be the star, and even those who reach the summit may have limited staying power. The Wrestler reminds us that for every Mick Foley, there's thousands of Jake "The Snake" Robert types each with their own personal demons that eat at their insides.
Aronofsky captures so many home truths in his fiction it's scary. While Randy "The Ram" is fictional character, elements of his life are clearly taken from many true story elements. Throughout the film I was constantly reminded of Eddie Guerrero, Crash Holly and so many others. The health problems due to substance abuse, the strains on substantial family relationships, it's all captured so accurately. It's been noted that Vince McMahon (Owner of WWE) hates the movie while many of the actual wrestlers have praised it. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone whose observed some of the more shadier business practices of the WWE corporation.
The amount of detail is intricate and both Director Aronofsky and writer Siegel balance this with such complicated (note not complex) character infused with such a delicate warmth at times it's hard to take. It seems so easy to befriend Randy (everyone knows his name) but it's incredibly hard to help him. Even if you advise him...what makes you think he'll take it? It's not just the desire to be a hero that makes Randy crave the ring but the mere fact that the bruises heal after the fight, the bumps of reality scar indefinitely. The ring is his true home and the only place he's felt comfortable.
Aronofsky was going to originally cast Nicolas Cage in the role of Randy. Thank god he didn't. Cage is a competent enough actor (depending on the film) but Rourke is a revelation. To say he understands the material is more than an understatement...it's a god damn insult. Rourke is in sublime form here. With Rourke in the role the film almost becomes a product of metafiction, or a lifework of sorts. Every wince, every gravelled utterance, every pained smile seems to carry added weight. Some have said that it seems that every aspect of Rourke's life has been leading up to this part and I'm in kind to argee with them. I hope he wins the Oscar.
Rourke is joined by Marisa Tomei whose "tart with a heart" role is kept fresh with a very assured performance. Evan Rachel Wood seems to be channeling her character from Thirteen and show what would happen if she flew right after that movie finished (this is a good thing as her performances both in Thirteen and this are solid one).
I said the film was about much more than its actor and it's detailed look about it's Sport. It's also about a man who revels in his past as he cannot deal with the future fast approaching. An amusing scene involves Ram playing an NES (Nintendo Entertainment System circa 1984) with a neighborhood child whose more interested about talking about Call of Duty 4. Another scene involves a talk about 80's rock and roll being invaded by 90's grunge and shoegaze. Ram talks about these things because it reminds him of a more optimistic time. One that probably went to fast for him. If time is our biggest foe then Randy has found a time machine: The Ring.
Aronofsky's drama is not original in terms of story or narrative, but it's incredibly rich film experience. The amount of insight it achieves about the sport and the detail placed on the character is nothing short of wonderful. Rourke believes his best work is still to come. I believe it won't get any better than this.
Director: Darren Aronofsky
Screenplay: Robert D Siegel
Starring: Mickey Rourke, Marisa Tomei, Evan Rachel Wood
Plot Summary
When I came out of The Wrestler first considered it to be about the films lead, Mickey Rourke, An actor whose taken more than a few hard knocks both professionally and personally. A man who still believes that his best work is still ahead of him. I reconsidered once more...This is a film about wrestling. Every detail is right on the head. If Raging Bull is the boxers movie, then this must be the Raging Bull of pro wrestling.
My friends and readers...it is those things and then some.
Aronofsky's film is a multi layered drama with some of the most grounded, well drawn out performances I've seen in a long time. While Rourke falls this role with ease and plays it with extraordinary aplomb. He is backed up by two affecting female roles which could have easily have appeared as tired and cliched if it were not for the performances of the actresses and the way they are written. Those who know their wrestlers (I myself am a closest fan) will smile slyly in agreement to the nods towards the blading, the drugs, the guest signing. Some who couldn't care less about the "sport" may be surprised by what they see. I myself was astonished by the amount of detail the filmmakers went into. The matches are predetermined yes but the performers feel every bump, every bruise and of course every injury.
The film delves into the ins and out of wrestling so well it can feel like your behind the scenes at an independent live event. However, more importantly, the film goes into the lives of these people after the bright lights have died down. Not everyone can be the star, and even those who reach the summit may have limited staying power. The Wrestler reminds us that for every Mick Foley, there's thousands of Jake "The Snake" Robert types each with their own personal demons that eat at their insides.
Aronofsky captures so many home truths in his fiction it's scary. While Randy "The Ram" is fictional character, elements of his life are clearly taken from many true story elements. Throughout the film I was constantly reminded of Eddie Guerrero, Crash Holly and so many others. The health problems due to substance abuse, the strains on substantial family relationships, it's all captured so accurately. It's been noted that Vince McMahon (Owner of WWE) hates the movie while many of the actual wrestlers have praised it. This shouldn't be a surprise to anyone whose observed some of the more shadier business practices of the WWE corporation.
The amount of detail is intricate and both Director Aronofsky and writer Siegel balance this with such complicated (note not complex) character infused with such a delicate warmth at times it's hard to take. It seems so easy to befriend Randy (everyone knows his name) but it's incredibly hard to help him. Even if you advise him...what makes you think he'll take it? It's not just the desire to be a hero that makes Randy crave the ring but the mere fact that the bruises heal after the fight, the bumps of reality scar indefinitely. The ring is his true home and the only place he's felt comfortable.
Aronofsky was going to originally cast Nicolas Cage in the role of Randy. Thank god he didn't. Cage is a competent enough actor (depending on the film) but Rourke is a revelation. To say he understands the material is more than an understatement...it's a god damn insult. Rourke is in sublime form here. With Rourke in the role the film almost becomes a product of metafiction, or a lifework of sorts. Every wince, every gravelled utterance, every pained smile seems to carry added weight. Some have said that it seems that every aspect of Rourke's life has been leading up to this part and I'm in kind to argee with them. I hope he wins the Oscar.
Rourke is joined by Marisa Tomei whose "tart with a heart" role is kept fresh with a very assured performance. Evan Rachel Wood seems to be channeling her character from Thirteen and show what would happen if she flew right after that movie finished (this is a good thing as her performances both in Thirteen and this are solid one).
I said the film was about much more than its actor and it's detailed look about it's Sport. It's also about a man who revels in his past as he cannot deal with the future fast approaching. An amusing scene involves Ram playing an NES (Nintendo Entertainment System circa 1984) with a neighborhood child whose more interested about talking about Call of Duty 4. Another scene involves a talk about 80's rock and roll being invaded by 90's grunge and shoegaze. Ram talks about these things because it reminds him of a more optimistic time. One that probably went to fast for him. If time is our biggest foe then Randy has found a time machine: The Ring.
Aronofsky's drama is not original in terms of story or narrative, but it's incredibly rich film experience. The amount of insight it achieves about the sport and the detail placed on the character is nothing short of wonderful. Rourke believes his best work is still to come. I believe it won't get any better than this.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)