#I am an enjoyer of some of guy ritchie’s films

[dceuw0rldsfinestenjoyer]

I was rewatching The Gentlemen film earlier today and I just noticed in the opening credits that Michael Wilkinson is the costume designer?!?! How did I miss that on my first watch idk, but that man never misses when it comes to costume design

[fuddlewuddle]

So, I fancy doing the Tom Cruise challenge, but I’m really bad at doing things day by day, so I’m just going to answer them all now while I have a free moment lol.

Opinions ahead 😆

1. First movie of his you remember seeing:

War of the Worlds at the cinema. I hadn’t actually seen many of his films prior to a few years ago when I decided to work my way through his filmography. I’ve now seen them all, so I quickly made up for lost time.

2. The last movie of his you watched:

A Few Good Men.

3. Which of his movies have you watched the most:

Rock of Ages 14 times and Top Gun: Maverick 11 times.

4. Favourite movie:

TG:M. No question. That movie changed my life.

5. Least favourite movie:

Either Rain Man or Cocktail. I like his performances in them, but I’m not fans of the films as a whole.

6. Favourite character:

Gotta be Mav, though Lestat is a very close second. The dramatic bitch 🥰 (and Les Grossman but shh)

7. Least favourite character:

Probably David Shawn from TAPS.

8. Underrated movie:

The Last Samurai. The friendship between Tom and Ken Watanabe in that film is sublime. Also the quote, “For 500 bucks I’ll kill whoever you want. But keep one thing in mind, I’ll happily kill you for free.” Is pure BDE right there.

9. Most overrated movie:

I don’t think there is one. I think he has one of the strongest filmographies of any actor going and he never phones in a performance. He has so many strong performances and brilliant films, that one’s I think are incredible others have never seen or even heard of. And I know Top Gun and the MI films are always mentioned in relation to him, but I love those films so I’m happy they’re so adored.

10. Favourite haircut:

Either of these two looks. Though I usually prefer his longer hair.

11. Least favourite haircut:

The Minority Report haircut 🥲

12. Which movie would you like to see a sequel to:

Edge of Tomorrow. Or, and I doubt anyone would agree, The Mummy. Mainly because I love him as himbo Nick Morton and I want to see more of him causing chaos when he’s not human.

13. Favourite line from one of his movies:

Other than the quote from The Last Samurai posted above, probably the one from Knight and Day when he’s like, “Nobody follow us, or I’ll kill myself and then her.” 🤣

14. Favourite scene from one of his movies:

Too many to choose from, but I am a very big fan of him singing Pour some sugar on me in Rock of Ages, I must say 🥵

15. Favourite Mission Impossible movie:

Ghost protocol. It’s the one I’ve watched the most. The opening prison scene and the Burj Khalifa scene are just * chef’s kiss *

16. Favourite stunt:

I love all his stunts, because he puts so much time and energy into them they looks effortless, but I have a soft spot for the silly little stunt in Rogue Nation where he just slides over the car bonnet and then falls off instead of landing gracefully 😆

17. Favourite run:

The one in TG:M

18. Which character do you relate to the most:

I’m gonna have to say Mav purely because I’ve written him the most and he feels like a friend at this point.

19. Which character would you like to see Tom play:

Umm..I don’t have anyone specific in mind, but I want him to play another villain like Vincent or Lestat, or another sweary character like Frank TJ Mackey, because I love when he plays darker characters.

20. If you could only watch one his films for the rest of time which would it be:

Top gun : maverick. Hands down.

21. Which director would you like to see him work with:

Guy Ritchie (for the swearing) or David Fincher.

22. A scene where “he does that thing with his face that makes you die inside” the most:

The scene with Ice in TG:M.

23. A sleeper hit (one you thought of as okay and then became a favourite over time):

Rock of Ages. When I first watched it I thought it was enjoyable, but now it’s a comfort film I quote and I know all the songs from.

24. Out of the three films he was nominated for an Oscar for which should he have won it for:

My heart wants to say Magnolia because I LOVE that performance, it’s so fascinating and complex. But he really is incredible in Born on the Fourth of July. He should just have three have won for all three Oscars lol.

25. What’s the performance you think should have been nominated for an Oscar:

Apart from TG:M that he was snubbed for this year, when he effortlessly broke my heart I will say Collateral and A Few Good Men. The first one because the way he goes from completely in control to slowly devolving is masterful, and the second because he goes up against Jack Nicholson in that court room and gives as good as he gets.

26. Favourite 80s era movie besides Top Gun:

The Outsiders, though I do have a soft spot for how pretty he is in Legend.

27. Favourite co star:

Val Kilmer, Miles Teller or Simon Pegg. His chemistry with all three is magical.

28. Favourite fight scene:

The bit in MI:2 when him and Dougray Scott drive at each other on motorbikes, crash into each other in the air and then roll around in the sand before Tom gets a knife nearly in the eye. So dramatic. I love it.

29. Actor you’d like to see him work with:

Ralph Fiennes. He’s my favourite actor, so to see them both in something together would be incredible.

30. Favourite tom era in general:

Now. He looks so good and happy. Baby girl is flourishing. (Though his look when he was doing IWTV stuff was very sexy).

There we go.

Gonna go think about Tom Cruise now 😌

[agentnico]

Most Anticipated Movies 2023

Though the COVID pandemic can still be referenced within the film realm as the recent Glass Onion: A Knives Out Mystery does, the movie industry itself has now seemingly fully recovered from those lockdown days and we now get to enjoy the full might of Hollywood and indies yet again. As such 2023 is proving to be a stacked yet for movies. There’s a lot of them! So many! Many of which will most likely be crap, but here I am listing the ones I am most excited for. Again, come end of 2023 and prepped for disappointment for a lot of these, but as of right now I am full of hopes and dreams! So, in no particular order...

HONOURABLE CURIOUS MENTIONS: Oppenheimer, Next Goal Wins, The Old Way, Wonka, Mission Impossible - Dead Reckoning: Part One, Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse

John Wick: Chapter 4 - It simply doesn’t get better than seeing Hollywood sweetheart the beautiful Keanu Reeves plays an unkillable hitman who is able to kill a man with a single pencil or a book or any item at his disposal, let alone give him a gun. Those headshots then come at the speed of a Call of Duty pro-player! So obviously I want to see what’s next for Mr Wick.

Killers of the Flower Moon - Let the Brendan Fraser renaissance continue! It’s been absolutely adorably awesome seeing him back and looking so happy and pleased to be appreciated for how amazing he is! I mean, yes Killers of the Flower Moon also happens to be a new crime drama from one of cinema’s greats Martin Scorsese featuring a cast including Leonardo DiCaprio and Robert de Niro, but honestly I’m just happy seeing Fraser getting solid work again. Go get them tiger! 

Operation Fortune: Ruse de Guerre - Technically this was originally slated as an early 2022 release, however due to distribution issues it has been moved a year later. Regardless, Guy Ritchie always makes slick gangster flicks, with his recent The Gentlemen being especially cool and badass, so I’m willing to see Ritchie continue making these types of films as many times as he wants, as long as his dialogue stays sharp and Hugh Grant keeps saying “Darling” during every appearance.

The Super Mario Bros. Movie - Setting aside the controversial lack of effort that Chris Pratt is putting into that Mario voice, this animated effort from Universal and Illumination is actually looking surprisingly enjoyable. The animation looks great and there are some great nostalgic call backs to the games, and even the voice cast (aside from Pratt) are all sounding great. That Bowser voice from Jack Black - woah!! Can’t wait to hear more of that! 

Napoleon - Ridley Scott is doing a movie about Napoleon, and Napoleon himself is played by Joaquin Phoenix. Great director, superb actor, an integrally interesting historical figure at the narrative centre... what’s not to be excited for!

Knock at the Cabin - M. Night Shyamalamalamalamadingdong is back with another plot twist. Look, M Night is very hit-and-miss, and when he’s great he’s great, but when he’s bad he’s bad in a fun way. His last film Old was filled with plot-holes, inconsistencies and ridiculous narrative choices, yet I had a ball watching it and pointing out all the obvious foreshadowing. And then Shyamalan is also responsible for The Happening, which, well, happened. Anyway, new Shyamalan film - gimme gimme gimme!

Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 3 - Before James Gunn fully takes over the running of DC films (though he already took Henry Cavill as Superman away from us the monster!!!) he still has one Guardians film from Marvel left for us. And though I was not a fan of Vol. 2, the recent Holiday Special has reinstated my hope in this ragtag space-travelling group of outcasts, and Gunn himself has been on a roll with The Suicide Squad and Peacemaker, so they’ve got this. Also Rocket has an otter girlfriend in this one so I’m ready to witness some animal loving. 

Barbie - Okay, so it’s okay for a guy to look forward to a Barbie movie?? What’s so wrong with that?? It’s not weird! I don’t have a thing for dolls if that’s what you’re thinking. Nope, in fact I am more hoping that similar to how The Lego Movie managed to take a famous toy and create a superbly meta entertaining movie classic, Barbie shows promise to also go against conventional genre tropes and do something different weird. At least judging from that 2001: A Space Odyssey piss-take of the teaser, Greta Gerwig and Noah Baumbach have created something real unique. Also Ryan Gosling as Ken.....either the greatest casting choice or the worst decision ever. We’ll see...

Renfield - Nicolas Cage is a worldwide treasure, and one thought that him playing himself in a movie was the craziest thing yet. Nah, now he’s playing Dracula. Yep, THE Nicolas Cage is playing THE Count Dracula! And this time he really is a vampire!

Cocaine Bear - It’s a bear that’s high off it’s tits on cocaine and is going on a murderous rampage whilst trying to get more cocaine. I don’t need this to be a good movie. I don’t need it to win any awards. I just want there to be bears, I want there to be cocaine, and ideally those two to be connected for the entire time. What’s more is this is based on the real life story of a 175lb black bear who ingested a duffel bag of abandoned cocaine in northern Georgia in 1985. I mean yes that bear died fairly quickly, but in the movie they’ve evidently taken some creative choices (and definitely the correct ones!!) and instead this bear is simply killing everyone left and right and being high as a kite. And from that recent trailer from the very first appearance you can tell that this bear is on cocaine. That is all I want. 

[twistedtummies2]

Ele-May-ntary - Number 8

Welcome to Ele-May-ntary! All throughout the month of May, I’ve been counting down my Top 31 Favorite Portrayals of Sherlock Holmes, from movies, television, radio, and even video games! Today, we’ll be talking about an excellent and very recent take on Holmes, from a most unexpected source. Number 8 is…Makoto Furukawa.

Now, to some of you, this choice will be obvious. But to others, you’re probably thinking something along the lines of: “WHAT?! AN ANIME IN THE TOP TEN?! WHAT HERETICAL, BLASPHEMOUS JIGGERYPOKERY IS THIS?!” I’ve never actually been a HUGE aficionado of anime/manga. I don’t HATE it, either, however. There are, in fact, a lot of shows and franchises I really enjoy: Hellsing Ultimate, Pandora Hearts, Death Note, Black Butler, and Soul Eater are all old favorites of mine; as a kid I really loved Pokemon and Yu-Gi-Oh!; somewhat recently I’ve been introduced to FullMetal Alchemist: Brotherhood and My Hero Academia, and I love both a lot! This is discounting the amazing animated pictures by Studio Ghibli, as well as a small handful of other Japanese-made animated pictures I’ve seen. All this is just to name a few examples. BUT, I also don’t go out of my way to watch anime most of the time, and there are plenty of popular franchises and series I’ve just never been able to get into: I’ve never been a huge fan of Digimon or One Piece, for instance, and I’ve tried to get into Naruto and Dragonball a couple times, but they’ve just never been my cup of tea, either. So while I’m not someone who ADORES anime/manga, I’m also not someone who just deplores it on principle. It sort of depends on the show and what’s going on in it, if that makes sense. Keeping this in mind…I wasn’t really sure what to expect when I decided to check out “Moriarty the Patriot.” It certainly SOUNDED interesting, but I was slightly dubious, as I feared the “anime-ness” I was already anticipating might get in the way of my enjoyment of the characters, or that certain reinterpretations of characters might go against my personal tastes. Still, I remained cautiously optimistic…and, considering this show is not even finished with its second season yet as I type this, I can already safely say that this has become one of my all-time favorite takes on the Holmes canon EVER made, and is easily the best reimagining I’ve seen since “Sherlock” and the Guy Ritchie films. (More on those another time.) The premise of “Moriarty the Patriot” is twofold. First of all, nearly all of the major characters from the Conan Doyle canon are depicted as at least slightly younger than usual. (Because God forbid the main characters in an anime DON’T look like animated supermodels.) Second of all: the main character, as the title suggests, is NOT Holmes, but rather Professor Moriarty. Moriarty is depicted as a violent anti-hero, rather than a straightforward villain, who plans to use crime to call attention to social problems in the English Empire, all to hopefully shift the paradigm of power and create a more equal world. Holmes first meets Moriarty during a case aboard a cruise liner. Impressed – and slightly worried – by the detective’s brilliant intellect (a mind that very closely matches Moriarty’s own), the Professor decides to make Holmes his “official nemesis”: the person who will solve his crimes and hunt him down, to allow his elaborate scheme to function. After all, the perfect criminal NEEDS the perfect detective. While the “anime boi” look for Sherlock admittedly takes a little getting used to (and very obviously calls to mind Benedict Cumberbatch’s portrayal, in terms of features and color choices), the portrayal of the character is really interesting. The show purposefully uses anachronisms in its dialogue, with the characters living and working in a Victorian environment, but speaking in a more modern lingo. Holmes, himself, has a very modern approach to his character: smoking cigarettes instead of a pipe, dressed in short-cut, dark clothes, and with a skull ring on his finger. (Why Holmes would wear such a thing, I have no Earthly clue.) This interpretation latches onto Sherlock’s more childish side. Mrs. Hudson outright describes as being “a child” and he behaves accordingly: he’s quick to speak his mind, does drastic things to get attention or make a point, has a massively mischievous side, and throws tantrums or sulks when he doesn’t get what he wants. Despite this, he also has moments of clear maturity and introspection, and he takes his work deathly seriously. His relationship with Moriarty is also interesting: in this version, the two start out as friends before Holmes ever realizes the Professor is the secret mastermind behind several cases he’s been trying to crack. Holmes is obsessed with solving the ultimate mystery, and becomes fascinated by the Professor’s own mind and the way it matches his, just as Moriarty becomes interested in the detective’s brain. His relationships with the other characters – such as Watson and Inspector Lestrade – are pretty great, too. He’s a very unique but still worthy and surprisingly accurate interpretation of the famous gumshoe, and the power of the show is just as much a result of its strong interpretation of Holmes as its new and powerful depiction of the Napoleon of Crime. I don’t know what I expected from this anime, like I said before…but I did NOT expect it to so instantly and perfectly create such brilliant new takes on these characters and this world. I am so very glad it did. The countdown continues tomorrow! Who will be next? Check in and find out!

[the-working-class-guide-to-films]

The Gentlemen

Guy Ritchie writes and directs another gangster film that features all of the same plot techniques and storylines you’ve seen in better movies by The British Tarantino. Quick cuts, got it. Plenty of action, right here. A story that has a load of different character arcs that all combine together at the end for a big twist. Roll up roll up. A lack off, and poorly written women. Ding ding ding. 

There’s an interesting story at it’s core although I am sure it’s identical to previous Ritchie films. There’s a drug lord, Micky Pearson (Matthew McConaughey) who wants to give up his business. Once he does, all the criminals want a slice of the pie and a lot of backstabbing takes place. His confidante, Raymond (Charlie Hunnam) is being bribed by Fletcher (Hugh Grant)  a journalist about a recent deal regarding his boss and all the criminals that are involved in this story.

For fans of Snatch and Lock, Stock; you’ll love this. A Ritchie fan, you’ll love this. Everything great about those films are in this, witty characters, an interesting story, fast-paced dialogue and action, it's all there. If anything, it’s amped up 1000%. This stuff is great but I’m a little tired of the same old Ritchie film, it’s been done before and it would be interesting if he didn’t make the same old crap. You know what you’re getting with Ritchie and that’s both good and bad. I’m a fan so for me it was fine, but he isn’t going to win over any fans who don’t like his previous works. There’s plenty of action and some funny scenes. Colin Farrell is great in this, he steals the show for me.

It seemed to take an age for anything to happen, it picked up probably once Colin Farrell’s character, Coach, gets involved. The ending became a bit weird. Hugh Grant’s character kept mentioning he was going to sell this story off as a movie and then he had a meeting with Miramax, the guys who produced the actually movie. It was all a bit meta. Every character seemed to be extremely camp which was odd, especially Hugh Grant, full of sexual innuendos and trying to hit on Charlie Hunnam. It was just a bit weird and unnecessary and it didn’t add anything to the story. If anything, it got a bit annoying as it was constant. He seemed like a character straight out of the Carry On films. And fuck me, was there a lot of swearing. Clearly, I swear. Swearing is actually proven to be good for you in some cases. It emphasis a point, it’s good for your vocabulary. So I’m not a prune. But this film just had swear word after swear word after swear word. And I’m not talking like little secondary school swear words like bollocks or shit. I’m talking BIG words. You got it. The C-word. It’s a gangster film I know, but come on, it was crazy. Just like the overly camp characters, the over the top swearing just became an annoyance. It was like scratching your nails on a blackboard, or trying to get ice out of a freezer that has iced up. It becomes hard to hear, it becomes cringy. It was like watching The Wolf of Wall Street on drugs. Carry On Wall Street, what a film that would be.

2/5 It’s certainly enjoyable. There’s a lot of fun going on that will definitely please fans of previous Guy Ritchie films. However, it’s nothing new. It’s the same plot with the same sort of characters. You know what you’re going to get and I’m a little bored of that. 

[canardroublard]

TMFU, Gaby’s fashion, and some feminist film analysis

Back when I slapped together a reblog post about the men’s fashion in The Man From UNCLE in between physio appointments, which somehow got like way more notes than I ever really expected or even wanted, I didn’t address the fashion of the lead female character, Gaby. It was outside the scope of the OP, and I didn’t feel like I had anything new or interesting to say about Gaby’s fashion, or lack thereof.

(My beta says those earrings are the ugliest thing ever. I disagree. It’s a wonder we’re still friends)

Anyways, we see only one brief scene of Gaby in her own street clothes, and a slightly longer sequence of her in her work clothes. The rest of the film, she is wearing clothes chosen for her by Illya. Saying “we just don’t have enough info” is a perfectly reasonable approach to this. So this was the other reason I had no intention of making this post.

But then people started getting interested. Someone reblogged commenting about Gaby’s fashion, and I discovered that I have very strong opinions about something I’d previously claimed was unknowable, and it made me wonder what was going on in my brain.

Then I talked to some other TMFU friends who all seemed interested in what I assumed was common knowledge/nothing unique. So, they may have been feigning interest out of politeness, but it activated the art history side of my brain, and here we are now!

The boring stuff but please read this

I am not attempting to tell anyone how to interpret this film. I am not even trying to change people’s minds or persuade them to my thinking. All I am doing is sharing my thought process. I wasn’t even going to do this for Gaby until people asked. To this end, please don’t attempt to argue with me about this. I don’t want to argue. I won’t respond to it. If you disagree, then please, just move along.

And I’m going to remind people that I love TMFU. I love this movie so much it hurts. Why am I putting this reminder here? Because I am about to apply some critical analysis to it, and in places this will be cynical, and it will not always look kindly on the film. If you just want to exist in a happy “I love TMFU!” bubble and not hear anything less than 100% positive about the film (which is a totally valid choice, I don’t fault anyone for that), then don’t read. But don’t yell at me for being mean or criticizing the film, because I warned you.

Tldr; or, if I were still being graded for this stuff here’s my thesis statement

When analysing Gaby’s fashion, there exist considerations which don’t apply to the male characters. Namely, she is a woman and the male gaze is a thing. So I am very, very wary about taking at  face value any expressions of traditional femininity in the choices made  for her outfits, hair, makeup, etc. Therefore, when considering her character, I find it much more useful and informative to give more weight to the aspects of her appearance which do not connote traditional femininity, rather than those that do.

For readers who have studied enough  media analysis to follow my thought based on that alone, there’s the thesis statement, y’all can go home (or at least skip to the end where I come to a conclusion). If you’re lost, then read on.

(mobile readers, the cut here might not work, and if so I apologize for what is going to be a very long post. Tumblr’s “keep reading” functionality is inconsistent at best, but I tried)

Context is for kings essential for analysing media in a meaningful way

(Or, some brief background. Stick with me here, we’ll get to the good stuff soon)

So, art doesn’t exist in a vacuum. Attempting to analyze any artwork (in this case a film) while disregarding the culture it was created in and the intentions of the creator is...not going to get you very far. Asking “what is art” is a question that quite frankly exhausts me at this point (looking at you, Duchamp) but the closest I’ve ever come to an answer is that the only thing that separates art from everything else is intent. And intention only exists within cultural context. So yes, intent and context don’t just matter peripherally, they are one of the biggest considerations one needs to make when analyzing works of art. The creator in this case being Guy Ritchie et al, the culture being British/American Popular Cinema in The Year of Somebody’s Lord Two-Thousand-And-Fifteen. 

Everyone views and creates (if applicable) art through their own distorted, murky, imperfect lens of personal experience. And one of the most persistent Things in western art is that cishet men create art based on their experience of Being A Dude. This is crucial, because this lens of cishet male perspective literally underpins almost all of western culture including popular culture. And thanks to feminist film theorist Laura Mulvey, we have a name for this.

The male gaze and you

I’m going to quote Wikipedia here, because honestly this intro sentence sums things up rather neatly (with one exception which I will address momentarily).

In feminist theory, the male gaze is the act of depicting women and the world, in the visual arts and literature, from a masculine, heterosexual perspective that presents and represents women as sexual objects for the pleasure of the male viewer.

What does that all mean? That the Viewer and the Artist are both cishet men by default, and any women are Subjects of art. Women are viewed, never viewers. Men take action, women are subjected to actions. Furthermore, women are supposed to be pleasurable to view. By men. Since the Viewer is male by default.

But I would disagree that the pleasure is inherently based on women being sexual objects. That’s honestly a really damn limited read on the whole theory, and it’s one that Wikipedia itself contradicts later in the article. More broadly, cis men also derive other forms of pleasure from the presentation and viewing of female bodies, including aesthetic pleasure (the enjoyment of looking at beautiful things).

The theory of the male gaze is not without limits. As originally theorized, afaik it’s not particularly intersectional. It doesn’t really address queer perspectives or perspectives of POC. However, these issues are something I just can’t address here, unfortunately. And when looking at popular media, I still find the concept of the male gaze, imperfect as it may be, is a helpful means of analysis, so it’s worth having in your toolbox.

Circling back, the easiest way to sum up the male gaze, if you’re still not super clear on what it is, is with a demonstration.

Ever seen a shot like this in a movie?

And did you immediately roll your eyes? Feel gross? Congrats, you have just perceived and reacted to the male gaze.

Now we actually get back to TMFU

But the male gaze also shows up in many more subtle, insidious ways than fanservice-y boob shots. For this post, let’s focus on the following considerations, which might help everyone follow my thought process more clearly.

Gaby is a woman

She functions as the love interest of Illya in the script (I am not talking from a shipping perspective. What you ship does not matter for this discussion. I am talking about the narrative function of Gaby in the script as written. Put on your “cishet man” goggles for a moment)

Illya is a man who is attracted to women, specifically Gaby (again, I don’t care if your shipping conflicts with this. I am analyzing the film based on a literal reading of it as if I were a cishet man. Why? Because that’s who made the film. That’s who it’s “for”. I am all for queer readings of film--hell, I ship OT3, I myself have chosen a queer reading for how I interact with it, but I’m not critiquing people’s readings, I’m critiquing the film itself and to do that I have to critique its intentions and cultural context.)

Cishet men are traditionally only allowed to be attracted to women who are conventionally attractive. If they were to be attracted to anyone else it would destroy their fragile senses of self and their heads would explode or something. At least I assume that’s what must happen, based on how terrified they are of it.

Therefore, Gaby must be conventionally attractive, because it is literally required of her or otherwise the whole underpinning of western straight malehood crumbles and then where would we get such a pure, vast source of unadulterated toxic masculinity?

(Yes, this is a very cynical read on things. I’ve studied, like, three centuries worth of this bullshit. I’m tired. Let me be cynical.)

Or, to force myself to be less cynical, Gaby has to be pretty because...nope, this is still going to turn out just as cynical.

But what I will say in favour of this movie is that it gives Gaby and Victoria both a lot of agency and general awesomeness, which is quite unusual in this sort of big-budget action film, and it’s one of the big reasons I love it. I’m not saying that the entire film is sexist. On the contrary, there’s a ton of stuff to celebrate about how it portrays its female characters. But these aspects don’t change the cultural context, and we still have to consider the impacts of the male gaze.

Anyways, point being is that as filtered through the male gaze, Gaby is never given the option to, say, wear no makeup (or the appearance of such, as the guys are afforded, this being cinema where “no makeup” still means makeup) because that would look “ugly”.  Instead she needs to have a “baseline of pretty” which is way higher than reality because she is not a real human being with her own agency, she is a character created by a cis male writer/director team in a film directed by a cis man in a genre that caters to cishet men.

Gaby doesn’t exist in a vacuum. She exists battling centuries and centuries worth of sexist convention.

Now then, remembering all of that, let’s actually look at her. There are woefully few good pictures so I’m going to have to piece things together a little. Starting with the coveralls.

This is a great look, I love it. And I’m going to give Ritchie a lot of credit here because it would’ve been easy to go for a “Michelle Rodriguez in F&F sexy mechanic lady” look. In case I need to provide a visual:

(Repeat above gif about rolling my eyes)

Now, to be clear, I am not making any judgement about the way any real-life women dress. I’m sure there’s plenty of female mechanics who have their hair down and wear tank tops while working. That doesn’t bother me. I don’t care if real life mechanics choose to do their jobs in a string bikini. Or in cosplay of the bee from Bee Movie. I don’t care (and quite frankly it’s none of my business) because they are real people who can make their own decisions. But what I am talking about here is a fictional character who does not have her own agency. I am critiquing how male creators choose to dress their female characters.

So I personally choose to read much more into the unpretty  aspects of Gaby’s outfit, because these are not the “obvious” or “easy”   things. Obvious and easy are “of course she wears makeup” and “of course her hair looks good” and  “of course she doesn’t look like a swamp witch  who bathes in mud and spends her days cursing passing men”. Those things don’t challenge or disrupt the assumption that women must look attractive for male consumption.

Gaby’s introduction to us is with her in a pair of grease-stained, baggy coveralls, not wearing any obvious makeup (again, this is cinema, so she is wearing makeup. For cinema the goal posts around “wearing makeup” always need to be moved from where they’d be irl). There’s very little here that screams ‘pretty’. And that is fascinating to me.

I don’t know how deeply Ritchie thought this through when giving final approval to the costume, hair and makeup. But unpretty is not the default here. It’s a choice

And look at this. This is the stance and dress sense (and socks!) of a woman who does not give a damn about looking good for the male gaze, whether the in-movie gaze of Napoleon, or the implied gaze of the viewer and creator. It’s not ‘pretty’. And this is the only time in the film we see Gaby in her own everyday clothes, as she only escapes East Berlin with the literal clothes on her back.

So how do I think Gaby dresses? I think that for the most part she dresses....like this. Practical. Comfortable. With a few simple touches of things she likes/finds pretty, perhaps, but not with a specific interest in being pretty. She dresses for herself, not for others. And if that isn’t something to aspire to, I don’t know what is.

[bunny-wan-kenobi]

Aladdin Review **SPOILERS**

Just saw Aladdin! It was okay for me, not mind-blowing or anything, but enjoyable enough. My rundown:

What I could’ve done without:

Jafar’s underwhelming-ness. I know it’s a different take on him, but the actor’s delivery just didn’t do it for me in terms of gravitas and menace. I didn’t feel intimidated by this guy AT ALL and some of the more exaggerated villainous moments fell a little flat. It was just too restrained for me.

The handmaiden is mostly there to talk about boys and I just didn’t find that her role added much besides being a love interest to Genie as well

The political subplot with the neighboring kingdom was kind of distracting and unnecessary

Some of the delivery of the dialogue felt off sometimes, and that occasionally took me out of the movie

The CGI for the Genie still weirds me out a bit but that’s just a personal thing

It’s still bothers me a bit that Jasmine is so much lighter-skinned than her animated counterpart and that most of the cast with the exception of her and Aladdin have accents

The slow-motion and fast editing didn’t really suit the feel of this movie and was definitely a Guy Ritchie thing...but it didn’t really feel like a good fit here

The songs suffered from some pacing issues as well. Songs that should be more frenetic like “One Jump Ahead” were slowed down and lost some energy in the process while songs that are more balladic like “A Whole New World” pass so quickly instead of soaring like they should

What I liked:

Mena Massoud. He just WAS Aladdin—endearing, likable, sweet, a huge dork, and with a genuine earnestness that made him enjoyable to watch. He also had good comedic timing and made me laugh a lot with his delivery

Jasmine gets more of an arc and her leadership is actually addressed and explored since in the animated film it was implied that Aladdin would be Sultan which always sat weirdly with me. Naomi gave Jasmine some believable strength and the fire of her animated counterpart

Will Smith really made the Genie his own instead of trying to recreate Robin Williams, and it felt like a distinctly-Will approach with hip-hop verve, effortless charisma, and easy comedic flow

The general look of the film is very good and the costuming is beautiful like I LOVED the embroidery and the use of color

The animal sidekicks didn’t feel grating—in fact, I liked Iago here better than in the animated movie and he got a few laughs from me

That Jasmine’s mother is discussed and a running thread in the story

The “intelligent woman ahead of her time” concept is MUCH better executed here than in BATB

The singing of the two leads was pretty good and Mena and Naomi had believable chemistry

The diversity of the cast

That Jafar gets more of a backstory and I actually did like the idea of him being a former common thief who climbed the ladder to power

So overall it was a pleasant viewing experience, and while I am honestly weary of these live-action remakes, I still do hope The Lion King does well too

[gomoviesweb01-blog]

My Most Anticipated Movies of 2011

As we kick off a new year in cinema, I thought I'd take time to look ahead at the films we'll be hit with over the course of the year. In this article, I'll be going over what my 15 most anticipated movies are for the year. Now it should be noted, these aren't the movies that I feel will be the best of 2011 necessarily. Rather, they're the ones that, as of the time of this writing, I am anticipating the most. So without further ado, here are my most anticipated movies of 2011.

1. Sucker Punch

Director: Zack Snyder

Writer: Zack Snyder and Steve Shibuya

Stars: Emily Browning, Vanessa Hudgens and Abbie Cornish

Release Date: March 25, 2011

Genre: Action Fantasy Thriller

What is it: A young girl is institutionalized by her wicked stepfather. Retreating to an alternative reality as a coping strategy, she envisions a plan which will help her escape from the facility.

Why it should be good: Really hot and badass chicks wearing schoolgirl outfits and other skimpy clothes, with swords and guns, coupled with Snyder's awesome visual flair? Yea, definitely count me in. The trailer for this thing just looks completely awesome. From the style to the action, even the story (while seeming a bit out there) seems cool. I'm beginning to thoroughly enjoy Snyder's work. If The Adjustment Bureau could be this year's new Inception due to its mindfuck story, then Sucker Punch could absolutely be this year's Inception meets The Dark Knight meets 300 meets Inglorious Basterds due to it's style and epic adventure, yet dark tone with alternate realities. This movie just oozes style and badass-ness and I really can't wait for what is sure to be an absolutely entertaining, epic adventure.

Why it could suck: Snyder can be a bit off his mark sometimes. While Watchmen was enjoyable, it did get a bit boring. And Legend of the Guardians is said to suffer from some pacing issues as well and has drawn mixed reviews from critics. Though to be fair to Snyder, he wrote neither of those movies, but is responsible for the writing (or at least screenplay) of the badass 300.

2. Sherlock Holmes 2

Director: Guy Ritchie

Writer: Kieran and Michele Mulroney

Stars: Robert Downey Jr, Jude Law, Noomi Rapace and Stephen Fry

Release Date: December 16, 2011

Genre: Action Mystery

What is it: Sherlock Holmes and his sidekick Dr. Watson join forces to outwit and bring down their fiercest adversary, Professor Moriarty.

Why it should be good: I'm a big Sherlock Holmes fan. The Doyle stories still stand as my favorite books today. I love Sherlock. He's such a badass. And finally, a movie seems to have captured that pretty well. The first was one of the better portrayals of Sherlock I had seen. Rather than being portrayed as a snooty, 'proper' and sophisticated Englishman, he was shown with all the rough edges that Doyle wrote him with. While the movie was indeed Hollywood-ized beyond anything you'd find in the books, it was a fun adventure and quite an enjoyable movie. Guy Ritchie is a very good filmmaker as well. For these reasons, and my love for Sherlock, I'm very much eager to see how Part 2 turns out, especially as they go head-to-head with Moriarty. Also, I'm eager to see how well Noomi Rapace (The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo,etc) does in her Hollywood debut.

Why it could suck: New writers. The original writers from the first aren't coming back instead Kieran and Michele Mulroney are taking over the job. So let's see how they handle it. Relatively new to writing, the two previously wrote Paper Man which didn't fair so well with critics.

3. Paranormal Activity 3

Director: Tod Williams

Writer: Christopher B. Landon and Michael R. Perry; characters by Oren Peli

Stars: Katie Featherston

Release Date: October 21, 2011

Genre: Horror

What is it: Well, we have no idea what this one is going to be about as nothing has been given. However, the first movie followed a couple that were being haunted by an evil spirit who possessed Katie. The sequel (which was more of a prequel) followed Katie's sister's family as that same spirit haunts them and their baby. This all culminates to the two stories converging at the end of Part 2 where it gets to the point where Part 1 ends and we see what happens after the whole event. Undoubtedly, Part 3 is set to pick up where Part 2 and 1 left off. What happens from there? Your guess is as good as mine.

Why it should be good: The first Paranormal Activity became something of a cult phenomenon/sensation. Hailed as the scariest movie of the year, people flocked to the film making it a huge success. And rightly so in my book. It was a minimalistic horror movie that took it back to the roots of the genre by using tension and suspense to really instill fear and terror in the minds of the audience. Part 2, while some people seemed to not like it as much as the first, did more of the same. I actually thought Part 2 was pretty much right on par with the first. And the ingenious storytelling that created a parallel prequel to the first was definitely cool. The creator and writers of this franchise have really shown that the horror genre can be revived and doesn't have to be all about gore and such. They've done a good job with instilling that fear in the audience as well, tapping into that fear, leaving the audience's imagination to run wild while being completely captivated. I expect no less from the third.

Why it could suck: If you feel the second was worse than the first, then you may be in for some disappoint when you find out the same writers and director of the sequel are back. However, like with Part 2, Oren Peli (the creator of the franchise) is still very much involved and is serving as producer on this film.

4. Paul

Director: Greg Mottola

Writer: Nick Frost and Simon Pegg

Stars: Nick Frost, Simon Pegg and Seth Rogen

Release Date: March 18, 2011

Genre: Sci-fi Comedy

What is it: Simon Pegg and Nick Frost (Hot Fuzz, Shaun of the Dead) reunite for the comedy adventure Paul as two sci-fi geeks whose pilgrimage takes them to America's UFO heartland. While there, they accidentally meet an alien who brings them on an insane road trip that alters their universe forever. For the past 60 years, an alien named Paul (voiced by Seth Rogen) has been hanging out at a top-secret military base. For reasons unknown, the space-traveling smart ass decides to escape the compound and hop on the first vehicle out of town-a rented RV containing Earthlings Graeme Willy (Pegg) and Clive Gollings (Frost). Chased by federal agents and the fanatical father of a young woman that they accidentally kidnap, Graeme and Clive hatch a fumbling escape plan to return Paul to his mother ship. And as two nerds struggle to help, one little green man might just take his fellow outcasts from misfits to intergalactic heroes.

Why it should be good: Simon Pegg and Nick Frost back together again. That should be enough. Seriously. When these two guys get together it's gold, as evidenced by Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz. This might be my favorite duo around these days. They'll also be pairing up to write this which is always a good thing as well (well, this will be Frost's first real writing job, but Pegg has been responsible for their first two outings together). Now, they won't be reuniting with Edgar Wright for this one, instead they'll be teaming with the director of Adventureland andSuperbad, two movies which I definitely enjoyed. On top of all of that, they have comedic star Seth Rogan joining them. Sounds like quite the team really and I'm rather excited for what I'm sure will be a very funny movie, and possibly end up being the comedy of the year.

Why it could suck: You do have to wonder if some of that magic from Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz will be lost as Frost and Pegg carry on without Wright. I think they're great comedic talents though and can stand on their own. And the somewhat all-star get-together should compensate.

5. The Adjustment Bureau

Director: George Nolfi

Writer: George Nolfi; Based on Short Story by Philip K. Dick

Stars: Matt Damon, Emily Blunt and Terence Stamp

Release Date: March 4, 2011

Genre: Thriller

What is it: Just as he is on the brink of winning a senate seat, politician David Norris (Matt Damon) meets a ballerina named Elise Sellas (Emily Blunt). Though David is smitten, mysterious men conspire to keep him away from the beautiful dancer. David learns he is up against the powerful agents of Fate itself, and, glimpsing the future laid out before him, must either accept a predetermined path that does not include Elise, or defy Fate to be with her.

Why it should be good: Honestly, this sounds like it could be this year's Inception. With plenty of mindfucks going on, it's a thriller involving different levels of reality and mysterious forces. Matt Damon really tends to shine in these types of movies. The trailer has me rather intrigued and looks like it could provide quite an enthralling adventure. While this is Nolfi's directorial debut, he did write The Bourne Ultimatum, thus will be teaming up with Damon once again. The movie is based on a short story by Philip K. Dick, whose work has been the grounds for such movies asBlade Runner, Total Recall, Minority Report, Paycheck and A Scanner Darkly. So with presumably some good source material, and a writer that can definitely do the part (as illustrated with The Bourne Ultimatum) we could be in for a real treat.

Why it could suck: This is Nolfi's first time in the director's seat, so we'll have to wait and see if he's in over his head. Furthermore, it is being billed as something of a romance thriller. So let's hope they don't go overboard with the romance part and make it some sappy romance film for which they sacrifice some of the plot to focus on the romance.

6. Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides

Director: Rob Marshall

Writer: Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio

Stars: Johnny Depp, Geoffrey Rush, Penelope Cruz and Ian McShane

Release Date: May 20, 2011

Genre: Fantasy Action-Adventure

What is it: Jack Sparrow and Barbossa embark on a quest to find the elusive fountain of youth, only to discover that Blackbeard and his daughter are after it too.

Why it should be good: Some people have hated them. Some have thought they've gotten worse as they went along. I've found the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise to be a fun adventure. Just a fun movie with plenty of adventure, some cool special effects, and just good times. And maybe it's my man-crush I have on Depp, but I'm absolutely thrilled to see him back as Jack Sparrow. The character is so much fun and always provides for some entertainment. Should be interesting to see how they go about freshening up the franchise as well as they get a new cast of characters while Will Turner and Elizabeth Swann are out.

Why it could suck: It's a Hollywood sequel, those always have chances of sucking. Also, the exclusion of Will Turner and Elizabeth Swann could put a damper on things. While there is a chance that it could freshen it up, there is just as much a chance that some of that magic might be lost as they look to replace those characters. Also, while we do get the same writers back, we have a new director taking on this sequel. Pirates seems to be out of Rob Marshall's comfort zone (best known for Memoirs of a Geisha and Chicago) so we'll have to wait and see how he can handle an action adventure of this scope.

7. The Hangover 2

Director: Todd Phillips

Writer: Todd Phillips, Scot Armstrong and Craig Mazin

Stars: Bradley Cooper, Zach Galifianakis, Ed Helms and Justin Bartha

Release Date: May 26, 2011

Genre: Comedy

What is it: Not a lot is known about the plot of this sequel. What is known is that the gang is back to get into more trouble as they travel to Thailand. And Phillips promise a lot of fucked up surprises and hilarity.

Why it should be good: The Hangover was hilarious I thought. The cast of the original had good chemistry and the writing was hilarious. It provided for several laugh-out-loud moments and was one of the funniest movies of the year (one of the funniest I've seen in a while too). Hopefully, getting the gang back together will provide for more hilarity that the first one delivered.

Why it could suck: New writers. The writers from the first aren't coming back and have been replaced. Instead we get Scot Armstrong and Craig Mazin that have brought us such garbage asSemi-Pro, Starsky and Hutch, Scary Movie 4 and Superhero Movie. If their past work is any indicator of their talent, the writers could really butcher this franchise.

8. Transformers: Dark of the Moon

Director: Michael Bay

Writer: Ehren Kruger

Stars: Shia LaBeouf, Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, Josh Duhamel and Tyrese Gibson

Release Date: July 1, 2011

Genre: Sci-fi Action-Adventure

What is it: The Autobots learn of a Cybertronian spacecraft hidden on the Moon, and race against the Decepticons to reach it and learn its secrets, which could turn the tide in the Transformers' final battle.

Why it should be good: I've enjoyed the franchise so far. While Part 2, was blasted pretty well by critics, I didn't hate it that much. Granted it wasn't as good as the first, but I still found it fairly entertaining. And the movies are always a fun visual treat. Also, Michael Bay. I still have no idea why he receives so much crap while James Cameron is given a pass. Bay is just as adept a director as Cameron is. Anybody that still likes to tell me there's a difference between Pearl Harbor and Titanic will kindly receive a "fuck off" as you buy into the pretentious drivel. At least Bay knows his place (a mindless action director who can make pretty movies and fun explosions). Whereas Cameron believes his some gift to cinema which often leads to his films being poorly written, yet pretentious as hell. Seriously, I'll take Armageddon, Transformers, The Rock and Bad Boys over Titanic, Avatar, Aliens, and T2 any day of the week. Even though, yes, I know that will enrage many people and get me flamed for that opinion. Now, this movie (Transformers: Dark of the Moon) surely won't be a great cinematic piece. But as a mindless "let's make some cool special effects scenes and also blow some shit up" type of movie, it should be entertaining.

Why it could suck: Well, if I had to pick one movie from the franchise that was better, it's definitely the first. The writer for this third film, unfortunately, is the same writer from Part 2 rather than the first. Also, it's still Michael Bay. He's not the greatest of directors.

9. X-Men: First Class

Director: Matthew Vaughn

Writer: Jane Goldman, Ashley Miller, Jamie Moss, Josh Schwartz and Zack Stentz; story by Bryan Singer

Stars: James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender and Jennifer Lawrence

Release Date: June 3, 2011

Genre: Sci-fi Action

What is it: Before Charles Xavier and Erik Lensherr took the names Professor X and Magneto, they were two young men discovering their powers for the first time. Before they were archenemies, they were closest of friends, working together, with other Mutants (some familiar, some new), to stop the greatest threat the world has ever known. In the process, a rift between them opened, which began the eternal war between Magneto's Brotherhood and Professor X's X-MEN.

Why it should be good: A look at when Xavier and Magneto were younger. A backstory to where it all started. For such a thrilling franchise, this could be a nice take on the story and provide quite some entertainment and thrills. Plus, having directed movies like Kick-Ass andStardust, Matthew Vaughn is, I believe, much more adept at creating a movie like this than say a Jon Favreau or such. Vaughn also has the enjoyable Layer Cake under his director's belt, which very much shows off that he learned well producing Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels andSnatch. Furthermore, his friendship and learning under the great Guy Ritchie, only further adds value to his role as a filmmaker. Meanwhile, the writers have brought us such movies as Stardustand Kick-Ass as well as TV shows such as Fringe and Chuck. Also, it has a pretty good cast.

Why it could suck: Well, those writers did also bring us The Sarah Connor Chronicles andAndromeda. Also, prequels sometimes have a tendency to not do so well. It's, sometimes, almost as if a prequel is a last resort when the writers have run out of ideas of where the current story can go, so they decide to go back and cash in on the name once more by filling in some gaps from the beginning. I guess only time will tell if this becomes a Batman Begins (ie a very good prequel movie that did very well to reboot the franchise) or it falls more in line with The Scorpion King (ie a complete waste of my time that probably shouldn't have even been made).

10. Source Code

Director: Duncan Jones

Writer: Ben Ripley

Stars: Jake Gyllenhaal, Michelle Monaghan and Vera Farmiga

Release Date: April 1, 2011

Genre: Action/Sci-fi-Thriller

What is it: An action thriller centered on a soldier who wakes up in the body of an unknown man and discovers he's part of a mission to find the bomber of a Chicago commuter train.

Why it should be good: The trailer just makes this like it could be a cool creative story that provides for an entertaining thriller that could keep you on the edge of your seat. This is Duncan Jones sophomore release, after 2009′s highly acclaimed Moon. So, if he delivers again, we could have a nice treat on our hands and he could solidify his place as a talented filmmaker. I also really enjoy Jake Gyllenhaal. I think he's a great actor and should do fine in leading this movie. Vera Farmiga is also a really talented actress and one I definitely don't mind seeing. Meanwhile, Michelle Monaghan isn't too bad either.

Why it could suck: This is coming from an unproven writer. And while Duncan Jones' Moon was well-received, it's not rare that a filmmaker comes in to become something of a one hit wonder. Let's just hope Jones can deliver a worthwhile follow-up.

11. Battle: Los Angeles

Director: Jonathan Liebesman

Writer: Christopher Bertolini

Stars: Aaron Eckhart, Michelle Rodriguez and Bridget Moynahan

Release Date: March 11, 2011

Genre: Sci-fi Action

What is it: A Marine platoon faces off against an alien invasion in Los Angeles.

Why it should be good: The official trailer makes it look so damn bad-ass. Maybe that's in part due to the great song selection for the trailer, but it looks just completely thrilling. It looks to be a sci-fi action movie that actually has some depth too. It sort of reminds me of Independence Day but with the seriousness, depth and emotional-center of some type of good post-9/11 movie. It's like we may finally get a really good sci-fi movie with the heart of the best war movies, coupled with the awesome actual and visual treats of some of the best sci-fi/alien movies. Eckhart is a good actor that should do well in this movie as well. Also, the writer's only past feature film work was The General's Daughter which I thoroughly enjoyed. So if that's any indication of the type of writing we'll get for Battle LA then we should definitely have a compelling story to go with the visual flare of it all. Likewise, Jonathan Liebesman has brought us The Killing Room which I felt was a fairly enjoyable suspense/thriller movie.

Why it could suck: Liebesman also brought us Texas Chainsaw Massacre: The Beginningwhich was garbage. On top of that, movies like this can often take themselves too seriously and often times become pretentious and/or preachy and just plain unimaginative with no real heart to the movie (I'm looking at you War of the Worlds). Let's hope they avoid that here.

12. Cowboys and Aliens

Director: Jon Favreau

Writer: Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman and Damon Lindelof; based on the comic book by Scott Mitchell Rosenberg

Stars: Daniel Craig, Harrison Ford and Olivia Wilde

Release Date: July 29, 2011

Genre: Sci-fi Action-Thriller

What is it: A spaceship arrives in Arizona, 1873, to take over the Earth, starting with the Wild West region. A posse of cowboys are all that stand in their way.

Why it should be good: It just looks fun. It's like Indiana Jones meets Men in Black with a good western feel to it. This also comes from the writers that brought us such movies as Transformersand Star Trek, and such TV shows as Alias, Fringe and Lost (though in my book "Lost" might be a bad example, though others seemed to enjoy it). Also, there's a good cast (Craig, Ford and Wilde), coupled with a nice supporting cast which includes Sam Rockwell and Paul Dano. At the end of the day, it may end up being a mindless action movie, but still looks to be fun.

Why it could suck: Jon Favreau. I'm sorry, but the guy hasn't sold me. People seem to like him, but I'm not entirely sure why. The guy hasn't delivered any really great movies. And only a few decent ones. Well, Elf I thought was really funny. Both Iron Man movies were really nothing to write home about though. Both were enjoyable, but they definitely weren't spotlights in their genre. And the second one was panned quite a bit (though I enjoyed both, but the second was a bit lacking). And that's really the only movies (Iron Man) that he's done in this genre/realm. So that doesn't give me a big vote of confidence in the guy. His other movies: Zathura was crap andMade was decent. Nothing else to note really. On top of that, the writers did also give usRevenge of the Fallen, which I enjoyed well enough, but wasn't on par with the first Transformersmovie. And they're also responsible for such things as The Island and Legend of Zorro.

13. Apollo 18

Director: Gonzalo López-Gallego

Writer: Brian Miller and Cory Goodman

Stars: None Given

Release Date: April 22, 2011

Genre: Sci-fi Horror-Thriller

What is it: Apollo 18 is a found-footage movie that claims to be "a film about the real mission to space in the 1970′s that was canceled by NASA." With the tagline "There's a reason we've never gone back to the moon", while implying a government cover-up of monsters existing on the moon.

Why it should be good: With these found-footage movies, they tend to go terribly wrong or be very entertaining. This one is looking to go the way of the latter. It's giving a fresh take on the rising sub-genre and taking us to an interesting location. Furthermore, it's basing itself on some real actual events, thus adding some extra layer to it. The viral marketing on this movie is going along nicely and the film has become something of a hot ticket. Gonzalo is a Spanish-born director who has had a couple of critically-acclaimed films in the past as well.

Why it could suck: It's kind of the nature of the genre. If they don't hit they mark, then they tend to really suck. Couple that with a pair of brand-new writers, and there are no guarantees for this movie. I'm getting a feeling though that this will end up being up there with Paranormal Activity.

14. Unknown

Director: Jaume Collet-Serra

Writer: Oliver Butcher and Stephen Cromwell; based on the novel by Didier Van Cauwelaert

Stars: Liam Neeson, Diane Kruger and January Jones

Release Date: February 18, 2011

Genre: Drama Mystery Thriller

What is it: A man awakens from a coma, only to discover that someone has taken on his identity and that no one, (not even his wife), believes him. With the help of a young woman, he sets out to prove who he is.

Why it should be good: Liam Neeson is a bad-ass. Watching the trailer, I'm reminded of Neeson's past movieTaken. Seems to be that similar mystery action thriller type movie. And I absolutely loved that movie. Neeson made it a very good film showing off his bad-assness in it. If Unknown turns out to be as good as Takenwe'll have a very entertaining movie on our hands. Didier Van Cauwelaert, whose novel the movie is based on, is an award-winning author with multiple best-selling novels. The novel this movie is based on has met plenty of praise. So, we're sure to find that the story/source material is good.

Why it could suck: Two virtually unproven writers. While the source material may be good, they could mess it up and adapt a bad screenplay. On top of that, the director is responsible for such things as Orphan and House of Wax, neither of which were that good.

15. Red State

Director: Kevin Smith

Writer: Kevin Smith

Stars: Melissa Leo, John Goodman and Michael Angarano

Release Date: TBA (Screening at Sundance 2011)

Genre: Horror Thriller

What is it: A horror film in which a group of misfits encounter fundamentalism gone to the extreme in Middle America.

Why it should be good: Kevin Smith. Smith is one of my favorite directors around. While last year's Cop Out was rather bland, this year he returns to writing his own material with Red State. Furthermore, he'll be treading into a new genre with his first horror movie. I love Kevin Smith as a writer/director and have been fond of pretty much all of his work. From Clerks to Mallrats to Clerks II to Jay and Silent Bob, everything Smith has actually wrote and directed, I've enjoyed really. Couple that with the enjoyable John Goodman and the "fresh off an Oscar-worthy performance" Melissa Leo, and we should be in for a real treat.

Why it could suck: As stated before, this is Kevin Smith's first venture into the horror genre. Some writers/directors find gomovie  that there are just some genres that they can't do, while they're better suited for another particular genre. We'll have to wait and see how Kevin Smith's foray into the horror/thriller genre goes.

[copperbadge]

Heist movies! This reminded me that somehow, the serious, nuanced meditation on intolerance I'm plotting has morphed into an 8th century paper caper (like literally stealing paper from the Chinese) and I am wholly ignorant on where heist/caper tropes end and their clichés begin. Other than Leverage, can you or your readership recommend good motion pictures examples of the genre?

A PAPER CAPER. What a great idea! 

Hmm, heist films. Well, there are a couple of subgenres. And some examples of the genre are really good examples of the genre while not necessarily being very good movies. But let me see if I can break it down a bit.

(NOW UPDATED with Crowd Recommendations!)

Movies I Have Seen: To Catch A Thief - focused around crime and theft but the classic caper is actually carried out by someone else; I think it’s a great movie but it is quite long and not everyone agrees with me. How To Steal A Million - the heist sequence itself is a bit clunky, but the movie is charming and well-written for the most part. It’s somewhat of an outlier in terms of using heist/caper tropes but fun to watch. Ocean’s 11 (classic) - this is a Greek tragedy written as a heist. But it does have great music and it’s a fun Rat Pack film.Ocean’s 11 (modern) - a great example of heist genre tropes and inversions of same (pickpockets, hackers, a laser grid, a bait and switch, etc)Ocean’s 12 I felt betrayed its viewers somewhat; I don’t think it’s a very good heist film. I haven’t seen Ocean’s 13, but @sailorsol says it goes back to a more traditional heist feel. I am SUPER EXCITED about Ocean’s 8 because it looks like it’s a return to what made Ocean’s 11 so good. Entrapment is a heist film and I remember when I saw it in 1995 I loved it, but I don’t know how well it has aged. Inception is considered by some to be a heist film. I don’t care for it, but it does use several heist-related tropes (a ragtag group of experts, an elaborate plot, a lot of thinking on one’s feet) so I think it’s worth a watch if you’ve worn out your other movies. :D The Sting is based on supposedly real-life events. It is an EXCEPTIONAL film and a good introduction to many con-man and heist tropes. Its central conceit, the telegram fraud, is riffed on in an episode of White Collar. The Thomas Crown Affair (classic) - contains several heists, but I would consider it more of a psychological thriller. An enjoyable film in general. The Thomas Crown Affair (modern) - An adequate remake with a great heist at the end; on its own it’s a decent film, though it pales in comparison to the original. Now You See Me - Considered by some a heist film, I’m not entirely sure I’d agree; they do pull off several heists but it’s more focused on illusionism. I didn’t care as much for Now You See Me 2, but it does have a very The Sting-like denouement that is useful if you’re analyzing heists. Dog Day Afternoon has been riffed on endlessly as a bank robbery film; I’m not sure I’d classify it as heist/caper, but there’s no denying it has had a huge impact on anything to do with media and bank robbery. The Saint: suggested by Anon and also by @drivemetogeek, I had forgotten about this movie and I love it a lot, though again it’s more spy-thriller-with-heist-tropes than a heist. The Great Muppet Caper and The Muppets Take Manhattan: Anon suggested Great Muppet Caper, which reminded me that there’s a great send-up of high-tension heists in Muppets Take Manhattan. Both are absolute classics. @sailorsol pointed out “If you want to get pedantic, Star Trek IV: The Journey Home is a heist film too" and a) totally true and b) it’s my favorite Star Trek movie, so highly recommend. @jmathieson-fic recoomended Catch Me If You Can, which I had forgotten about and agree is a really fun and also quite touching film, based on real events. 

Movies I Haven’t Seen:Logan Lucky JUST came out and I haven’t seen it yet but it has Sebastian Stan in it so I will. :D Similarly I’ve head Baby Driver is great, but I haven’t seen it. @radiozilla says “Baby Driver is indeed fantastic, but I don’t really consider it a heist movie. It focuses on a group of heisters, but the heists themselves aren’t shown in detail. During them the focus is more on the driver parked outside, then the car chase.”And I’ve just had Going In Style recommended to me by @enduring-reality, who says “Its a 2017 film about grandpas getting screwed over and stealing from their bank! funny and entertaining. starring morgan freeman and michael caine. 10/10 would recommend!“The Usual Suspects is a movie I haven’t seen but is generally thought to belong to the heist/crime genre and to be a good example of it. The Italian Job (classic and modern) – the modern one considered an excellent heist film and a comedy. I know nothing about the classic. Likewise The Taking of Pelham 123 (classic and modern) I know very little about, but they’re both considered heist films. @jmathieson-fic recommends the original as “Classic and awesome.”Snatch - I honestly know nothing about it but it shows up on a lot of lists. @miss-kitty-fantastico recommends it. The Great Train Robbery - I’ve been meaning to see this one for ages but don’t know a ton about it. The Fast And Furious films - most of these are considered a form of heist film. I’ve seen several of them but they all kind of blur together. They are very good viewing, action-film wise. A Fish Called Wanda - supposedly quite funny; I don’t know much about it. @delphia2000 says “one of my very favorite films..worth borrowing from your library” and @prince-atom adds “A Fish Called Wanda is hilarious, for the most part. I would caution that it comes with a major content warning for animal death, however.”Heat and Inside Man both came to my attention from a 99% Invisible episode, and while I’ve never seen either one, Inside Man sounds amazing. Anon says “Sneakers is a classic, and I think Hackers counts as one too. And The Real McCoy.” @miss-kitty-fantastico says “Also consider Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels. Another Guy Ritchie film and although the Heist part is sort of told oddly, it is done really well.”@rsfcommonplace suggests “Sam Whiskey, a 1969 film which is both a Western and a heist film in reverse. (They have to put the gold back. Once they retrieve it from the depths of the Platte River.)”@jmathieson-fic suggested  “The Hot Rock (based on Donald E. Westlake's excellent novel)” and @geekerypeekery seconds it. @geekerypeekery also suggests “the often-overlooked Quick Change, a Bill Murray heist film from 1990. Hilarious and also quite meta on the heist tropes.” @onceuponacupoftea suggests “David Mamet’s Heist and also House of Games, which is a con film. The Spanish Prisoner is “neonoir suspense”, according to wikipedia, but also involves espionage and cons.” (I feel like I’ve seen The Spanish Prisoner and compared it semi-favorably to The Sting but I don’t recall if it’s the actual movie I’m thinking of.)@brownhairandeyesonline says “Out With A Bang is good fun (though I haven’t seen the original)”@annechen-melo recommends “The Ladykillers, and though I enjoyed the classic more than the remake, the modern film has its moments.”@laughingacademy says “This list needs some Jules Dassin: Rififi, a noirish “one last job” story in which a break-in and safecracking plays out for half an hour with no dialogue, and Topkapi, a comedic caper film and the origin of what’s now known as the Mission: Impossible Cable Drop.”

Are They?Often spy thrillers are classed as heist films because they usually involve an elaborate multi-stage plan to steal something. So you’ve got your Mission Impossible films, your Man From UNCLE, and I would consider Rogue One this very serious, very dramatic form of heist film. I don’t know if I’d consider Kiss Kiss Bang Bang a heist film exactly, but it plays on a lot of the tropes. I don’t like it, as a film, but it does have Robert Downey Jr. and Val Kilmer in it and that’s not nothin’. In theory, you could consider Captain America 2: Winter Soldier to be a sort of heist film. It’s more of a spy thriller and I wouldn’t classify their attack on SHIELD as infiltration or a multi-stage elaborate plan, but there’s some elements there. Apparently Ant Man is also considered a heist film but I haven’t seen it. 

TV Shows and Etc:Leverage as you already know is a great primer for heist tropes because many episodes involve a heist that is structured after a movie trope.White Collar is even more explicit about lifting its heists from cinema, so it’s also excellent (at least in the first few seasons) for learning the standards. I can’t really recommend viewing after 3rd season, but YMMV. I have never seen the original Man From UNCLE tv show, but I hear it’s pretty compelling. @spadesandaces says “Idk if the man from uncle tv show counts as heist centric...don’t get me wrong, I love it, but it’s not like leverage or ocean’s” while @peoriarhetoriapeoria says “the show has many episodes that may not be exactly heists but hew close enough to the tropes they might as well.” Same for the classic The Saint series -- I haven’t seen it but I hear it’s good. @drivemetogeek seconds the recommendation for the Saint tv series. @glymr says “It’s not exactly a heist show (at least, not mostly), but if you want to see the Grifter to end all Grifters, watch the Rockford Files.  It’s a show about a P.I. played by James Garner, and he is a Master of social engineering." @drivemetogeek says “seconding Rockford.... the Leverage writers referenced it constantly.” though you guys, I have to admit I’ve watched a few episodes and I found them less than engaging. 99% Invisible did a FANTASTIC podcast about heist films. There is a GREAT book about early 20th century con men (it’s the first place I encountered the characters from The Sting) called The Professional Thief. I don’t know that a lot of people who write heist genre have read it, but the stories inside it have obviously trickled out into our crime media. It’s a really enjoyable read as a sociological study of individual-level crime in the early 20th century. Also gonna throw in a quick recommendation for the Stainless Steel Rat books by Harry Harrison (particularly A Stainless Steel Rat Is Born) and the Raffles short stories by EW Hornung, who wrote a gentleman burglar in response to his famous in-law, Sir Arthur Conan Doyle, writing Sherlock Holmes. :)

Wikipedia also has an extensive list of heist films and a decent definition of what they generally entail. 

One last note – don’t necessarily think that just because the heist genre is rife with tropes, you can’t use tropes and cliches. Most heist films of the modern day really lean into them; they’re fun to play with and there’s a reason they became tropes in the first place. Don’t be afraid to write a “standard” heist – as long as you enjoy writing it and the readers enjoy reading it, it doesn’t necessarily have to be the most original idea in the world. Think of it as a rube goldberg machine, where the formula is essentially the same but the components vary and provide the fascination. Heist films are fun in part because there’s a formula, and that formula is comforting when followed and fascinating when defied. 

Good luck! There’s tons of media out there and a lot of it is just fun. Enjoy yourself!

(Did you find this useful or educational? Prevent me from robbing a bank and drop some change in my Ko-Fi or at my Paypal!)

[123movies2-blog1]

My Most Anticipated Movies of 2011

As we kick off a new year in cinema, I thought I'd take time to look ahead at the films we'll be hit with over the course of the year. In this article, I'll be going over what my 15 most anticipated movies are for the year. Now it should be noted, these aren't the movies that I feel will be the best of 2011 necessarily. Rather, they're the ones that, as of the time of this writing, I am anticipating the most. So without further ado, here are my most anticipated movies of 2011. 1. Sucker Punch Director: Zack Snyder Writer: Zack Snyder and Steve Shibuya Stars: Emily Browning, Vanessa Hudgens and Abbie Cornish Release Date: March 25, 2011 Genre: Action Fantasy Thriller What is it: A young girl is institutionalized by her wicked stepfather. Retreating to an alternative reality as a coping strategy, she envisions a plan which will help her escape from the facility. Why it should be good: Really hot and badass chicks wearing schoolgirl outfits and other skimpy clothes, with swords and guns, coupled with Snyder's awesome visual flair? Yea, definitely count me in. The trailer for this thing just looks completely awesome. From the style to the action, even the story (while seeming a bit out there) seems cool. I'm beginning to thoroughly enjoy Snyder's work. If The Adjustment Bureau could be this year's new Inception due to its mindfuck story, then Sucker Punch could absolutely be this year's Inception meets The Dark Knight meets 300 meets Inglorious Basterds due to it's style and epic adventure, yet dark tone with alternate realities. This movie just oozes style and badass-ness and I really can't wait for what is sure to be an absolutely entertaining, epic adventure. Why it could suck: Snyder can be a bit off his mark sometimes. While Watchmen was enjoyable, it did get a bit boring. And Legend of the Guardians is said to suffer from some pacing issues as well and has drawn mixed reviews from critics. Though to be fair to Snyder, he wrote neither of those movies, but is responsible for the writing (or at least screenplay) of the badass 300. 2. Sherlock Holmes 2 Director: Guy Ritchie Writer: Kieran and Michele Mulroney Stars: Robert Downey Jr, Jude Law, Noomi Rapace and Stephen Fry Release Date: December 16, 2011 Genre: Action Mystery What is it: Sherlock Holmes and his sidekick Dr. Watson join forces to outwit and bring down their fiercest adversary, Professor Moriarty. Why it should be good: I'm a big Sherlock Holmes fan. The Doyle stories still stand as my favorite books today. I love Sherlock. He's such a badass. And finally, a movie seems to have captured that pretty well. The first was one of the better portrayals of Sherlock I had seen. Rather than being portrayed as a snooty, 'proper' and sophisticated Englishman, he was shown with all the rough edges that Doyle wrote him with. While the movie was indeed Hollywood-ized beyond anything you'd find in the books, it was a fun adventure and quite an enjoyable movie. Guy Ritchie is a very good filmmaker as well. For these reasons, and my love for Sherlock, I'm very much eager to see how Part 2 turns out, especially as they go head-to-head with Moriarty. Also, I'm eager to see how well Noomi Rapace (The Girl With the Dragon Tattoo,etc) does in her Hollywood debut. Why it could suck: New writers. The original writers from the first aren't coming back instead Kieran and Michele Mulroney are taking over the job. So let's see how they handle it. Relatively new to writing, the two previously wrote Paper Man which didn't fair so well with critics. 3. Paranormal Activity 3 Director: Tod Williams Writer: Christopher B. Landon and Michael R. Perry; characters by Oren Peli Stars: Katie Featherston Release Date: October 21, 2011 Genre: Horror What is it: Well, we have no idea what this one is going to be about as nothing has been given. However, the first movie followed a couple that were being haunted by an evil spirit who possessed Katie. The sequel (which was more of a prequel) followed Katie's sister's family as that same spirit haunts them and their baby. This all culminates to the two stories converging at the end of Part 2 where it gets to the point where Part 1 ends and we see what happens after the whole event. Undoubtedly, Part 3 is set to pick up where Part 2 and 1 left off. What happens from there? Your guess is as good as mine. Why it should be good: The first Paranormal Activity became something of a cult phenomenon/sensation. Hailed as the scariest movie of the year, people flocked to the film making it a huge success. And rightly so in my book. It was a minimalistic horror movie that took it back to the roots of the genre by using tension and suspense to really instill fear and terror in the minds of the audience. Part 2, while some people seemed to not like it as much as the first, did more of the same. I actually thought Part 2 was pretty much right on par with the first. And the ingenious storytelling that created a parallel prequel to the first was definitely cool. The creator and writers of this franchise have really shown that the horror genre can be revived and doesn't have to be all about gore and such. They've done a good job with instilling that fear in the audience as well, tapping into that fear, leaving the audience's imagination to run wild while being completely captivated. I expect no less from the third. Why it could suck: If you feel the second was worse than the first, then you may be in for some disappoint when you find out the same writers and director of the sequel are back. However, like with Part 2, Oren Peli (the creator of the franchise) is still very much involved and is serving as producer on this film. 4. Paul Director: Greg Mottola Writer: Nick Frost and Simon Pegg Stars: Nick Frost, Simon Pegg and Seth Rogen Release Date: March 18, 2011 Genre: Sci-fi Comedy What is it: Simon Pegg and Nick Frost (Hot Fuzz, Shaun of the Dead) reunite for the comedy adventure Paul as two sci-fi geeks whose pilgrimage takes them to America's UFO heartland. While there, they accidentally meet an alien who brings them on an insane road trip that alters their universe forever. For the past 60 years, an alien named Paul (voiced by Seth Rogen) has been hanging out at a top-secret military base. For reasons unknown, the space-traveling smart ass decides to escape the compound and hop on the first vehicle out of town-a rented RV containing Earthlings Graeme Willy (Pegg) and Clive Gollings (Frost). Chased by federal agents and the fanatical father of a young woman that they accidentally kidnap, Graeme and Clive hatch a fumbling escape plan to return Paul to his mother ship. And as two nerds struggle to help, one little green man might just take his fellow outcasts from misfits to intergalactic heroes. Why it should be good: Simon Pegg and Nick Frost back together again. That should be enough. Seriously. When these two guys get together it's gold, as evidenced by Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz. This might be my favorite duo around these days. They'll also be pairing up to write this which is always a good thing as well (well, this will be Frost's first real writing job, but Pegg has been responsible for their first two outings together). Now, they won't be reuniting with Edgar Wright for this one, instead they'll be teaming with the director of Adventureland andSuperbad, two movies which I definitely enjoyed. On top of all of that, they have comedic star Seth Rogan joining them. Sounds like quite the team really and I'm rather excited for what I'm sure will be a very funny movie, and possibly end up being the comedy of the year. Why it could suck: You do have to wonder if some of that magic from Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz will be lost as Frost and Pegg carry on without Wright. I think they're great comedic talents though and can stand on their own. And the somewhat all-star get-together should compensate. 5. The Adjustment Bureau Director: George Nolfi Writer: George Nolfi; Based on Short Story by Philip K. Dick Stars: Matt Damon, Emily Blunt and Terence Stamp Release Date: March 4, 2011 Genre: Thriller What is it: Just as he is on the brink of winning a senate seat, politician David Norris (Matt Damon) meets a ballerina named Elise Sellas (Emily Blunt). Though David is smitten, mysterious men conspire to keep him away from the beautiful dancer. David learns he is up against the powerful agents of Fate itself, and, glimpsing the future laid out before him, must either accept a predetermined path that does not include Elise, or defy Fate to be with her. Why it should be good: Honestly, this sounds like it could be this year's Inception. With plenty of mindfucks going on, it's a thriller involving different levels of reality and mysterious forces. Matt Damon really tends to shine in these types of movies. The trailer has me rather intrigued and looks like it could provide quite an enthralling adventure. While this is Nolfi's directorial debut, he did write The Bourne Ultimatum, thus will be teaming up with Damon once again. The movie is based on a short story by Philip K. Dick, whose work has been the grounds for such movies asBlade Runner, Total Recall, Minority Report, Paycheck and A Scanner Darkly. So with presumably some good source material, and a writer that can definitely do the part (as illustrated with The Bourne Ultimatum) we could be in for a real treat. Why it could suck: This is Nolfi's first time in the director's seat, so we'll have to wait and see if he's in over his head. Furthermore, it is being billed as something of a romance thriller. So let's hope they don't go overboard with the romance part and make it some sappy romance film for which they sacrifice some of the plot to focus on the romance. visit: 123movieshub.eu/ 6. Pirates of the Caribbean: On Stranger Tides Director: Rob Marshall Writer: Ted Elliott and Terry Rossio Stars: Johnny Depp, Geoffrey Rush, Penelope Cruz and Ian McShane Release Date: May 20, 2011 Genre: Fantasy Action-Adventure What is it: Jack Sparrow and Barbossa embark on a quest to find the elusive fountain of youth, only to discover that Blackbeard and his daughter are after it too. Why it should be good: Some people have hated them. Some have thought they've gotten worse as they went along. I've found the Pirates of the Caribbean franchise to be a fun adventure. Just a fun movie with plenty of adventure, some cool special effects, and just good times. And maybe it's my man-crush I have on Depp, but I'm absolutely thrilled to see him back as Jack Sparrow. The character is so much fun and always provides for some entertainment. Should be interesting to see how they go about freshening up the franchise as well as they get a new cast of characters while Will Turner and Elizabeth Swann are out. Why it could suck: It's a Hollywood sequel, those always have chances of sucking. Also, the exclusion of Will Turner and Elizabeth Swann could put a damper on things. While there is a chance that it could freshen it up, there is just as much a chance that some of that magic might be lost as they look to replace those characters. Also, while we do get the same writers back, we have a new director taking on this sequel. Pirates seems to be out of Rob Marshall's comfort zone (best known for Memoirs of a Geisha and Chicago) so we'll have to wait and see how he can handle an action adventure of this scope. 7. The Hangover 2 Director: Todd Phillips Writer: Todd Phillips, Scot Armstrong and Craig Mazin Stars: Bradley Cooper, Zach Galifianakis, Ed Helms and Justin Bartha Release Date: May 26, 2011 Genre: Comedy What is it: Not a lot is known about the plot of this sequel. What is known is that the gang is back to get into more trouble as they travel to Thailand. And Phillips promise a lot of fucked up surprises and hilarity. Why it should be good: The Hangover was hilarious I thought. The cast of the original had good chemistry and the writing was hilarious. It provided for several laugh-out-loud moments and was one of the funniest movies of the year (one of the funniest I've seen in a while too). Hopefully, getting the gang back together will provide for more hilarity that the first one delivered. Why it could suck: New writers. The writers from the first aren't coming back and have been replaced. Instead we get Scot Armstrong and Craig Mazin that have brought us such garbage asSemi-Pro, Starsky and Hutch, Scary Movie 4 and Superhero Movie. If their past work is any indicator of their talent, the writers could really butcher this franchise. 8. Transformers: Dark of the Moon Director: Michael Bay Writer: Ehren Kruger Stars: Shia LaBeouf, Rosie Huntington-Whiteley, Josh Duhamel and Tyrese Gibson Release Date: July 1, 2011 Genre: Sci-fi Action-Adventure What is it: The Autobots learn of a Cybertronian spacecraft hidden on the Moon, and race against the Decepticons to reach it and learn its secrets, which could turn the tide in the Transformers' final battle. Why it should be good: I've enjoyed the franchise so far. While Part 2, was blasted pretty well by critics, I didn't hate it that much. Granted it wasn't as good as the first, but I still found it fairly entertaining. And the movies are always a fun visual treat. Also, Michael Bay. I still have no idea why he receives so much crap while James Cameron is given a pass. Bay is just as adept a director as Cameron is. Anybody that still likes to tell me there's a difference between Pearl Harbor and Titanic will kindly receive a "fuck off" as you buy into the pretentious drivel. At least Bay knows his place (a mindless action director who can make pretty movies and fun explosions). Whereas Cameron believes his some gift to cinema which often leads to his films being poorly written, yet pretentious as hell. Seriously, I'll take Armageddon, Transformers, The Rock and Bad Boys over Titanic, Avatar, Aliens, and T2 any day of the week. Even though, yes, I know that will enrage many people and get me flamed for that opinion. Now, this movie (Transformers: Dark of the Moon) surely won't be a great cinematic piece. But as a mindless "let's make some cool special effects scenes and also blow some shit up" type of movie, it should be entertaining. Why it could suck: Well, if I had to pick one movie from the franchise that was better, it's definitely the first. The writer for this third film, unfortunately, is the same writer from Part 2 rather than the first. Also, it's still Michael Bay. He's not the greatest of directors. 9. X-Men: First Class Director: Matthew Vaughn Writer: Jane Goldman, Ashley Miller, Jamie Moss, Josh Schwartz and Zack Stentz; story by Bryan Singer Stars: James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender and Jennifer Lawrence Release Date: June 3, 2011 Genre: Sci-fi Action What is it: Before Charles Xavier and Erik Lensherr took the names Professor X and Magneto, they were two young men discovering their powers for the first time. Before they were archenemies, they were closest of friends, working together, with other Mutants (some familiar, some new), to stop the greatest threat the world has ever known. In the process, a rift between them opened, which began the eternal war between Magneto's Brotherhood and Professor X's X-MEN. Why it should be good: A look at when Xavier and Magneto were younger. A backstory to where it all started. For such a thrilling franchise, this could be a nice take on the story and provide quite some entertainment and thrills. Plus, having directed movies like Kick-Ass andStardust, Matthew Vaughn is, I believe, much more adept at creating a movie like this than say a Jon Favreau or such. Vaughn also has the enjoyable Layer Cake under his director's belt, which very much shows off that he learned well producing Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels andSnatch. Furthermore, his friendship and learning under the great Guy Ritchie, only further adds value to his role as a filmmaker. Meanwhile, the writers have brought us such movies as Stardustand Kick-Ass as well as TV shows such as Fringe and Chuck. Also, it has a pretty good cast.

[agentnico]

Operation Fortune: Ruse de Guerre (2023) Review

If there is anyone who can say the word “f***ing” so eloquently it is Jason Statham. It’s like Samuel L. Jackson’s signature “motherf***er” line - it just works!

Plot: Elite spy Orson Fortune must track down and stop the sale of a deadly new weapons technology wielded by billionaire arms broker Greg Simmonds. Reluctantly teamed up with some of the world's best operatives, Fortune and his crew recruit Hollywood's biggest movie star, Danny Francesco, to help them on their globe-trotting mission to save the world.

Yet again our dear fellow British filmmaker Guy Ritchie attempts to kickstart another spy espionage franchise, and once again it seems his attempt is faltered, in this case with Operation Fortune suffering a year long delay of its release due to its distribution company going into administration, as well as the little fact of that little war between Russia and Ukraine making it kind of awkward to release a movie where Ukrainians are the bad guys. I mean, how was Guy Ritchie supposed to predict that the Russian invasion of Ukraine was gonna happen?? It was so unexpected. It wasn’t as if this conflict was going on since 2014 or anything. Regardless, we finally see the release of this film, to which I myself am really happy about, as personally I really do enjoy Guy Ritchie’s movies. From his stylish direction to an almost poetically Shakespearian way he manages to write swear words as if they were song lyrics; his movies have always been really enjoyable. So now another spy espionage with Jason Statham in the lead? Why the heck now, let’s gooo!

Immediately what I can say I really admired about Operation Fortune is that it doesn’t set out to be another massive action blockbuster on the level of those Fast & Furious flicks or even the more recent James Bond outings. Instead it happily exists on a much more smaller scale, and much better for it. Here in the UK this film bypassed cinemas and went for a straight to streaming release via Prime Video, and that works for the movie’s benefit as this is the kind of simple easy-watch entertainment one can relax to on a weekend evening, with some good laughs, a decent amount of action thrills and a very likeable game cast. My dear fiancée even observed that she found this movie to be absolutely “delightful”. I get what she means - this crime caper really breezes through its content with Guy Ritchie’s trademark sharp wit in the dialogue, and all the talent involved seem to all be having an utterly splendid time.

Jason Statham is always a safe bet when it comes to having an action star in your movie. He’s charming, elegant, yet got that enough brutishness to make him feel like the one in control of the room. And his passive delivery of lines make for some very amusing moments. Aubrey Plaza is as sarcastic as ever, and Cary Elwes has such a deep yet wonderful sounding voice. Like this man could read me an audiobook any day of the week - just saying! Hugh Grant is highly entertaining as the eccentric billionaire, and shows that the recent partnership between him and Guy Ritchie working together is so far a solid 100% success. 

Overall Operation Fortune is very much for the fans of Guy Ritchie and Jason Statham. If you like them then this is a safe bet of an entertaining if forgettable watch, but at the end of the day Ruse de Guerre works as a wonderful light popcorn flick.

Overall score: 6/10

[moviesontheinside-blog]

A comedy that didn’t snatch the attention it deserves

 Comedy films have a notorious reputation with the critics, often being poorly ranked. Also, there are several types of comedy, like dark, slap-stick, etc. And there’s the overlooked types. This is not like your Anchorman or Get Smart, but sort of speaks to a genre of its own. 

Snatch (2000) Review

The film follows a plotline that is exceedingly close to Lock, Stock & Two Smoking Barrels (another Guy Ritchie film from a few years before this one). It also tends to give similar vibes. Which is of fast-paced confusion, where tons of characters come together and disperse continuously, really silly comical scenes, and joking about things that aren’t usually joked about (a hint of dark comedy). Primarily, it makes you go: “Wtf am I watching?”. Now some people can laugh this thought off, and others would get annoyed. I was the type of person who died with laughter about how stupid people can be. 

The basic plot follows people in various shady parts in the UK, who all get tied into this confusion because they’re motivated by selfishness and greed. They’re all after this stolen diamond, and well, this “they” are nuts... Completely crazy. Also, there are some massive idiots, who are incapable of opening the door. And of course there’s a getaway driver (called Tyrone) who is the biggest idiot you can find on the streets. He made me crack up everytime he opened his mouth. The other thing I found funny was the accidental shooting in the head, and the dog swallowing the diamond. Also to be noted are the weird names... I’ll name a few: Franky Four Fingers, Bullet Tooth Tony, Boris the Blade, Turkish, Brick Top and Gorgeous George (and no he was not gorgeous).

To be honest, there was a lot that was funny, but to many it may just seem silly. But it’s clearly unheard of. Regardless, in my opinion, it was one of the best, most refreshing comedies I have ever seen. Anyway, there’s not much of beautifully crafter scenes or fitting soundtracks, because the main focus of the movie lies on the characters and their interactions.

I need to give a shout-out to Brad Pitt’s role as Mickey, which he performs with a hysterical ‘Pikey’ accent. Honestly, you’re going to need subtitles for this one. However, any scene with him in it adds to the fun and silliness. He’s a caravan seller who rips off people, and is damn attached to his mother. He’s also the main cause of Jason Statham’s problems in the movie and arguably the most entertaining character.

The most chaotic scene deserves some credit for the way it unfolds. It basically involves the a gagged, tortured and blinded person walking out of the trunk of a car in an accident, another accident, and hurling milk cartons out of a moving car. Well, the movie has a sort of underlying cynicism and sarcasm that I love and engages me well. Most importantly, I think my highly positive reception was due to the surprise of such a comedy even existing, cause if I’m quite honest, I love this genre. I liked it even more than Lock, Stock... which I mentioned earlier was practically the inspiration for this.

The Man from U.N.C.L.E. (same director), if you remember, had this unique enjoyability for being historically set, and different sort of fun that brings a different sort of smile while watching it. Similarly, Snatch has that energy and vibe, but rather than focusing on action, Snatch is an all-out comedy piece centred on the ‘Fails’ that could happen while executing heists and shady deals.

Snatch (2000)

IMDb: 8.3, Metascore: 55

Deserves more in my opinion.

[carmenmalfarous]

Making Jewellery for Films

In the Past I have done many things.

For the past 12 years I have had my own business as a jewellery designer. I have done some weird and wonderful things over the years. Exhibited at London Fashion Week and in New York, travelled around the Mediterranean and Caribbean on cruise ships selling my jewellery, appearing and selling on TV, and now I can also tell you about my foray into the Film Industry and making jewellery for films – King Arthur- Legend of the Sword. (It has to be very secret until the film is released)

Those of you who know me personally know that my husband and I have interesting jobs. He makes props and special effects for the film industry, and I am clearly a jeweller. (So we’re quite boring at dinner parties as everyone always asks about our work!) We met at Art College 15 years ago and haven’t looked

Making Jewellery for Films – King Arthur

So a couple of years ago, just after I had finished my maternity leave, my husband knew they needed help in the making jewellery for films, in the jewellery department of King Arthur – Legend of the Sword, and wondered if I could help. So I jumped at the chance. I had a couple of weeks helping out in the jewellery department.

I got to research the style of jewellery they were using, and then help create unique pieces. I did make a hairpiece for Guinevere but sadly she got written out! But I also made lots of brooches for the knights and barons.

Here are a few examples of the pieces I made.

  How it was made.

They are all base metals, copper and brass, then all the intricate pieces are soldered together and then handmade pins and clasps are made too. The stones are the added, but its actually coloured resins, not stones at all. It was strange making something from non-precious materials and then making it look real. There was a level of finish that needed to be done so that the jewellery looked real and authentic, but at the same time it had to be produced very quickly as there were hundreds of extras, all who had to look the part. It was great fun and a really interesting thing to have done.

Behind the scenes.

I also got to look around the sets of the castle and the town. Its so amazing to see the sets and you cannot believe they will turn out to look so real as they do in the film. I found this video on YouTube, which shows a bit of what the behind the scenes look like.

My husband and I went to see the film the other week, and it was really enjoyable. Its directed by Guy Ritchie and it has a look and feel of Game of Thrones meets Lock Stock.  Yes David Beckham is in it, and thankfully only for 3 minutes as he is pretty terrible!  But Charlie Hannam and Jude Law are great.  I did see the jewellery I made a few times which is really exciting. However there is so much that my clever husband made (including the round table) so my tiny contribution takes a back seat.  I really loved making jewellery for films and I have done a few more very small jobs, but hopefully i can do some more soon.

Go and see King Arthur- Legend of the Sword it’s well worth a watch.  And see if you can spot the jewellery!

The post Making Jewellery for Films appeared first on Kimberley Selwood.

from Latest Jewellery Tips https://www.kimberleyselwood.co.uk/making-jewellery-for-films/

[spryfilm]

“King Arthur: Legend of the Sword” (2017)

Action

Running Time: 126 minutes

Written & Directed by: Guy Ritchie

Featuring: Charlie Hunnam, Àstrid Bergès-Frisbey, Djimon Hounsou, Aidan Gillen, Jude Law and Eric Bana

King Arthur: “I’m not getting drawn into this mess! There’s an army of you, there’s only one of me! I’ll talk, I’m happy to talk. But there is NO WAY that I am fighting.”

Either Guy Ritchie is the perfect choice for yet another visit to the world of the Arthurian legend or he is the absolute worst – it really depends on which Ritchie shows up, and how well he treats the source material. I have never had a solid opinion on Ritchie’s work, he seems to either hit in a major way or completely miss the central idea of what he may have been after in any of his movies. This has widely chaotic results, he burst on the scene with the drug/heist film about four mates in “Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels” (1998), which not only launched Ritchie, but also became a calling card for the inimitable Jason Statham, producer (who can also direct) Matthew Vaughn, as well as re-launching Dexter Fletcher (who is also a hell of a director in his own right). From there he has hit the highs with “Snatch” (2000), “Sherlock Holmes” (2009 – 2011), as well the lows “Revolver” (2005) and the much maligned “Swept Away” (2002). His last movie “The Man from U.N.C.L.E.” (2015) failed to make an impression but I thought it was very good with strength in the casting; something Ritchie has always been able to mange extremely well in every single one of his movies.

This movie begins with the young Arthur (Charlie Hunnam) who runs the back streets of Londinium with his crew, unaware of his royal lineage until he draws the sword Excalibur from the stone. Instantly confronted by the sword’s influence, Arthur is forced to decide when to become involved with his power. Throwing in with the Resistance and an enigmatic young woman (Àstrid Bergès-Frisbey), he must learn to master the sword, face down his demons, unite the people to defeat the tyrant Vortigern (Jude Law) — who murdered his parents and stole his crown — and become king.

This film has had a long trip to the big screen, it was delayed by at least a year, this being blamed on scheduling but I think it may have been because the tone was not found in its initial edit – something all of the trailers have yet to nail down. Was this going to be a blokey action movie or something more serious, akin to the legend we know? Was this going to be a departure from previous scattershot frenetically paced Ritchie films or more of a steady still camera action/drama? In my opinion it has a mixed tone which makes it very messy, the language is inconsistent, some of the actors are in a completely different film and the some of the huge special effects are messy and shaky to say the least.

The cast that has been assembled for this Arthurian outing is one you would expect to see in any Guy Ritchie movie with the addition of the American transplanted English television star (“Sons of Anarchy” (2008-2014)) Charlie Hunnam, who has yet to prove himself as a big screen presence. Hunnam you can tell really has given himself over to the role, which you have to if you are going to play a part that by its very nature is epic as well as having quite a large literary as well as cinematic history. What Ritchie has done is to give Hunnam some great supporting actors, starting with Eric Bana as his father, Uther Pendragon, who while not in the film much sets up the strong bloodline that Arthur has to follow. The antagonist of the movie is the always-underrated Jude Law as Vortigern who plays the usurper of the movie who wants to hold power and dominion over all. Rounding out the experienced cast is the reliable Djimon Hounsou playing one of the key figures, Bedivere, as well as “Game of Thrones” (2011 – present) actor Aidan Gillen as Bill – it is a shame Gillen has become primarily known for the role of Littlefinger as it disregards all the incredible work he has done over the past three decades. For me the highlight was relative newcomer Àstrid Bergès-Frisbey, as the Mage that help Arthur figure out who he is as well as training him to wield the sword, Excalibur.

With a film set that is set in medieval Britain the look was always going to be a key component and Ritchie has wisely utilized John Mathieson as his cinematographer fresh off working with the director on “The Man from U.N.C.L.E.” (2015) remake. Mathieson also brings all of the experience of working with Ridley Scott for years, in particular the look of “Gladiator” (2000) is used n this film to illustrate the grit and grime of the time period. Unfortunately as i have said the entire film is let down by shoddy effects work as well as some uneven set work. Not only that i found some of the costuming to be baffling, Hunnam at times looked like a World War II pilot shot down over France – it was very odd.

The last time I watched an Arthurian movie was the widely panned Antoine Fuqua film “King Arthur” (2004), which I have grown to quite like, with its odd cast that have all become massive in their own right. That film was pre-legend and involved Romans as well as Vikings, which was as historically accurate as any of the similar movies made. The last time I actually loved an Arthurian tale was the always rewatchable “Monty Python and the Holy Grail” (1975) which serves as the ultimate touchstone to the legend – all the elements are there with some fine singing, dancing and ridiculous Frenchmen. If only this movie had some of the charm of those outings this would be a really enjoyable movie, but like Ritchie’s worse outings this one has very little charm so another missed opportunity for Arthur and his gang.

This was supposed to be the first of a few films but judging from the reaction and the box office that will not be happening, so we don’t have even half of the characters that should make an appearance, they were all apparently held back for possible sequels – which now just seems like poor decision making and planning on Ritchie and Warner’s part. The movie is full of the tropes you come to expect but this is added to with a ‘Lock Stock’ feel that seems out of place in what was to be an epic feel – Ritchie should have either made the ‘bloke who becomes King’ or a huge ‘Lord of the Rings’ type adventure, but not a mix of both.

If you like Hunnam or a blokey geezer film that looks like a cheap “Game of Thrones” rip off then this will be for you, otherwise maybe just watch “The Battle of the Bastards” again if you want a rough medieval feel.

“King Arthur: Legend of the Sword” is out now on DVD & Blu-ray.

DVD & Blu-ray review: “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword” (2017) “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword” (2017) Action Running Time: 126 minutes Written & Directed by: Guy Ritchie…

[spryfilm]

“King Arthur: Legend of the Sword” (2017)

Action

Running Time: 126 minutes

Written by: Guy Ritchie

Directed by: Guy Ritchie

Featuring: Charlie Hunnam, Àstrid Bergès-Frisbey, Djimon Hounsou, Aidan Gillen, Jude Law and Eric Bana

King Arthur: “I’m not getting drawn into this mess! There’s an army of you, there’s only one of me! I’ll talk, I’m happy to talk. But there is NO WAY that I am fighting.”

Either Guy Ritchie is the perfect choice for yet another visit to the world of the Arthurian legend or he is the absolute worst – it really depends on which Ritchie shows up, and how well he treats the source material. I have never had a solid opinion on Ritchie’s work, he seems to either hit in a major way or completely miss the central idea of what he may have been after in any of his movies. This has widely chaotic results, he burst on the scene with the drug/heist film about four mates in “Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels” (1998), which not only launched Ritchie, but also became a calling card for the inimitable Jason Statham, producer (who can also direct) Matthew Vaughn, as well as re-launching Dexter Fletcher (who is also a hell of a director in his own right). From there he has hit the highs with “Snatch” (2000), “Sherlock Holmes” (2009 – 2011), as well the lows “Revolver” (2005) and the much maligned “Swept Away” (2002). His last movie “The Man from U.N.C.L.E.” (2015) failed to make an impression but I thought it was very good with strength in the casting; something Ritchie has always been able to mange extremely well in every single one of his movies.

This movie begins with the young Arthur (Charlie Hunnam) who runs the back streets of Londinium with his crew, unaware of his royal lineage until he draws the sword Excalibur from the stone. Instantly confronted by the sword’s influence, Arthur is forced to decide when to become involved with his power. Throwing in with the Resistance and an enigmatic young woman (Àstrid Bergès-Frisbey), he must learn to master the sword, face down his demons, unite the people to defeat the tyrant Vortigern (Jude Law) — who murdered his parents and stole his crown — and become king.

This film has had a long trip to the big screen, it was delayed by at least a year, this being blamed on scheduling but I think it may have been because the tone was not found in its initial edit – something all of the trailers have yet to nail down. Was this going to be a blokey action movie or something more serious, akin to the legend we know? Was this going to be a departure from previous scattershot frenetically paced Ritchie films or more of a steady still camera action/drama? In my opinion it has a mixed tone which makes it very messy, the language is inconsistent, some of the actors are in a completely different film and the some of the huge special effects are messy and shaky to say the least.

The cast that has been assembled for this Arthurian outing is one you would expect to see in any Guy Ritchie movie with the addition of the American transplanted English television star (“Sons of Anarchy” (2008-2014)) Charlie Hunnam, who has yet to prove himself as a big screen presence. Hunnam you can tell really has given himself over to the role, which you have to if you are going to play a part that by its very nature is epic as well as having quite a large literary as well as cinematic history. What Ritchie has done is to give Hunnam some great supporting actors, starting with Eric Bana as his father, Uther Pendragon, who while not in the film much sets up the strong bloodline that Arthur has to follow. The antagonist of the movie is the always-underrated Jude Law as Vortigern who plays the usurper of the movie who wants to hold power and dominion over all. Rounding out the experienced cast is the reliable Djimon Hounsou playing one of the key figures, Bedivere, as well as “Game of Thrones” (2011 – present) actor Aidan Gillen as Bill – it is a shame Gillen has become primarily known for the role of Littlefinger as it disregards all the incredible work he has done over the past three decades. For me the highlight was relative newcomer Àstrid Bergès-Frisbey, as the Mage that help Arthur figure out who he is as well as training him to wield the sword, Excalibur.

With a film set that is set in medieval Britain the look was always going to be a key component and Ritchie has wisely utilized John Mathieson as his cinematographer fresh off working with the director on “The Man from U.N.C.L.E.” (2015) remake. Mathieson also brings all of the experience of working with Ridley Scott for years, in particular the look of “Gladiator” (2000) is used n this film to illustrate the grit and grime of the time period. Unfortunately as i have said the entire film is let down by shoddy effects work as well as some uneven set work. Not only that i found some of the costuming to be baffling, Hunnam at times looked like a World War II pilot shot down over France – it was very odd.

The last time I watched an Arthurian movie was the widely panned Antoine Fuqua film “King Arthur” (2004), which I have grown to quite like, with its odd cast that have all become massive in their own right. That film was pre-legend and involved Romans as well as Vikings, which was as historically accurate as any of the similar movies made. The last time I actually loved an Arthurian tale was the always rewatchable “Monty Python and the Holy Grail” (1975) which serves as the ultimate touchstone to the legend – all the elements are there with some fine singing, dancing and ridiculous Frenchmen. If only this movie had some of the charm of those outings this would be a really enjoyable movie, but like Ritchie’s worse outings this one has very little charm so another missed opportunity for Arthur and his gang.

This was supposed to be the first of a few films but judging from the reaction and the box office that will not be happening, so we don’t have even half of the characters that should make an appearance, they were all apparently held back for possible sequels – which now just seems like poor decision making and planning on Ritchie and Warner’s part. The movie is full of the tropes you come to expect but this is added to with a ‘Lock Stock’ feel that seems out of place in what was to be an epic feel – Ritchie should have either made the ‘bloke who becomes King’ or a huge ‘Lord of the Rings’ type adventure, but not a mix of both.

If you like Hunnam or a blokey geezer film that looks like a cheap “Game of Thrones” rip off then this will be for you, otherwise maybe just watch “The Battle of the Bastards” again if you want a rough medieval feel.

“King Arthur: Legend of the Sword” (2017) is out this week only in theatres.

Film review: “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword” (2017) “King Arthur: Legend of the Sword” (2017) Action Running Time: 126 minutes Written by: Guy Ritchie…