John_the_Lamp Reviews

Lawless (2012)

'Lawless' is a slow burner with a respectable boom

[8/10 · 2 September 2012]

In 1931, moonshining is business with its perks and drawbacks. And the Bondurant boys in Franklin County have found their way around the drawbacks. But after Special Deputy Rakes (Pearce) comes to town, there's a new law to follow. Forrest (Hardy), Jack (Labeouf), and Howard (Clarke) now have to tippy toe their way around the law. But if anyone slips up, they're as good as gone (other than the immortal Forrest).

Forrest has an interesting story. He survived the war and the flu and always has the aura surrounding him as being untouchable. And when he talks, you know he never minces words. Mainly because his longest sentence is five words. I've heard a lot of people not liking Hardy's voice and accent, but I think it really goes with the character. It sounds like he's almost swallowing his voice because how much he hates speaking. But the best Bondurant comes from the last person I'd expect: Shia Labeouf. I really think he carried a lot of the scenes that could have been dull dialogue. When you first here that he's going to be a bootlegging gangster, of course you're not going to buy it. But after seeing how everyone else treats him, you buy it. And there is a third Bondurant who really slips under the radar: Howard played by the up and coming Jason Clarke. He's the real animal of the bunch. Even the indestructible Forrest wants him around to feel safe. All three of the brothers were perfectly cast and played their respective parts very well.

But the storytelling aspect was a little slow at first. It was nothing but isolated scenes. Nothing lead to the next part, it was just choppy and one thing after another. It didn't detract from the story itself, but better editing and writing could have made the story more enjoyable. The story didn't flow as well as you would hope in the fast moving world of moonshining, but you could still enjoy all scenes for what they were there for. And as the movie progressed, it became more fluid and coherent. Towards the latter part of the film is when you even get most of the action you expect from this type of movie. Most of the pacing issues lie in the first half. It's choppy and jerky without its action, but it can definitely be engaging.

One other thing that bothered me was the use, or misuse, of three supporting characters. First off, it's just cruel to list Gary Oldman as third billed and only show him for a grand total of 5 minutes. It's just not nice. Next, we have Jessica Chastain. She's becoming a star and I'm glad that she's taking a vast amount of different roles, but the character served nearly no purpose. She was a love interest for Forrest and helped out with some of the business aspects of moonshining. But she was a very expendable character that had no true significance to the story. And last we have Mia Wasikowska. She serves as the love interest for Jack. But that love interest is expendable with no purpose. The only purpose she served was towards the end that could viewed of as a certain negative plot device. But all of those problems can be forgotten every time Guy Pearce shows up on screen. He handles his role so well that I completely forgot that he is Guy Pearce. Trust me, he was unbelievable and will leave you speechless.

In the end, 'Lawless' is a fun ride that does its job even if it doesn't do anything else. It might have a "been there done that" feel, but it's a fun ride with a lot of action and jaw-dropping moments. You'll have a good time powered by all of the performances and the great visionary filming from John Hillcoat. {B}

Beasts of the Southern Wild (2012)

A piece of beautiful poetry put on screen.

[9/10 · 19 August 2012]

'Beasts of the Southern Wild' is about a small town called "The Bathtub" preparing for the great storm's flood. More specifically, it focuses on Hushpuppy (Wallis) and her dad (Henry) during this dire situation. And once the storm comes, everyone has to try to find food and shelter while the wildlife is dying.

So the most important part about this movie is its performances. Lead by newcomer Quvenzhané Wallis playing Hushpuppy, she really held up the movie. Looking back and trying to think if the acting was naturally her's or the director's, and I honestly think that most of the performance was Wallis's. She was a true acting force that powered the movie. However, the one who stood out the most, was Dwight Henry portraying the father. He was purely emotional in every delivery he had. He was the one person I believed the most in the entire cast. Both of them were truly remarkable and deserve recognition.

One thing that I would have to complain about was the side story with the aurochs. I think that it was a wasted opportunity to show their true meaning. You might not be disappointed by the end of the movie as much as I was, but I thought tit could have been done better. It might have just been a budgetary problem as far as I know. Although their poetic meaning wasn't translated as well as I would have thought, the story of the aurochs was completed.

But besides the one complaint, I don't think I could have asked for more. It was well placed, extremely well acted, good visuals, and had very pure emotions. I even went into this movie knowing how much of an acclaimed "masterpiece" it was and still wasn't let down. And one thing I thought was brilliant was how, even on a low budget, real they made the bathtub feel. The people, the atmosphere and the nature were all laid out perfectly.

I really liked how real they made everything feel. I could have believed most of the things that happened in the movie (other than the aurochs) actually happened. Hushpuppy felt like a real kid with a real father who lived in a real town with real problems. An extraordinary feeling that isn't represented enough in modern cinema. There were a few points I thought could have been done differently, but they still worked in one way or another. Although the side story of her and her mom could have been handled differently. But it was still remarkable.

And I can truly guarantee that you will at least find a lump in your throat, if not, then you will be crying. The emotions that rush to you at the end are truly magnificently real. I could have watched such a story on screen for hours. But sadly, this gem of a film had to end at some point. And when it did, it couldn't have ended better. {A-}

In Bruges (2008)

'In Bruges' takes its time, but when it gets there, the payoff is beyond expectations

[8/10 · 14 August 2012]

'In Bruges' is the unlikely comedic drama that centers around two hit-men arriving in Bruges, Belgium. One hit-man, Ray (Farrell), is more for the party places and having a good time which means he isn't enjoying his time in Bruges. The other, Ken (Gleeson), really enjoys Bruges, and urges Ray to follow their bosses orders and lay low until they're told otherwise. But the story doesn't exactly kick into gear until Harry (Fiennes) comes to town. And explaining why he kicks it into gear would be giving too much away.

So if you know me, you know that I'm not the biggest Colin Farrell fan. He hasn't impressed me, until now. He was very surprising. At first, I thought he was doing his typical Farrell thing, where he looks completely out of place regardless of where he is. But after 20 seconds, I really thought he did his job well. Not only did I enjoy his performance, but I am now looking forward to his performance in 'Seven Psychopaths'. As for the other leads in this movie, Gleeson and Fiennes, they both killed it for me. This makes me want to see 'The Guard' just for Gleeson's performance. And Fiennes, as always, just knocks every single line out of the park. Even in the simplest of dialogue, he made it seem so much more real. The man can act.

And the one thing I had heard more than anything, was how surprisingly funny it is. And it kind of was, I mean I wasn't nearly peeing my pants or anything, but it was funny at times. But that totally blinded me for what I found even more surprising: the drama. These characters, Ray especially, were really deep and you could even sympathize with him. I found myself nearly cheering for the characters. There were also a surprising amount of moments where it was borderline sad. That was one thing I wasn't expecting from this kind of film, which means that when it pulled it off, it takes it up a couple of pegs.

And yes, as you can see from the headline, I wasn't "in love" with this movie for the first 30-45. That's the time where it's just Gleeson and Farrell sight-seeing. There was some witty dialogue, but I thought that it would kick it into gear a little faster. I know it had to set up both its characters and story lines, but I can't help but complain that it was too slow in the early going of the movie. There were even some things that had nothing to do with the story at all. Farrell's love interest, despite being extremely hot, had no real point of being there. There was also the weird 2 minute spark between Gleeson and the co-owner of the hotel.

But before you think that I didn't enjoy this movie, allow to talk about the last hour or so. I can't talk specifics because that would give too much away for a film that really relies on being able to take the story anywhere. But to give you a taste, this is where Fiennes finally appears (despite being mentioned and hearing his voice, he doesn't appear until the latter part). And as I said before, Fiennes really does knock it out of the park, which helps the second half of the film immensely. The intensity is pumped up, the real conflict isn't actually apparent until pretty late in the movie. But it all works and the film delivers one of the greatest third acts I've ever seen in a movie.

Knowing that Martin McDonagh was playwrite before this big screen debut makes sense now, because there were parts where I thought, Man this feels like a play. But in conclusion, 'In Bruges' is a promising good time with a surprising amount of heartfelt moments. You won't be disappointed with this debut. {B+}

Thank You for Smoking (2005)

A fresh and lovable satire that promises a great career from Jason Reitman

[9/10 · 12 August 2012]

Being able to see where this movie got Jason Reitman makes me able to appreciate it even more. Even though it's good enough on its own.

'Thank You for Smoking' is a satire about the inner workings of tobacco marketing. Think of a funny 'Mad Men'. Nick Naylor (Eckhart) is the heart of cigarette marketing after his controversial statements on some talk show. And while the bad press for cigarettes is heating up, a journalist (Holmes) throws herself into Nick's personal life to learn everything she can. Nick has multiple social groups, such as the MOD, upper-management, and (ex-)family.

To start off, Aaron Eckhart smashes the role of Nick Naylor and makes me wonder why he doesn't land more leading roles. He was spot-on while playing the egotistic and stubborn cigarette exec, but he had enough charm and humor to make him feel like a real person. And among his life, he wants to teach his son about what he does and why he does it.

And I know someone who has said that this is a 1 1/2 hour cigarette commercial, but I can assure you he's out of his mind. If anything, this is a 1 1/2 hour anti-smoking commercial. The entire dilemma throughout the movie is how the cigarette company is going to stay alive in light of the new health discoveries. It also touches on how to get fooled by spokespeople and shows you their conniving tricks. The message isn't very subtle because, after all, this is a satire.

This movie is a satire, but do not confuse that with comedy. Sure, this movie gives its laughs, but it also has more heart and plot than a comedy. Turning your brain off for mindless laughs will not get you through this movie. The comedy is there, but you still have to think throughout the film and see the true emotion it gives you.

All in all, I loved this movie. It's a satire for the ages that will give you laughs, heart, and pure interest. I honestly couldn't take my eyes off of this movie. Hopefully you'll love it as much as I did, because I do know that this isn't for everyone. But hey, I loved it. {A}

Bernie (2011)

A bizarre comedy that merely taps its potential.

[6/10 · 11 August 2012]

Jack Black hasn't given a better performance. Sadly, the writing and inconsistent tone doesn't do him justice.

'Bernie' first appears to be a true and dedicated character study of the title character (Black). His life as an assistant funeral director is just as he wants it. But after meeting Marjorie (MacLaine), the character study soon turns into an inconsistent town narrative. Although things turn up once Danny Buck (McConaughey) comes to town. But its too little, too late.

I wish that the script stayed as consistent as its performances. All of them are at the top of their game. Black finally found his sweet spot, sweet, funny, and being able to use an accent. And Shirley MacLaine gives another effortless performance while McConaughey brings life to the film's third act.

I also think that the ending of this movie shouldn't have ended the way it did. It was too dribbled down by the end, that the ending intrigue wasn't even worth using if you were going to kill it off ten minutes before the payoff.

But don't get me wrong, there were multiple positive points throughout this movie. The performances, the charm, the climax, and its unique feeling made 'Bernie' worth watching despite its many flaws and inconsistencies. {C+}

The Bourne Legacy (2012)

'Legacy' is entertaining and gripping, but doesn't live up to the original trilogy.

[8/10 · 11 August 2012]

Alright, so I have actually been anticipating this movie for a while, but after reading some of the reviews, I cooled the thoughts of this being as good as the other Bournes. And I think that helped a lot.

So The Bourne Legacy is about Aaron Cross (Renner), another Treadstone operative, trying to find answers after being ambushed. Meanwhile, CIA officials (Norton) is trying to "discontinue" all Treadstone operatives after the events of the Jason Bourne trilogy. This leads to Treadstone's scientist (Weisz) getting involved with the scandal. The face of the CIA in this movie is played by Edward Norton. And Norton has always been a great actor, but due to spotty dialogue, he wasn't used to his full potential. The same could be said for Weisz, although she managed to make more with the script.

I know that most people have been sketchy about the whole idea of another Bourne movie without Bourne, but I can tell you that Aaron Cross has the same ability to kick ass. Jeremy Renner was fantastic as the follow up to Bourne. He had the brain and the brawn just like Damon. And Norton and Weisz' characters can relate to David Straithairn and Julia Stiles' characters from the original trilogy. This uses much of the same formula, but it ultimately leads to less originality.

But one thing that slightly annoyed me by the end of this movie, was how they kept on trying to link this film with the previous trilogy. And I know that it is the same "universe" as the previous trilogy, but it didn't need to be called a Bourne movie. Now it's going to be compared to the trilogy and it will lose that argument. And Aaron Cross will be compared to Jason Bourne, and it will lose that argument as well.

So there's my big complaint with this movie: its title. (As well as trying to connect Cross to Bourne) But there are a lot of things to like about this movie. For instance, I like how it took its time in the beginning setting up the story, rather than jumping into unnecessary action sequences. Also, the relationship between Cross and the Scientist works really well. Its believable and interesting to see how the questions meet the answers.

In conclusion, I believe that trying to make this a direct sequel to the Jason Bourne trilogy was a backfire and that they tried to make it too much like the trilogy. It would have worked best for them to take Aaron Cross' story and make it uniquely his without trying to tie him to Bourne. I would be in if there is a sequel, but I would love it if Damon came back to the game. {B}