Instead of enjoying nice warm pieces of turkey smothered in cranberry sauce and gravy (of the Mang Tomas kind), I ended up spending Thanksgiving night at the cinemas. I was disappointed to not get tickets to see “Paranormal Activity,” so I settled for “Harry Brown” instead. Dare I say this has to be one of the best films I’ve seen all year? I like the theme of revenge and taking back one’s neighborhood that is evident throughout the film, where groups of yobs have a council estate in London under siege. 

Harry Brown (portrayed by the great Michael Caine) represents a guy who just wants to live quietly to become a vigilante, Charles Bronsonesque hero of the 21st-century. Take that you yob scum! 

It’s no ordinary revenge film, and I’m not in the business to spoil it for you, but watch the film if you have the chance.

This is social realism ageing Batman-style, as Michael Caine plays a senior citizen who snaps one day and decides to get seriously medieval on the asses of some loathsome yobbos and junkies. To desensitise the audience for what is to follow, though, there is a whole litany of sordid scenes involving drugs, beatings, intimidation, murder, guns, sexual assault, vandalism, and any amount of foul-mouthed invective. The conclusions that we are being begged to accept here are that Britain’s sink estates are both utterly lawless and entirely beyond redemption and that the police are mere bumbling brutes who do not do enough to protect the decent folk who are forced to live in these places.

Of course, this all sounds like the sort of comic-book urban dystopia that gets cooked up for nonsense films such as Escape from New York. That said, most of the scenes could just as easily have been plucked from the pages of the eternally ludicrous Daily Mail (and it comes as no real surprise that the newspaper’s film critic manages to mangle his way to a positive assessment of it all). This is a shame, as the social problems being depicted here should not need such crass exaggeration in order to command our attention. Moreover, the notion of a cold-blooded, chivalrous, and geriatric vigilante with emphysema, who is not being played for laughs, is probably best considered with a bagful of sodium chloride at the ready.

That said, Caine is as masterful as ever in the titular role, really embodying each of the emotions that he is asked to portray here. While Harry Brown’s complexities as a character may be disappointingly underwritten, Caine plays the role with sufficient understatement to still make the former reasonably credible. Alongside him then and despite representing the first real sign that the film is about to shoot off around the S-bend, Sean Harris puts in a bizarrely memorable cameo as the scarred and scrawny guns-and-drugs-dealing junkie, pimp, and pornographer Stretch. Ben Drew is robust enough as the snarling thug Noel, whilst Emily Mortimer and Iain Glen also do justice to their stock characters.

Equally, it has to be acknowledged that first-time director Daniel Barber and screenwriter Gary Young do know how to make a gritty and pulsating thriller that is fuelled by some fizzing in-your-face dialogue. The bright lights of Hollywood surely beckon now for the pair of them.

However, towards the end of the film, DS Hicock (Charlie Creed-Miles) gets to the heart of the matter when he rhetorically asks if Harry Brown would be doing the police a favour if he got rid of the “cunt” Noel, who had a “cunt of a father” and will otherwise go on to have “cunt kids”. While Hicock need not expect any humanitarian-of-the-year awards for his sentiments, he does have a point. How do you break the generational cycle of kids who grow up virtually predestined to be gangsters, junkies, and thugs? The epilogue quietly lauds one possible outcome. However, if this really is what civilization now amounts to, then we have failed and failed utterly.

Harry Brown (Caine) is an elderly man who loses his wife and best friend in the space of a few days. He decides to avenge his friend’s death by taking the law into his own hands sorting out the estate he lives on.

This film is definitely thought-provoking in the sense that you wonder how close all of this could be to happening in different places across the UK, and indeed what exactly is happening at the moment on the streets and if fear is a big factor in people’s everyday lives with unruly people around them.

“Hoodies” or “Chav’s” are usually unruly young people/teenagers in the UK. Not as extreme as in the film, but I am sure everyone who watches this and has seen these “hoodies” around will enjoy seeing them being shot and tortured in one of the scenes. Kinda getting what they deserve so to speak.

Michael Caine really does put in just a fantastic performance as Harry Brown. So many scenes which really cut through you, especially when he was too scared to use the under path because of the “hoodies” when he was rushing to the hospital to see his wife . . . and watching it you just knew he was not going to make it in time. Then the funeral scene for Len when you see loads of cars going past with Grandad on the flowers, then seeing Harry standing at the grave with the vicar knowing that was not his funeral that went past. Knowing that now Harry was alone and did not have anyone else to turn to really was heart breaking.

In order to find out who killed Len and in his attempts to get a gun leads us to seeing some drug use, which I have to admit was quite difficult to watch. This has to give some credit to the actors for the performances that were put into this film. Another thing which was difficult and annoying to watch was the way the hoodies spoke to the police in the interviews.

This film does not really paint the best picture towards the police, and how they would deal with things. Again is this in some parts based on the truth and then made worse for the film or is it more realistic than you would first think?

This film really does bring up some good talking points, and highlights somethings which could become or already be major issues. It is not the best film ever and has plot holes but these are not too bad. Caine’s performance pretty much makes this film well worth the watch.

The Cider House Rules

Pais: EU
Año: 1999
Género: Drama romántico
Duración: 125 min.
Dirección: Lasse Hallström
Guion: John Irving (Novela: John Irving)
Música: Rachel Portman
Producción: Miramax International

Reparto:
Tobey Maguire, Charlize Theron, Michael Caine,Delroy Lindo, Paul Rudd, Jane Alexander, Kathy Baker,Kieran Culkin, Heavy D, Kate Nelligan.

Descripción:
Homer Wells (Tobey Maguire) ha vivido durante toda su vida entre las paredes del aislado orfanato de St Cloud. Es ya un adolescente y, a pesar de que el director del centro, el Dr. Larch (Michael Caine), le prepara para ser su sucesor, el joven siente la necesidad de vivir su propia vida, de salir de ese lugar y conocer el mundo más allá de St. Cloud y alrededores. La visita al centro de una pareja con problemas, y cautivado por la belleza de la chica (Charlize Theron), Homer decide que ha llegado la hora de partir… (FILMAFFINITY)

Críticas:
1999: 2 Oscar: Mejor actor secundario (Michael Caine), Mejor guión adaptado. 7 Nominaciones /
–
“Emocionante, magistral” (Carlos Boyero: cadena SER)
–
“Obra maestra de inexcusable visión” (Lluis Bonet: Diario La Vanguardia)
–
“Sobre un grupo de bondades muy sólidas pero convencionales, sobre unas estructuras narrativas inteligentes pero ya sabidas, sobrevuela el genio libre de Michael Caine, en una de las creaciones más nobles y libres del cine reciente” (Ángel Fdez. Santos: Diario El País)
—
“Buenas noches principes de Maine, reyes de Nueva Inglaterra…”
Genial. Bellísima. Cine bonito? Pues claro, y sencillo a la vez. Parece mentira que tenga que haber tiros, conspiraciones, salidas del armario o giros extremos para que algun crítico comprenda bien una película.

Desde En el Estanque Dorado no me había gustado tanto un film que tratara sobre las emociones y descubrimientos humanos sin que tuviésemos que llorar a la fuerza. Las normas de la casa de la sidra es una genialidad. Todo lo que ocurre entretiene, no hastía al espectador y un año pasa por delante de nosotros en dos horas magistralmente rodadas.

La fotografía y la música la arropan y llevan durante todo el metraje. No he visto nunca una historia de incesto tratada tan ejemplarmente y la historia de amor del protagonista no tiene una frase de más. Es perfecta. Chapeau para M. Caine y las dos enfermeras. También para Charlize Theron, la que para mí es hoy en día la mejor actriz que trabaja en esto del cine.

Magistral y enormemente sencilla. Éso es cine señores… 9.7

“No lloraba. Los bebes huérfanos saben que llorar no sirve de nada.”
—
Obra maestra
Nos encontramos ante un caso excepcional.

Cuando se tiene un guión sólido, fuerte, que es capaz de tocar temas terribles (niños abandonados, incesto, aborto, adicciones, heridos de guerra, enfermedades terminales) y otros mas agradables (amistad, primer amor, descubrimiento de la sexualidad) sin caer en moralina de bolsillo sino encontrando desde el primer minuto al espectador y dejando que tenga opinión propia, una película ya tiene muchos puntos a su favor. Además, la historia está contada con sensibilidad (no sensiblería) y delicadeza, lo que la convierte para todos los públicos.

Pero cuando se tiene ese guión, una dirección briosa y con un ritmo impecable, unos actores en estado más que de gracia (magistral Michael Caine), una fotografía brillante y una banda sonora de altura nos encontramos con una obra maestra.

Mejor dicho, nos encontramos con la obra maestra infravalorada que aparece cada cierto tiempo (y es que se llevó el Oscar a guión adaptado y actor de reparto, pero se podría haber llevado todos; y eso que se sorprendió mucha gente de que estuviera ahí y de pronto se convirtió en una de las favoritas).

Y es que a veces tiene que pasar algo de tiempo para que nos demos cuenta de estas películas que salen y los críticos llaman “pequeña pelicula bonita” o “sencilla, cómoda de ver” son auténticas lecciones de cine: películas sencillas (o no tanto) pero también sinceras y directas al corazón y al cerebro del espectador (o no se acuerdan de “Tomates verdes fritos”).

Datos técnicos:
Tamaño:  1,66 Gb
Duracion: 02:00:20
Vídeo codec: Xvid (doble pasada)
Resolución: 704 x 304
Bitrate: 1196 Kbps.  Qf: 0.224
Audio codec: 0×2000(AC3, Dolby Laboratories, Inc) AC3
Bitrate Castellano: 48000Hz  384 kb/s total (5.1 chnls)
Bitrate Inglés: 48000Hz  384 kb/s total (2 chnls)
Subtítulos : [Castellano-Inglés]

Capturas:

Película

Estras V.O.S.E.

Subs.es-en

]]> http://kejdzej.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/you-want-to-be-fooled/ Sun, 22 Nov 2009 19:47:08 +0000 KejDżej http://kejdzej.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/you-want-to-be-fooled/

Każdy numer iluzjonisty dzieli się na trzy etapy. Pierwszy nazywa się “Obietnica” (The Pledge). Iluzjonista pokazuje coś zwyczajnego: talię kart, ptaszka bądź człowieka. Pokazuje obiekt, być może poprosi o sprawdzenie, czy naprawdę jest rzeczywisty, nienaruszony, normalny. Ale, oczywiście, zazwyczaj nie jest. Drugi etap nazywa się “Zwrot” (The Turn). Iluzjonista bierze ów zwyczajny obiekt i robi z nim coś nadzwyczajnego. Szukacie sekretu, ale go nie znajdujecie, bo,  rzecz jasna, wcale nie patrzycie. Tak naprawdę to wcale nie chcecie wiedzieć.

Chcecie być… oszukani.

Ale jeszcze nie klaszczecie, bo nie wystarczy spowodować, aby coś zniknęło. Trzeba to sprowadzić z powrotem. I dlatego każda sztuczka ma trzeci etap. Najtrudniejszy. Etap, który nazywa się…

Prestiż (The Prestige)

Na bohatera mojego pierwszego wpisu wybrałem jeden z moich ulubionych filmów. Film niepowtarzalny, bo chociaż w mniej więcej tym samym czasie ukazał się “Iluzjonista” ze skądinąd świetnym Edwardem Nortonem, to jednak i klimat, i jego sposób podejścia do tematu iluzji oraz magii różni się znacznie (a oprócz tego ostatniego i osadzenia akcji pod koniec XIX stulecia, jedyną cechą wspólną było tzw. “twist ending”). Pod względem wykonania “Prestiż” jest typową hollywoodzką produkcją, nominowaną zresztą do Oscara za najlepszą scenografię i zdjęcia w roku 2006. Przy budżecie sięgającym 40 milionów dollarów i gwiazdorskiej obsadzie (Hugh Jackman i Christian Bale w rolach głównych, na dokładkę Scarlett Johansson oraz Sir Michael Caine), tylko w czasie weekendu otwarcia zarobił 14 801 808 $, wg danych podanych przez stronę Box Office Mojo. Tym bardziej dziwi mnie, że obraz ten jest, przynajmniej przez znane mi osoby, praktycznie w ogóle nie rozpoznawany.

Jeśli o mnie chodzi, to natknąłem się na “Prestiż” przeglądając filmografię Brytyjczyka Christophera Nolana, znanego m.in. z niekonwencjonalnego “Memento” oraz dwóch najnowszych części przygód Batmana. Ci, którzy widzieli “Mrocznego rycerza”, wiedzą, że Nolan potrafi nawet nastawione na zysk megaprodukcje kręcić z ambicją. W przypadku “Prestiżu” postawił on nie tylko (jak w “Memento” właśnie) na splecioną niczym węzeł gordyjski linię chronologiczną, ale także ogólny koncept filmu-przedstawienia, który poznawać zaczynamy zresztą już na początku, poczynając od słów przeze mnie przytoczonych na wstępie.

Obsession is a young man’s game

Ale żeby nie uprzedzać faktów, kilka słów o fabule (bez spoilerów). “Prestiż” to historia rywalizacji Alfreda Bordena (Christian Bale) oraz Roberta Angiera (Hugh Jackman), dwóch iluzjonistów. Opowieść, początkowo równie ociężała, jak drukowany pierwowzór o tym samym tytule napisany przez Christophera Priesta, z czasem (i z pierwszą pochowaną ofiarą) nabiera rozpędu i niepostrzeżenie wciąga widza w istny spektakl tajemnic, poświęcenia, zemsty, zatracenia i obsesji, w którym nawet śmierć jest pojęciem względnym. Jestem pełen podziwu dla braci Nolanów i ich tytanicznej pracy, jaką musiało być przekucie interesującej, lecz statycznej powieści epistolarnej w pełen suspensu dramat. Widzowi od początku dawane jest do zrozumienia, że tak intensywna walka dwóch iluzjonistów musi prowadzić do katastrofy.

Are you watching closely?

Siłę tego filmu stanowi zbudowanie go na koncepcie, który w równym stopniu dotyczy zarówno sztuk magicznych, jak i kina. Otóż ludzie przychodzący na przedstawienie wiedzą, że to, co oglądają jest fikcją; że są na własne życzenie wodzeni za nos. Chcą choć przez moment dziwić się temu, co widzą, mieć trudności z wyjaśnieniem zdarzeń. Takie jest credo Nolana, wedłgu niego ukształtował “Prestiż”. Ściśle dopasowane efekty dźwiękowe budują napięcie wespół z bardzo dobrymi zdjęciami (wystarczy tylko wspomnieć scenę z polem żarówek, bądź ostatni pokaz The Real Transported Man), i dynamicznym montażem. Reżyser specjalnie pozostawił w swoim obrazie wiele poszlak pozwalających odgadnąć większość łamigłówek. Niejako efektem ubocznym stało się wypłynięcie na wierzch niedociągnięć scenariusza, które to zauważają swoim wprawnym okiem i wytykają jeszcze wprawniejszym palcem kinomani. Ale czy właśnie o onanizowanie się nad tymi niedociągnięciami chodzi? Polecam nie tyle obejrzenie “Prestiżu”, co zatopienie się w jego niepokojącej magii, którą niewątpliwe rozsiewa. Najlepiej przekonajcie się sami, czy chcecie być choć oszukani

Abracadabra

PS WYŁĄCZNIE dla tych, których nie przekonuje moja rekomendacja, polecam trailer (zawiera pewne spoilery, które mogą ewentualnie popsuć przyjemność płynącą z właściwego seansu):

Really it was only a matter of time before a film like Harry Brown came along.  A lawless society in inner-city London where a pensioner starts a personal war against a local group of neds.  It’s a tabloid newspaper come to life, it’s the Punisher if he was cockney and had aged in real time, it’s…actually really fucking good.

So, it is completely unrealistic, but it’s a vigilante film.  The vigilante film for some bizarre reason has always appealed to me, there must be some conservative living deep inside of me (the horror!) but I’d count Dirty Harry, Falling Down, and Taxi Driver amongst my favourite film.  Harry Brown, which sees Michael Caine as a local pensioner with nothing lose after the murder of his best friend go postal against some local hoods.  To be honest, you feel absolutely no sympathy for the little shits as Caine tortures and murders his way to the top.  This is probably a result of the occasionally hammy writing (there were a couple of occasions that the dialogue was so bad that I was imagining it on paper rather than the characters saying it), and the fact that all the neds are shown as completely morally bankrupt comic book villains.  It has been said in several other film reviews to be the British equivalent of Gran Torino, I’m going to nip this one at the bud and say it’s good, but it’s not even close to being as good as Gran Torino.  For one thing, Clint Eastwood’s film didn’t need to be extremely violent, it just relied on smart writing and some very engaging characterisation.   Harry Brown is Britain as portrayed in a Gallows song.

After saying all this, it is a good film.  It did stay with me for a good few days after watching it.  The film is pretty bleak from the opening, a mobile phone camera shot film of a gang initiation: smoke some crack, shoot a young mother, get hit by a truck, and from there on is fairly relentless.  I have to say, as relentless as the tone is, I actually started to really enjoy myself around the time Harry gets a gun and the killings begin.  I did mention earlier that you feel no sympathy towards the antagonists, but it gets to the point where you genuinely feel glee when they very messily get what they deserve.  All in all I’d recommend seeing it, just don’t take your mum with you.

Secondhand Lions

Pais: EU
Año: 2003
Género: Comedia. Drama
Duración: 109 min.
Dirección: Tim McCanlies
Guion: Tim McCanlies
Música: Patrick Doyle
Producción: New Line Cinema

Reparto:

Michael Caine, Robert Duvall, Haley Joel Osment, Kyra Sedgwick, Nicky Katt

Descripción:
Cuando el introvertido joven Walter -Haley Joel Osment- se ver forzado por su excéntrica madre -Kyra Sedgwick- a pasar el verano en una rancho de Texas con sus aún más excéntricos tíos -Michael Caine y Robert Duvall-, dos señores mayores a los que apenas conoce, la idea no le hace ninguna gracia. Y la verdad es que a los dos hombres tampoco les excita mucho la idea de cuidar del chaval. Pero Walter descubre que sus tíos viven una vida nada convencional, incluso peligrosa, y sus historias despiertan la imaginación y las ganas de aventuras del tímido joven.

Críticas:
“Una historia entre fantástica y real (…) una trama de aprendizaje de la vida tan bien tramada como irremediablemente previsible. (…) dos magníficos actores, adorable Michael Caine y un volcánico, espectacular Robert Duvall que por sí solos merecen la función.” (M. Torreiro: Diario El País)

Una hermosa historia
Bellísimo y entrañable relato, impregnado de humor, ternura, dramatismo y aventura,con el que Tim McCanlies -guionista y director- consigue su mejor trabajo, hasta ahora, dentro del séptimo arte y nos hace tener más que fundadas esperanzas, en lo por venir de los próximos años. Buena interpretación de Kyra Sedqwick, en el papel de madre casquivana y superficial, así como la más que aceptable de Haley Joel Osment, como el joven Walter. Pero, sobre todo, hay que rendirse ante el recital interpretativo de esos dos monstruos escénicos que son Michael Caine y Robert Duvall.
Magnífica la fotografía de Jack N. Green (“Bird”,”Sin perdón” y “Los Puentes de Madison”,entre otras) y excelente la banda sonora a cargo de Patrick Doyle (“Gosford Park”, “El misterio Galíndez” y “Tierra de pasiones”). Ah, y estoy de acuerdo en que el título original del film (“Seconhand lions”, o sea, “Leones de segunda mano”) es, como casi siempre ocurre, mucho más apropiado y sugerente que el, también casi siempre, lamentable y absurdo que se le pone en castellano. Pero de esto sólo tienen la culpa las distribuidoras cinematográficas de nuestro país, que piensan que somos tontitos y no vamos a entender por qué las películas se llaman como se llaman.

Datos técnicos:
Tamaño: 1,85 Gb
Duracion: 01:44:39
Vídeo codec: Xvid (doble pasada)
Resolución: 704 x 384
Bitrate: 1631 Kbps.Qf: 0.241
Códec Audio: 0×2000(AC3, Dolby Laboratories, Inc) AC3
Bitrate Castellano/Inglés: 48000Hz  448 kb/s total (5.1 chnls)
Subtítulos completos [Castellano-Inglés]

Capturas:

Película

Subs.es-en

Maravillosos Michael Caine & Robert Duvall !!!!

]]> http://saurabhsfilms.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/the-prestige/ Sat, 21 Nov 2009 20:14:29 +0000 Saurabh Jain http://saurabhsfilms.wordpress.com/2009/11/22/the-prestige/

IMDB: 8.4 / #74 on Top 250
Rotten Tomatoes: 75 / 55 / 93
Production Budget: $40 Million, Worldwide Gross: $109 Million

The Prestige, in my opinion, is one of the most underrated films of our times.

Directed by Christopher Nolan (Memento, Batman Begins, The Dark Knight) and staring Hugh Jackman, Christian Bale, Scarlett Johansson and Michael Caine, it contains all the elements which make a film — a truly great one!

The story revolves around two rival magicians (Bale and Jackman) set in England at the end of the nineteenth century.

With a back and forth narration, the film becomes slightly difficult to follow – but is extremely intense and gripping throughout with a setting and ending which most directors would kill for.
(Nolan gets the timing perfect)

The sets and the lighting are remarkable and take you to that place in time. The music director for the film, Hans Zimmer (Gladiator, Batman Begins) does a brilliant job matching the intensity of the drama being played out on the screen.

The Prestige

Though the narration of the film may seem confusing to a few, it is apt and Nolan – brings his experience from Memento and keeps it engrossing as the events fold out in the film.

The acting is definitely one of the strong points — with everyone playing their parts out to perfection. Hugh Jackman stays true to the showman and celebrated magician image, Bale to the very talented underdog, Scarlett Johansson to the ravishing stage assistant and Michael Caine as the wise old engineer.

Like all good movies, this film is actually made up of many different layers which unfold as the film progresses leaving you lots to think about when it finally gets over. Definitely a movie to watch if you haven’t done so already.

My Recommendation:
Watch it with someone who really appreciates and understands films. Not a film to watch with more than 3 – 4 people at a house party. You will require to pay attention to really enjoy this one. (Watch in a single sitting).
Not really a family film.

My Rating: 5 stars definitely!

Matthew Bernstein

Matthew Bernstein is professor, chair and director of the Graduate Film Studies Program at Emory University. For twelve years he has introduced and led discussions as host of the  Cinema Club, which now meets at the Midtown Art Cinema on Sunday mornings. He is active in the Atlanta Jewish Film Festival and is the author of  Screening a Lynching: The Leo Frank Case on Film and Television (2009) and Walter Wanger, Hollywood Independent (2000) among many works. He recently answered five questions for us.

Linda Dubler: Is there a movie that changed your life?

Matthew Bernstein: Too many to count.   But Jean Renoir’s The Rules of the Game really made me realize how amazingly complex and profound movies could be.  My first movie date with my wife, shortly after we met, was Last Tango in Paris.

Jean Renoir's The Rules of the Game

Linda: What’s the first film you remember seeing?

Matthew: The Ipress File.  I was scared to death by the torture scenes with Michael Caine at the end.

Linda: Who’s the most underrated director of the past decade?

Matthew:  Hmmmm.  Todd Fields.  Todd Haynes?  Susanne Bier?

Linda: Would you share with us  your favorite reviewers/critics/blogs/movie resources?

Matthew: A.O. Scott, Manola Darhgis, David Denby, Kenneth Turan, Eleanor Ringel.

Linda: Five movies that Films at the High audience members should see this year?

Matthew: District 9 (if they can stand it); Up; Lemon Tree; Food, Inc.; The Wave; Everlasting Moments.

1138 REPORT CARD: 5/10 (C)  Can Do Better!

Why would you want to see this film? The short answer! Michael Caine. The long answer! Because Michael Caine is in this movie. Over the years Caine has provided some brilliant performances; performances that importantly match a time in history. Zulu (1964), The Ipcress File (1965), Alfie (1966), Get Carter (1971), The Cider House Rules (1999), The Quiet American (2002) all stand out as icons of cinema. Caine’s performance in Harry Brown (2009) is competent and compelling; it attracts empathy and allows the audience a good insight of the character Harry Brown. Caine is fraying at the seams, greying at the edges, wrinkled and slower. The dialogue is not delivered with the crispness and sharpness it once was; but Michael Caine can still offer an audience a master class of acting: not bad for someone who can’t really act!

The performance in Harry Brown is somewhat reminiscent of Jack in Get Carter (1971). If there was a family tree with all of the Caine characters on it, Harry appears as an older uncle that is never quite happy at the attention that the young Jack gets; but there are family resemblances. In both characters there is a deep and confident anger born out of pain and frustration. Harry has none of the confidence or swagger of Jack, but the facial grimaces that say ‘now I’m bloody annoyed’ are there in both. The violence that exists in Harry seems too misplaced, too artificial and too staged, whereas in Jack it was fluid, natural and very real.

Being a heavy is no longer ‘a full time job’ for Caine and is better suited for more gentile roles, The Cider House Rules (1999), while ten years ago, being a case in point. It is the lack of verisimilitude that shows to an audience that what we once saw in Jack Carter, we will not see again. Harry Brown (2009) tries in vain to recapture the bright golden days of Caine’s youth, but fails to make the past become present.

Where this film does score points with an audience is with its readiness to show the ‘real inner city streets’. Reality Police shows have brought to a wider audience, familiarity with real life; real boorish behaviour; real violence; and the real aftermath of both. Harry Brown (2009) appears to capture this audience and willingly plays to their narcissism. After watching this film twice in private I went to a local cinema and paid to watch it again. The Theatre was filled with youths, aged 18 – 27, loud and confident. Feet on the chairs and mobile phones lighting up like a firework display. I found strange that they were not appalled at the treatment of Leonard (David Bradley) but cheered and laughed and seemed to support the villainy. They wanted to associate with the villains of the film and were disappointed when they got their comeuppance; but were still entertained by the violent way this comeuppance was shown.

Harry Brown (2009) seems to reveal in the public perception of inner city gangs, and uses this stereotyped violence as a backdrop for Harry’s existence within the story and uses violence to drive Harry from one scene to the next. Violence justifies violence and the Harry killing people is somehow justified as ‘the greater good’. It is OK to shoot someone as long as they are not very nice! All this is far too predictable and it is this predictability that forms the main reason why you should stay away from this film.

In short, Harry Brown (2009) is exciting and yet predictable with little in it to try and make this film a British Gangster classic. Its worth as a film is simply that it offers a reflection of what may be modern British inner city gang culture. I’m just not convinced that there is anything worthy here to bring to the screen, bring attention to or pay to watch.

I’m not going to slam the look of the film, Martin Ruhe makes this film look beautiful. The lighting in the dark scenes was perfect and in the light scenes, the darkness was always around!

So, should you go and see this film? Will if you like ‘Road Wars’ this film might just appeal to you. If you want to see Michael Caine provide a reasonable acting performance then again this film might appeal to you. If you want something more than predictable nonsense wrapped up in a blanket of violence, then stay away. Maybe by staying away, the viewing public will send a message to the film industry that it really should do better!

Ah. So that's what the bloody state pension pays for.

The movie is set in The Elephant and Castle where I, as a 17 year old, went to a strip joint in a well dodgy pub during a visit to London. If I’d have seen this film beforehand I’d not have gone within a mile of the area, never mind into its seedy interior.

Apparently Michael Caine is from “The Elephant” so this was probably quite a nostalgic road trip for him. In the movie he plays a vigilante gradually becoming more and more determined to avenge the brutal murder of his old mate (fast on the heels of his wife’s death) at the hands of a bunch of local scum who terrorise the neighbourhood.

This is no ordinary vigilante movie and, although I haven’t seen it, it must bear considerable comparison to Grand Torino where another fine actor in his latter years dominates a movie.

The casting is wonderful and the thugs that terrify the local community are entirely believable. But from start to finish this is Caine’s movie. He plays his part with massive pathos. We feel deeply sorry for him as, first, his wife and, then, his only chum pass away leaving him quietly tormented and then incredibly angry as he learns that his mates death was mockingly filmed on a mobile phone to the accompaniment of raucous laughter.

The brutality of this movie is searing and really shocking at times.  The riot scene is entirely believable, which is difficult to achieve on a low budget but certainly hits the spot.  It plays an important central role in undermining the police and showing them off as the useless and uncaring force that director, Daniel Barber is keen to establish .

Two things make this movie a real stand out; Caine and the pacing of the action.

It starts brutally slowly and gradually winds up in pace and tension but never to Hollywood proportions.  Don’t forget that Caine is a pensioner! Amazingly it holds your belief throughout – not an inconsiderable achievement in a genre that tends to become overblown and ridiculous.

I expect Michael Caine will get a BAFTA nomination for this (at the very least). He might even win because his performance is stunning. I certainly hope so.

His best performance? Arguably.

A great film?  Definitely.

Permit me, if you will, to open with a joke. Little Johnny is asked by his teacher in front of the class to explain what his Granddad did in the great war. Johnny proudly stands up and says ‘My granddad was caught behind enemy lines, with only a bayonet and bottle of whiskey to his name. He drank the whole bottle and in a blind rage attacked a German trench, killing twenty krauts barehanded’. ‘Wow’, said the teacher, ‘and what does that tell you?’ Johnny shrugged and exclaimed, ‘Don’t fuck with my Granddad when he’s pissed’. In Harry Brown Michael Caine is that Granddad, an elderly loner whose patience with the hoodies and chavs who are terrorising his council estate has reached breaking point after a number of unfortunate events in his life coalesce to plunge him into a destructive spiral of revenge fuelled rage. It’s Death Wish meets Last Of The Summer Wine and marks the fine return of an English institution to UK screens, even if has led him to make some rather unfortunately reactionist statements.

Shot on the decrepit estates around south London’s Elephant & Castle district Harry Brown opens with the lonely titular character attending to his comatose and soon to be deceased wife in hospital, eventually burying her next to the grave of his teenage daughter – clearly this is a man with no remaining family to impede his dangerous decisions. Harry does have a friend, the terrorized Lenny who explains over a pint and a game of chess in the local that he has taken to defending himself with a knife as he cannot take the stress of the continual victimization by the unruly, out of control kids who are running riot across the estates. Harry, an ex-serviceman who alludes to some dark missions he undertook in Ulster when serving with the Marines urges his friend to go to the police, the next day Lenny is found beaten and stabbed to death in one of the squalid corridors near his lifelong home. A police team led by the calmly dedicated DCI Frampton (Emily Mortimer) is assigned the case and soon rounds up the usual suspects, a lack of evidence or any collaborating witnesses leading to the premature release of the clearly guilty dregs of humanity to resume their campaign of terror and violence. Soon these suspects begin to turn up dead and Frampton starts to connect the dots that lead her to conclude that the most unlikely culprit could be behind this bloody vendetta which may even be tacitly supported by her colleagues and superiors….

Normally a UK film which opens with ‘Funded by The National Lottery Film Council’ would stab a shard of numbing fear into the heart of most film fans, Harry Brown whilst not perfect is a relatively accomplished little revenge picture, whilst not pandering directly to the Daily Mail string-em-up brigade it stands alone as a brutal urban morality play, you really do want to see the little fuckers hung, drawn and quartered in the most excruciating manner as possible and besides, a film about building a series of community out reach programmes to develop an empathy with the alienated, disaffected working class youth wouldn’t have been quite as exciting as seeing Carter clip a few hoodies with his trademark ruthless efficiency now would it? Caine is given the opportunity to breathe and develop an empathy for his loner, dignity arousing angel of justice, Mortimer fulfilling the good cop in a corrupt system of statistics and competing priorities role. The graffiti choked, squalid landscapes are all rendered in the usual bleached out, grimly hostile fashion with a parade of cartoonishly hateful young hooligans being paraded before our disgusted and outraged eyes, one scene involving the verminous drug dealing Stretch (Sean Harris whom you may recognise from the superlative Red Riding trilogy) in particular making you want to take a cleansing shower afterward. Its not perfect, some of the plot turns are a little tiresome and the emergence of an unexpected mastermind kingpin in the final reel is unnecessary but compared to the ridiculous Gran Torino (that film is supposed to be a joke, a comedy right? it was terrible) this was a righteous slice of tabloid rendered entertainment. It doesn’t quite achieve a The Wire style analysis of the underlying tensions for societal fracture and disintegration in the cadaver period of a heartless capitalist hegemony but it does have a cool bit when the ringleader of a heroin smuggling syndicate’s brains redecorate the interior of his Peugeot 206.

So then, vigilante movies, always a potent source for some nasty diablerie, these movies always play as something of a vicarious thrill in seeing a figure taking matters into their own hands, of circumnavigating the restrictive protocols of the inherently inefficient police and rule of law, puncturing the protective bubble of political correctness brigade and exercising some righteous vengeance on the despicable delinquents, a cathartic experience that always provides some sense of unconscious satisfaction that we could never entertain in the real world. You can chart ‘em back to the likes of Dirty Harry and The Exterminator, in fact the seventies seem to be riddled with a post Nam anger culminating in  the greatest revenge flick of them all. For my mates though here is an amusing wonder down memory lane, who remembers this overlooked classic now?

Ik heb afgelopen maandag de film Batman Begins (2005) op tv gezien. In deze film worden de hoofdrollen gespeeld door Christian Bale als Bruce Wayne/Batman, Michael Caine als Alfred, Morgan Freeman als Lucius Fox, Gary Oldman als Jim Gordon, Rutger Hauer als Earle, Cillian Murphy als Dr. Jonathan Crane, Liam Neeson als Henri Ducard, Ken Watanabe als Ra’s Al Ghul, Colin McFarlane als Loeb en Katie Holmes als Rachel Dawes.

De kleine jongen Bruce Wayne zag zijn ouders voor zijn ogen wreed vermoord worden: een trauma dat hem voor de rest van zijn leven vervult met wraakgevoelens. Het lot laat hem zijn wraak echter niet uitvoeren. Hij vlucht naar het Oosten, waar hij opgevangen wordt door de ninja-leider Ra’s Al-Ghul, en als hij terugkeert naar zijn thuisstad Gotham City vindt hij die in de handen van maffiabendes en andere gangsters. Hij besluit een nieuw persoon te worden, één die de harten van misdadigers met vrees vervult: Batman! Met de hulp van politieman Jim Gordon zet Batman zijn eerste stappen in zijn strijd tegen het onrecht. Zijn strijd begint tegen de maffiabaas Don Falcone, de gekke dokter Jonathan ’Scarecrow’ Crane en een mysterieuze derde persoon …
[FilmTotaal.nl]

Ik vind dit een hele goede Batman-film. Juist het fet dat de beslissing die Bruce Wayne neemt om als Batman de misdaad te bestrijden halverwege de film genomen wordt vind ik moedig en is verder heel goed uitgewerkt.

Wat ik ook heel goed vind is dat je ziet dat Bruce Wayne altijd last heeft gehad van het feit dat zijn ouders voor zijn ogen vermoord zijn. Ook wel leuk om te zien dat Bruce Wayne bij een groep Ninja’s terecht gekomen is om zichzelf te stalen en veel te leren.

Verder blijft Gotham City gewoon erg gaaf om in beeld te brengen en dat is ook in deze film heel goed gelukt. De nieuwe batmobiel is natuurlijk supergaaf!!

Al met al een film die gewoon zeer goed en onderhoudend is.

In writer-director Neil Jordan’s haunting film, Mona Lisa, an uncommonly moral small-time hood is forced to reconcile his life with the all-too-common immorality of the big-time underworld. It is a convincing, delicately drawn crime-world story.

Movie Review – Mona Lisa (1986)
By [http://ezinearticles.com/?expert=David_Wisehart]David Wisehart

Hollywood is in love with the small-time hood. Perhaps the industry is only looking after its own, but regardless of motives the crime milieu has been home to films running the gamut from the superb to superficial, from sublime to sordid.

In writer-director Neil Jordan’s haunting film, Mona Lisa, an uncommonly moral small-time hood is forced to reconcile his life with the all-too-common immorality of the big-time underworld. It is a convincing, delicately drawn crime-world story – and, it should be noted, it hails not from the jungles of Hollywood but from George Harrison and Denis O’Brien’s independent production company HandMade Films, which has been responsible for more than its share of quality films.

Bob Hoskins (The Long Good Friday, Who Framed Roger Rabbit, Nixon) is George, an ex-con returning to the working-class London streets of his youth after serving seven years in prison. His wife won’t have anything to do with him, so he turns instead to his old buddy Thomas (Robbie Coltrane), who is fond of spaghetti art and detective stories, and to his old boss Mortwell (Michael Caine), who hires George to chauffeur one of his call girls, Simone (Cathy Tyson).

As George drives Simone to an endless series of midnight rendezvous, he becomes increasingly involved in the world of prostitution and pornography – and increasingly involved with Simone. When Simone asks George to find an old friend of hers, Cathy (Katie Hardie), a 15-year-old prostitute still on the streets, George descends into the dark inner belly of London like Dante descending through the concentric circles of Hell, where his deeply ingrained sense of personal morality will be attacked from all sides.

The true triumph of Mona Lisa lies in Bob Hoskins’ excellent portrait of the petty criminal George, who must keep his feet wet in the waters of the underworld in order to stay alive, but very nearly drowns in the process. It is the best role of his admirable career, a role for which he earned an Academy Award nomination and deservedly received the Best Actor award at the Cannes Film Festival.

Neil Jordan (The Company of Wolves, The Crying Game, Interview with the Vampire) coaxes convincing performances from the remainder of his cast, as well. Michael Caine is simply sinister as the epitome of evil, Cathy Tyson (niece of actress Cicely Tyson) makes an admirable debut, and Robbie Coltrane is perfectly off-beat as the only stabilizing force in George’s life.

Jordan frames his film, beginning and end, with Nat King Cole’s enduring classic, “Mona Lisa.” And it is in Cole’s lush vocals that this film finds its meaning: “Are you warm? Are you real, Mona Lisa? / Or just a cold and lonely lovely work of art?”

Mona Lisa may, at times, seem cold and lonely. But it is also a work of art.

David Wisehart is the editor of The Wisehart Review – movies, books, and more! Visit http://www.wisehartreview.com/

Article Source: http://EzineArticles.com/?expert=David_Wisehart [http://ezinearticles.com/?Movie-Review---Mona-Lisa-(1986)&id=3209307 ]http://EzineArticles.com/?Movie-Review—Mona-Lisa-(1986)&id=3209307

Reality is frightening. Its blistering expectations, perverse crime and ever-pervasive reminders of death offer little more than a sweating ball of neurosis bouncing on our heads for its own depraved amusement. After watching Michael Caine’s latest film Harry Brown, this seems like flagrant optimism. Set on a council estate in South London, Caine plays Harry Brown, a widower whose best and only friend Leonard (David Bradley) is brutally killed by a local gang of ‘yoofs’. Stuck behind red tape, the police offer little help. So it’s up to ex-marine Michael Caine, himself an ex-serviceman who served in the Korean War (fact), to take on the scourge of hooded rogues.

The lead up to the murder has a heart-wrenching potency. Drawn out scenes of the two old friends playing chess, enjoying each other’s company in long silences, reminds that even a banal life still has significance.

Where the film wanes is in its portrayal of the criminal culture. Youth crime is obviously an important subject too often ignored, and Harry Brown should at least be commended for taking the focus away from Guy Ritchies’ rather disorganised mockney gangsters. But portraying them all purely as cold psychopaths makes them into unrecognisable monsters.

Dirty Harry

The two guys Harry Brown buys a gun from dress and look like emaciated zombies. They also own a marijuana farm, spend all day with needles hanging out of which ever body part is easiest to reach at that particular time, stuff what ever they can up their nose and sporadically rape a random girl passed out on their sofa. It’s these parts where Harry Brown meanders away from reality and veers towards a Trainspotting for the delusional Daily Mail reader.

It wanted so badly to represent a gritty reality of a criminal underworld that it forgot to make the “baddies” human. Portrayed merely as “hoodies” who were automatically thieves, muggers, child molesters, killers and just base scum. People just aren’t that one-dimensional, and as such the film gives one blinkered perspective as opposed to the realistic representation it intends. None of the gang members cracked a funny, fell in love, whistled a tune, bought their mum some flowers or anything that might bring some realism into the grittiness. The danger is that if you want to say something about a section of society, yet misrepresent them, then you end up saying nothing about anything and merely reinvigorate an already out of control stereotype which feeds the problem further.

There was something of an old Western theme to the frighteningly naïve ending, which implied that if you kill enough gang members we are once again safe to walk the streets. There was audible appreciation in the theatre as Harry Brown stabs a junkie in the chest. You could almost hear the cheering mutters from the back, “yes, a good hiding, that’s what they need,” “or a stint in the army,” “here here,” “we didn’t have hooligans in my day, just tea and moustaches.”

Cinema has always been an effective stage for social commentary, unfortunately Harry Brown says more about our own ignorance than addressing its intended target of violent youth crime.

Welcome, dearest reader to the new home for Krondas Kriticises Kulture. It’ll consist of exactly the same nit-picking and be as Doctor Who heavy as always, but hopefully the writing will be a little sharper.

I’ve taken the decision to ignore the brilliant, fantastic, game-changing(?) The Waters of Mars suffice to say that after the underwhelming Planet of the Dead this was a story that truly earned the title of ‘Special’ and those (Welsh quarry set) Martian vistas were a damned sight more convincing than anything filmed in Dubai.

Moving from one national treasure to another, namely Sir Michael Caine. Some people (and I think these people are basing this on the trailer rather than the actual film) have lazily described Harry Brown as “A British Gran Torino“. Mainly due to both films featuring elderly gentlemen who take action against the thugs that have made their old neighbourhoods unrecognisable. Now that is where any comparison ends, where Gran Torino was ultimately life affirming and laced with humour, Harry Brown is a much grimmer beast.

If I’m being perfectly honest it is a distinctly unpleasant film, down to the harsh language (one particular scene involving a charming young gentleman threatening to stick his cock up Emily Mortimer’s arsehole.) and sheer brutality of the youths on the estate. Of course, it needs to be unpleasant but part of me is concerned that the portrayal of the gang is far too one dimensional, there’s not one scene in which they’re not threatening sexual violence, beating people up or taking drugs and therefore it sways dangerously close to becoming Daily Mail: The Movie. One of the reasons I feel more comfortable viewing it as a quality revenge narrative.

Thankfully, there are some bloody beautiful touches that lift it above both a call to arms and just another revenge film, Caine’s character being handed a mobile phone video of his friends murder and asking the youngster he’s torturing to ‘make it work.’ Or a scene of a long funeral procession for a beloved grandfather that passes to reveal a Priest and Harry Brown as the only two men at his murdered friend Len’s graveside. Not to mention the absolutely sublime ‘You should have called an ambulance for the girl.’ the closest the film comes to an action hero one liner.

Incidentally, the film is far closer to revenge thriller than social commentary (Kidulthood and Adulthood do better jobs of discussing British youth.) so view Harry Brown as a fine, unflinchingly grim piece of British cinema and not, as a call to arms. Either way however, the film’s ending is still quite uncomfortable, suggesting, as one member of the audience said to me after the film; ‘There should be more Harry Browns.’

Caught this movie last night & I’ve gotta say, it’s very good… I highly recommend you go and see it! Michael Caine is great in the lead role of Harry Brown and the supporting cast are very convincing too. Plan B (AKA Ben Drew) plays the role of Noel, a drug dealing bully from the local estate (filmed in South London’s Elephant and Castle) and portrays the character admirably.

Some of the scenes are probably going to be quite disturbing for the more sensitive viewers, but trust me, it’s well worth the price of admission!

Check out the Top 20 charting “End Credits” by Chase & Status feat. Plan B, taken from the film:

Herman Van Who? Herman Van Belgium Prime Minister of course, and he’s favourite to become Europe’s first Prime Minister. Based on nothing at all he already gets my vote over Tony WOMD Blair but surely, with a population of 500 million to draw upon, we can do better than this pair. Has anyone even bothered to ask Michael Caine? Perhaps I am a little biased when it comes to the next Mr Brazil, I’m not even sure how interested he is in politics, but plenty of other  names spring to mind. Terry Wogan would be good. Gary Lineker would be popular with the youth of Europe. Flo thinks that Kevin McCloud would do well; he has a certain rakish charm. If we’re looking beyond these shores then Julio Iglesias is a definite possible. And if it is some political acumen that you’re looking for, then fill your boots with Lech Walesa, Poland’s very own Ricky Tomlinson and former Prime Minister. At 66 he’s a full three years younger than the actor Michael Gambon  although that’s irrelevant; nobody would take Michael Gambon seriously as European President.

Have you ever watched a movie and compared it to shuffling a stack of playing cards? Well that’s probably the best way to describe the new movie from director Gore Verbinski (Pirates of the Caribbean).

Nicolas Cage stars as Dave Spritz, a well paid local weather man who is having a lot of personal problems. Spritz has split from his estranged wife (Hope Davis) and their two kids. His life just never seems to make any sense and it always seem to reach a pinnacle when he is hit in the face with some sort of fast food item from an irate pedestrian.

Spritz is trying to also find to reach out to his kids but they seem to be slipping through his fingers. On top of his declining life, Spritz’s father (Michael Caine) is also dying of cancer.

Before he loses his father forever, Spritz wants to show his dad that he can be a good father, have a good life and make him proud. You know kind of what we all want at some point.

What can Spritz do to stop his family from imploding? How can he save his life and find himself in the process? Trust me; Spritz has an idea or two.

On paper, “The Weather Man” looks like a great film. It is teaming with supporting talent, has a powerful upcoming director and it allows Cage to do what he does best. Then why does it feel so odd?

Well there seems to be two entities in this film. One is a story about a lonely depressed man reaching out to save his life. The other is this twisted sexually confusing sub-culture that seems to creep in at the oddest places.

I really enjoyed the first entity and I found that Cage was brilliant even if we have seen him do this kind of persona in about 5 or 6 other films. I also was a great admirer of Cage’s facial expressions in this film.

My favorite scene in the film is towards the end when Cage and his dad sit in the car and listen to Bob Seger’s “Like a Rock”. It’s touching, poignant and everything this film should have been. It’s everything I wanted from this film.

The second entity was alarming, disjointed, annoying and so inappropriate especially when a lot of it’s time was spent in the sub-plots involving the Cage’s children.

Maybe I am not explaining this monster within this movie very well. Let me try, without giving away too much of the subplots.

Imagine a situation where you are sitting in a psychiatrist’s office. The couch is comfy and you are relaxed. You begin telling this professional about some of the problems in your life. He is very interested and you seem to be benefiting from the session. Then out of nowhere an angry, naked midget comes out from behind the doctor’s desk and begins to dance as he screams at the top of his lungs the rudest language you can possibly imagine. Now think how this would affect you as you continue to tell your deepest problems to the doctor. That is the feeling that I felt while I watched “The Weather Man”.

To say that I was disappointed with this film is an understatement. I just wish that Cage would have shot that dancing naked midget with his bow.

2 out of 5

So Says the Soothsayer.

Just saw Harry Brown at the cinema which is a British crime thriller which was directed by Daniel Barber. The film stars Michael Caine, Emily Mortimer, Jack O’Connell and Liam Cunningham.

Michael Caine plays the main character Harry Brown. The story is about how he seeks revenge after his friend is killed by the group of thugs.

The film puts across very serious and relevant messages to the audience about gang crime.

I really enjoyed this film- it felt very genuine and realistic because of its ‘gritty/raw’ style. The film is very violent, has a lot of bad language and hard drug use but it does make the film more realistic.Michael Caine was very good in this role and i think that this is one of his best performances in most of his recent films.

This film is worth seeing in you like British thrillers or films such as Gran Torino, Kidulthood and Adulthood.

Film Rating: 8/10