Just stop it will you! There is no need. Stop being a dick. Please stop checking your phone whilst watching a film at the cinema.
Thankfully, gone are the days when some people actually answered a phone call during a movie. However, there are still lots of people who feel the need to regularly check their phone during the film for text messages, emails, Facebook updates, etc. If you are one of these people, please just stop it.
You’re not at home, you are in dark room with lots of other people who have paid to watch a cinematic spectacle in the dark. When you check your phone, everyone to the side of you and behind you DOES see it and IS distracted by it. Why should our enjoyment of a film be tainted just because Bob, someone who you don’t even know that well, sent you a SongPop request.
The point of going to the cinema to watch a film rather than watching a DVD or Blu-Ray is that you are paying for the privilege of watching it in silence in the dark on the big screen surrounded by others who also want to do the same. We pay over the odds to do this so that we can enjoy the film without the distractions and annoyances of daily life. No knocks at the door, no interruptions, no pets jumping on you wanting to be fed, no phone calls, no anything … just you watching a film.
If you can’t handle spending two hours doing this, then don’t go into the fucking cinema in the first place. Expecting to hear your wife is about to go into labour? Rent a DVD or watch one online.
There is no need to check your phone in the cinema as we all know your life really isn’t that important and interesting that it can’t wait 90mins before dealing with. When you check your phone, the rest of us can all see it and we all then realise you are a total bellend.
So, cinema goers, pretty please … with sugar on top. Stop with your fucking phone.
I am writing to express my disappointment at your remake of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. It wasn’t a bad film, don’t get me wrong, but because of your impressive film-making record I was expecting more. A lot more.
When I heard that the film was going to be remade for English-speaking markets I did not have high hopes as the original Swedish film, 2009′s The Girl with a Dragon Tattoo directed by Niels Arden Opley, is a very good film that does not really need to be remade. However, when I heard that you were directing and that Steven Zaillion was writing the screenplay I was greatly encouraged and thought you would be able to enhance the visuals, intensify the story, draw more out of the characters and electrify the dialogue. You did not achieve any of this.
Perhaps I have too high expectations, but then I know you set high expectations for yourself and all those who work with you. The film felt like you were on cruise control, only operating at 70% of your abilities. If the original film didn’t exist we would be saying it is a good film, not amazing, but that it was a fairly decent story but unlikely to be remembered years down the line. However, the original does exist and so we can make a direct comparison.
This film very much felt like Red Dragon compared to the original Manhunter. It copied the story, but just didn’t make it work as well despite the great actors and film-makers involved.
Alarm bells started to ring the moment the credits sequence began. It seemed so out of balance with the story and I couldn’t help but think it was a bit like a naff James Bond credits sequence. As Daniel Craig is starring this immediately left my mind thinking about this rather than getting involved into the story. The credits sequence was definitely a misjudgement.
It must be so annoying that people make these comparisons with the original, but it is inevitable when doing a remake and am sure you would have been concious of this more than anyone. This is why I was so disappointed. The original film had a much tighter story, for example, Lisbeth is monitoring Mikael’s computer and spots what he is working on and helps him solve the bible reference numbers problem. Whereas in your version, you felt the need for the daughter to come and visit to solve this which made it all a bit more long-winded and didn’t help the story move as quickly or help establish the relationship between Lisbeth and Mikael.
Noomi Rapace did such an amazing job playing Lisbeth Salander that it is hard to imagine anyone else playing that role but I thought Rooney Mara did a really excellent job. She still wasn’t quite as rough and gritty as Noomi, but still a great effort that she desrves recognition for. Daniel Craig was okay as Mikael, but I thought Michael Nyqvist was much more believable physically as an ageing investigative journalist.
The difficult role of of rapist Nils Bjurman was played far more sinisterly by Peter Andersson in the original whereas Yorick van Wageningen seemed more simple and a bit of fool. The original made it much clearer the hold he had over Lisbeth and why she went along with it.
The part of the story where Mikael finds the photos of the parade and notices Harriet staring at someone was carried out much better in the original and the photos used were just more convincing and helped tell the story better.
The ending of the film (both the Harriet twist and Lisbeth being in love with Mikael) was also a lot weaker than the original film and I got up feeling dissatisfied. But then maybe I’m not the target audience, the people who wouldn’t want to watch a good film if it had subtitles.
Basically, this is a below par effort from you Mr Fincher and I expect and demand you to do better next time out.
I finally got around to watching the 2009 Guy Ritchie-directed ‘Sherlock Holmes’ starring Robert Downey Jr. in the lead role and Jude Law as Dr.Watson. I had avoided it so far, but when I saw the DVD during a quiet evening in whilst home visiting the folks this weekend, I decided to give it a whirl.
I like Robert Downey Jr., in fact, I like him a lot, but just did not see him as Sherlock Holmes. He just didn’t look like Sherlock in my eyes and was really not sure about an American playing such a quintessential British character.
For me, Jeremy Brett will always be Sherlock Holmes. No one else has even come close … his portrayal is unmatched, in terms of his look, his acting ability, his gravitas and even his flaring of his nostrils and upper lip movements seem so positively Sherlock. Brett played Holmes the genius, but was also a very real character with many flaws as well as being very able to empathise and relate to other human beings when he wanted to.
I watched the recent BBC TV series ‘Sherlock’ with great interest and definitely enjoyed this version that brings Sherlock into the 21st century. It is a well made and well acted programme. I wasn’t immediately convinced, because of the Brett-bias, by Benedict Cumberbatch but he definitely had a Sherlock look about him and a way that he carried himself that I could believe. Like a young slightly impetuous and more lively Jeremy Brett.
Guy Ritchie’s movie ‘Sherlock Holmes’ was actually far more enjoyable than I thought. It was great to see a beautifully recreated late 19th century London (with emphasis on beauty rather than accuracy) and to have a story based in this time period that was so energetic and explosive. However, Robert Downey Jr. never convinced me as Sherlock Holmes.
His British accent was good, but it was such a neutral accent that it did not have the gravitas that Sherlock Holmes should have. I know this was an escapist film and a re-imagining of the Holmes character, but because I have seen Jeremy Brett play the character so well, anything else just doesn’t quite cut the mustard. I can imagine, and I think this was the point, that young people could very much enjoy Downey Jr.’s version of Holmes and if they make another film I would actually be tempted to cough up cash at the cinema to see it.
Some may read this and be thinking hang on! What about Basil Rathbone who played Sherlock Holmes pretty darn well and a long time before Jeremy Brett? And, whilst we are thinking up objections, what about the original Arthur Conan Doyle books and his portrayal of Holmes?
I would still argue that Jeremy Brett was still best, but the point is that it is a personal choice (although I am happy to fight anyone who says Brett isn’t the best) and can depend on what generation you are from. Younger generations may well be saying in the future that a new version of Sherlock doesn’t live up to their remembrance of Robert Downey Jr or Benedict Cumberbatch.
Just like Christopher Reeve will always be Superman to me. Others can play him well (e.g. Brandon Routh), but they won’t be Christopher Reeve. It’s also why I couldn’t go to see the new A-Team film … well, that and the fact it looked proper shit!
Shadowboxer arrived through my door earlier in the week via my DVD rental service (I use lovefilm.com here in the UK) and I could not actually remember putting the film on my list or what the film was about?
A quick IMDB search reminded me that it was seemingly a thriller type film about an odd pairing of assassins, Cuba Gooding Jr. and Dame Helen Mirren?! It is directed by 2010 Oscar-nominated Director, for the film Precious, Lee Daniels. I think I had come across the title when looking up what other stuff Vanessa Ferlito had been in, after seeing her again in Day 3 of 24 (the best series of 24 in my opinion).
On the face of it, the film is really quite intriguing. The lead two actors are interesting and are well supported by not only Ferlito, but by Macy Gray (looking a bit like a transvestite, but maybe she always looks like that?), Stephen Dorff (what has happened to him these days?), Mo’Nique (2010 Oscar winner for Best Supporting Actress) and Joseph Gordon-Levitt (from3rd Rock from the Sun). First-time director Lee Daniels is at the helm, the man who produced Monster’s Ball and The Woodsman. The renowned designer, Vivienne Westwood, also designed the costumes for the lead players.
Here is the trailer:
Shadowboxer is an offbeat and slow-paced film that focuses on the character Mikey, excellently played by Cuba Gooding Jr., who had an abusive father and loses both his parents at a young age. He had been brought up by an assassin Rose (Helen Mirren, also good) and they work together as a close knit team, with a rather unusual relationship where Rose acts both as Mikey’s mother and lover.
We learn very early in the film that Rose is dying of terminal cancer and begins to question whether she is being punished by god. On their next assignment she makes a choice that has a significant effect on both their lives. As the years goes by, Mikey gradually realises he is not simply content with being an assassin but is enjoying playing a father role. Predictably though, events from the past catch up with them.
It is easy to see why Director Lee Daniels would have been interested in this subject but the film does not really know whether it is more a character-driven story or a thriller and fails on both counts. Cuba Gooding Jr. is great in the role, but it was only an hour into the movie that I realised that the film was meant to be about his character Mikey as it had seemed like it was more about Helen Mirren’s character Rose?
The film has a reasonable amount of violence, sex and nudity (e.g. Stephen Dorff’s condom-covered winkle and Gooding Jr and Mirren getting down to it in the park) but they don’t add anything to the story and often serve to make the viewer a little uncomfortable. This could be deliberate of course by the director, but there is no logical reason why it should be so?
In the world the characters operate in, there is plenty of opportunity to film scenes to entertain and enthral without it being cheesy or taking away from the narrative or characters. Take Luc Besson’s 1994 assassin film, Leon, this is a well directed and photographed movie with superb performances that combines drama of character struggles with engaging and exciting action scenes.
Of course, Shadowboxer should not be a copy of this type of film and I respect and enjoy when a film takes an original approach. However, Shadowboxer misses great opportunities to excite and enthral the viewer. I can only guess that the director is trying to show the coldness of the assassin Mikey and how nothing gets to him, not even the potential adrenalin of the kill.
The finale of the story could have been far more tense and exciting in the hands of a more experienced director. There is a good supporting cast, but they are underused with little or no character development.
If you enjoy offbeat type films and find the cast and story intriguing then I would recommend watching Shadowboxer, otherwise I think you will be left rather unsatisfied and disappointed.
The list is finally complete. The deliberations are now over and the top ten list of the best movie characters of all time is finished. Boy, it’s been a lot tougher than I thought!
You end up having to make impossible choices between characters that are nothing alike, for example, how can you really compare Al Pacino’s Tony Montana from Scarface with Eddie Murphy’s Axl Foley in Beverly Hills Cop? Also, just because a character is in one of your favourite films of all time, doesn’t make necessarily them one of the best characters of all time.
Being somewhat of a movie buff I was surprised at how ‘mainstream’ my top ten movie characters were. However, I picked the characters that for me, and you are very welcome to disagree, have made the biggest impression and that still resonate with me.
