Showing posts with label Javier Bardem. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Javier Bardem. Show all posts

November 14, 2022

No Country for Old Men.

Review #1921: No Country for Old Men.

Cast: 
Tommy Lee Jones (Ed Tom Bell), Javier Bardem (Anton Chigurh), Josh Brolin (Llewelyn Moss), Woody Harrelson (Carson Wells), Kelly Macdonald (Carla Jean Moss), Garret Dillahunt (Wendell), Tess Harper (Loretta Bell), Barry Corbin (Ellis), Stephen Root (Man who hires Wells), Rodger Boyce (El Paso Sheriff), and Beth Grant (Carla Jean's mother) Written, Produced, and Directed by Joel and Ethan Coen (#659 - True Grit (2010), #765 - Fargo, #1063 - Blood Simple, #1517 - The Big Lebowski, #1552 - A Serious Man, and #1629 - Miller's Crossing

Review: 
The movie is adapted from 2005 novel of the same name by Cormac McCarthy. While the Coen brothers were trying to adapt the novel To the White Sea, producer Scott Rudin approached them with the rights to make a film adaptation of the book. This is the 12th feature film by the Coen brothers, who as usual edited the film, with this coming off the heels of their previous work such as Intolerable Cruelty (2003) and The Ladykillers (2004). Take it for what it is worth when it comes to how they went with Bardem: he told them "I don't drive, I speak bad English and I hate violence", and yet he was their ideal choice to star in the film (after Heath Ledger had been in talks before bowing out)...provided that his schedule would work with them, because it would have been Mark Strong if that didn't work out. At any rate, this proved to be one of their most successful films, with the Coens receiving three Academy Awards for their work in this film. 

For me, part of the thing that comes with looking at movies that fall into multiple categories is to look at how it manages to execute what you might see coming from the genre without becoming consumed by what you expect over all things. The film has been called a "neo-Western", "crime thriller", or even "noir". For me, the movie was at its most curious and enjoyable in its setup when it comes to showing the stories of the three lead characters, one that knows when to say something meaningful. I think I can acknowledge the faithfulness of the novel and book with its meditation on the futility of trying to make a clean getaway while also thinking it is just a really nice shaggy dog thriller. Inevitable or not, I just found more to like overall in their previous works such as Miller's Crossing (1990) and Fargo (1996) when it came from top to bottom execution. But don't take my words as a big criticism, because the movie is still pretty good, an old-fashioned period piece that deals with the pitfalls of chance and fate for 122 minutes. They weave a tale that is generally compelling with a generally involving cast and locale.

In a sense, the movie is almost a slasher film, if only because Bardem's sociopath character kills nearly every person he meets (which basically translates to about a dozen people). He is deniably the best part of the film in how he shows unwavering terror with no reservations about just who he is: an agent of death, one who looms over everything. Of course, Brolin is no slouch in comparison when it comes to the other side of fate: trying to evade what and where one is going to end up regardless of the layers of inevitability. Jones has the least amount of time among the three, but folks who are familiar with Jones and his ability to make any type of cut-and-dry role seem interesting to spend time with. He is caught in the middle of fate: being ill-equipped to deal with the ever-changing frontier. Harrelson is the odd man among the supporting cast, a bargaining man who unintentionally is the weak link among the supporting players because of how he comes and goes, particularly when Macdonald and Corbin make such interesting presences without as much time to spare (the latter has one scene with Jones total while the former is the only one to share a scene with each of the main three). The landscape of the film is quite nice, in that one never thinks about the setting of the film being 1980 beyond just figuring it is 1980, complete with the barest of music and cinematography by the dependable Roger Deakins. As a whole, it is a movie that takes its time to build the layers of bleakly amusing fate that works most of its wonders through the usual Coen building blocks of genre blending and distinct characters that ends up making a solid (if not perfect) experience.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

October 28, 2020

mother!


Review #1580: mother!

cast: 
Jennifer Lawrence (mother), Javier Bardem (Him), Ed Harris (man), Michelle Pfeiffer (woman), Domhnall Gleeson (oldest son), Brian Gleeson (younger brother), Kristen Wiig (herald), Jovan Adepo (cupbearer), Stephen McHattie (zealot), Amanda Warren (healer), Laurence Leboeuf (maiden), and Emily Hampshire (fool) Written and Directed by Darren Aronofsky (#1112 - Pi)

review: 
“The idea with all my films is to entertain, to give audiences a journey they haven’t had before. But I want to do it with a subject that makes me passionate. What’s the point if you’re not doing that?”

Sometimes you can just track an interesting path of a director in their first film and see how it goes to the latest one - enter Darren Aronofsky. The New York native had an interest in the outdoors and show business as a youth, and it continued with his studies at Harvard University, where he studied social anthropology and filmmaking. Inspired by directors such as Jim Jarmusch and Spike Lee, he made his first movie with the senior thesis Supermarket Sweep (1991). His first feature film came with the release of Pi (1998), an ultra-cheap dark classic thriller. His next film in Requiem for a Dream (2000) was just as well received while noted for its intensity. The Fountain (2006) was not easily received (although it has a following), but The Wrestler (2008) and Black Swan (2010) both received considerable notice (particularly for its lead stars in each film) while Noah (2014) was his biggest film in budget/success.

Angry about the world with its environmental state and as a whole enough to strike inspiration, Aronofsky reportedly wrote the script to the film in five days, and inspirations have been argued that range from Rosemary's Baby (1968) to The Exterminating Angel (1962). The easiest word to describe this film would be "esoteric", really. Get it? A film about mother (Earth)? Drawing a story based on the Bible (there is one character name capitalized, after all)? And it is still a cloying, divisive, ridiculous mess? The real surprise is in how much you want to know before seeing it - the answer would be none, because hearing an endless supply of "you just don't get it!" vs. "I don't get it, because X" would likely cause a great headache for all involved. It certainly won't help anyone wanting a film pegged under one genre, since "psychological horror" doesn't really seem to cut it. I mean, hey a husband-and-wife living in a country house wrapped with writer's block and intimacy problems suddenly have a couple of strangers turn up sounds fine. Is it blasphemy? Is it pretentious? Is it something else? It can fall under either or all of these three categories, depending on the patience and the point of view of the person watching it. To me, I thought it was incredibly silly, a monumentally weird movie that seems more like therapy for Aronofsky than anything else. It might as well have taken place on the stage (with...some modification to its gruesome scene at the end) with how it plays to the rafters of allegory, allegory, and allegory. Lawrence (having become an actress as a teenager and one with prominence years later) does fine with what she is given, balancing that fine line between emotional vulnerability and being stuck like a statue to ham-fisted metaphor. No one is really confused in their acting, although Bardem sure comes close here. Truthfully, one would hope to see more of Harris and Pfeiffer, each being equally amusing in pushy fervor that begs for more time to spend with loopy interlopers. 

Is it a challenging movie different from the usual fare released in mainstream theaters? Sure, but so was Zardoz (1974), and all one remembers from that film is Sean Connery in a nappy. Why stop there with the reference to that film? After all, both films try to meander through a certain type of philosophy from its director while subjecting their lead to some sort of memorable outfit/character (which in the case of Lawrence is a bunch of heavy stuff amidst statuesque acting all around) that involve some sort of supreme being (one being a rock and the other being...take a guess) while taking a hard swerve for its climax with some sort of revelation (in this case, a literal mad-house). Whether one believes in God or not, it is sure to be a strange one to evaluate, although truthfully I wish I could show this to a religious friend of mine, if only to see if they would get mad at it for my amusement. In that sense, it is equally appropriate to give this film the same rating as I did years prior to that film, because neither are particularly great pieces of work, but they sure are memorable in all of their ridiculousness. I applaud Aronofsky for continuing his vision of filmmaking with passion, and the commitment to have his actors participate in some weird pretentiousness, despite the overriding result of said camp. It will prove a welcome curiosity for those that favor Aronofsky and his films for what they attempt to do in story, while proving an irritant for those not in line with its ultimate goals.

Overall, I give it 6 out of 10 stars.

April 27, 2014

Movie Night: Skyfall.


Review #572: Skyfall.

Cast
Daniel Craig (James Bond), Judi Dench (M), Javier Bardem (Raoul Silva), Bérénice Marlohe (Sévérine), Ralph Fiennes (Gareth Mallory), Naomie Harris (Eve Moneypenny), Albert Finney (Kincade), Ben Whishaw (Q), Rory Kinnear (Bill Tanner), and Ola Rapace (Patrice) Directed by Sam Mendes.

Review
Skyfall tries to do two things: Celebrate the 50th Anniversary of the Bond franchise without going overboard (I'm looking at you Die Another Day), and to try and make people forget about Quantum of Solace and get back to what makes Bond work. Does it do its goals? Yea, pretty much. Without completely veering off into how even though Quantum of Solace tried its hardest to bring a theme of coldness and still entertain and fail, Skyfall manages to be fun to watch and have a level of change. By the time this film ends, we have a new Q, a new Moneypenny...and a new M. The gadgets are simple (a gun that only firs to the one who holds it and no else and a radio), but the villain is complex, yet enjoyable to watch. Bardem can be energetic to watch, but he can also be a chilling equal to Bond. Daniel Craig is magnificent, it seems he has grown into this role fully, and he works especially well with Dench, who is given more time and therefore is given her moment to shine in Dench's swan song as M. Fiennes is entertaining in the amount of time he's given, and I do look forward to seeing him in the next film soon. The realization of what exactly Skyfall means is a nice twist. In the end, this a good way to continue the franchise that has been chugging for over 50 years now, and I can't wait to see what happens next. Skyfall is Bond's childhood home.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.