Showing posts with label Nathaniel Parker. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Nathaniel Parker. Show all posts

August 31, 2022

The Last Duel.

Review #1879: The Last Duel.

Cast: 
Matt Damon (Sir Jean de Carrouges), Adam Driver (Jacques Le Gris), Jodie Comer (Marguerite de Carrouges), Ben Affleck (Count Pierre d'Alençon), Harriet Walter (Nicole de Buchard), Alex Lawther (King Charles VI), Serena Kennedy (Queen Isabeau), Marton Csokas (Crespin), Željko Ivanek (Le Coq), Tallulah Haddon (Marie), Bryony Hannah (Alice), and Nathaniel Parker (Sir Robert de Thibouville) Directed by Ridley Scott (#100 - Blade Runner, #530 - Alien, #739 - The Martian, #1076 - Thelma & Louise, #1524 - Gladiator)

Review: 
"I think what it boils down to — what we've got today [are] the audiences who were brought up on these fucking cell phones. The millennian do not ever want to be taught anything unless you are told it on the cell phone"

It is not every day you can get to enjoy an old-fashioned long action drama, complete with actors who also serve as writers. But one can never know what to expect in the modern age, since I know you haven't exactly heard of this movie. I know I didn't really think of this one, which came out in October of last year and managed to generate a memorable statement from its director on how it failed (the budget was $100 million, and it made not even half of that upon release by 20th Century Studios); of course, the film was set to be released in the winter of 2020, but I'm sure you know why it was pushed back. Well, let us start with the details: the movie is as adaptation of The Last Duel: A True Story of Crime, Scandal, and Trial by Combat in Medieval France by Eric Jager, a 2004 historical novel that detailed the duel of trial by combat done between two knights of France on the 29th of December in 1386, which was attended by both members of the royal family along with residents of Paris (incidentally, both knights were in their mid-fifties when they did this duel) after one of them was accused of rape by the wife of the other knight; if the husband died, the wife would have been burned alive, as a sign of God's will. It was not the last duel ever held in the country (that happened in 1547 as a matter of honor), but it was the last judicial duel ever held that resulted in the death of one of the participants (incidentally, the survivor would live for ten more years before dying in the Crusades) along with extensive coverage from chroniclers and historians over the centuries. Nicole Holofcener, Ben Affleck, and Matt Damon wrote the screenplay for the film (incidentally, Affleck was at one point attached to serve as the main lead alongside Damon but instead elected for a supporting role). 

I was expecting a decent movie, albeit one that I hoped would justify its lengthy run-time. The movie is 153 minutes long, as it is a movie that shows the perspective of each of the main three characters in telling the story of the de Carrouges-Le Gris conflict, going from Damon to Driver to Comer before closing with the duel; not surprisingly, the movie has been compared to Rashomon (1954) in the showing of multiple perspectives. The result is a magnificent experience, a gruesomely honest movie that makes a 14th century tale seem quite diverting and relevant without falling into self-parody (there is probably an argument that one with an offbeat sense of humor could make a comedy out of the material, but I digress). Granted, it isn't a perfect epic, but it fills most of the requirements laid out from a period action drama to make it all work for riveting entertainment. Damon is enjoyable to watch here, capturing the duality that comes with his take on a historical knight: fierce but temperamental, rash but also brave in what and who is he is that proves quite interesting to view in each of the three perspectives, which only goes to show how a scene can be interesting when you see it from many angles, such as the moment with him arguing over fairness (in regards to not being named to a certain position) in front of Driver and Affleck. There are no real heroes or villains with this kind of story, and Damon does just right with what is needed here. Driver encapsulates the other side of infamy in imposing confidence, one with a certain kind of confidence and assured nature that plays off Damon and Comer in distinct ways throughout the perspectives for useful effect, which makes him a quality figure worth seeing for the duel. In other words: Damon and Driver make a good pair of figures to build for a fight, both wrapped in pride and confidence as heroes in their own mind. Incidentally, each actor did their own stunts, as coordinated by Rob Inch - while the helmets worn by each man makes their face visible in contradiction to history, it certainly doesn't affect the quality of the fight, which has a mix of jousting and fight with weapons in heavy armor. Not to be lost in this is Comer, trapped in a system of expectations that has her firmly at a disadvantage that she handles like a pro in timing. She carries her end of the story with knowing presence, a woman of fate more than anything. The rest of the cast do pretty well to serve their roles within the varying perspectives, which mostly benefit Affleck in his key part that he handles with collected confidence. The action is here and there, but it is well-executed and quite satisfying to play out amidst the look of the film, which looks pretty good for the time period. As a whole, the movie is a wonderfully executed one, one with attention to detail in craftsmanship from a director who has known what he has wanted to show on film for decades with worthy confidence to back it up. As an action period drama, Scott has made a clear winner that should deserve appreciation that could make a case for a cult classic in the coming years, one with enough entertainment in armored action and a useful trio to carry it all together. Brutal but fair, The Last Duel is the kind of movie you would expect a director to get angry about when people didn't appreciate its worthy talents in its time.

Overall, I give it 9 out of 10 stars.

And with that, Action in August formally ends. Twelve films in the span of a month that all had a distinct level of action throughout a century of film was pretty interesting to do, and I hope you enjoyed reading every word of it.

March 10, 2017

Hamlet (1990).


Review #913: Hamlet (1990).

Cast:
Mel Gibson (Prince Hamlet), Glenn Close (Queen Gertrude), Alan Bates (King Claudius), Paul Scofield (Ghost of Hamlet's Father), Ian Holm (Polonius), Helena Bonham Carter (Ophelia), Stephen Dillane (Horatio), Nathaniel Parker (Laertes), and Michael Maloney and Sean Murray (Rosencrantz and Guildenstern) Directed by Franco Zeffirelli.

Review:
I had read this play when I was in senior year of high school (are you surprised?), and I felt that it was a great play, though (naturally) I read it just once. Around two years later, it only made sense that I get around to seeing the 1990 version of Hamlet, compliments of my British Literature class. Whether one interprets the play as one dominated by an inability to act or one of revenge, the movie Obviously the movie takes liberties with the play (after all, it only lasts 134 minutes), but the best thing I can say about the movie is that it is competent enough in the right areas to overcome any doubt of feeling not needed. I will admit, the first half of the movie did not exactly give too much hope; it wasn't a terrible half, but it didn't exactly inspire too much confidence in Gibson (nor the film) having the right kind of passion. However, the second half of the movie does bring itself some well needed tension, where Gibson, Close, and Bates get their chance to show their talents in the climax. It's a swift and satisfying one, where the fencing sequence with Gibson and Parker being a key highlight, obviously.

This is the kind of movie that may vary heavily depending on how one views Gibson in the role of Hamlet. It took me a while to really get invested in Gibson, but he manages to excel at times when having to make madness feel mad. His take on the famed "To be, or not to be" soliloquy has a degree of raw sincerity that works with the carnal nature of the film. Close and Bates are acceptable, with the former being good at showing the motherly love that creeps into the psyche and provides for a particularly interesting scene in the last half of the film. Bates does a decent performance, managing to balance a demeanor of power and sinister nature pretty well. The sets and costumes look well made, looking deft without being too distracting. For me, the movie is well crafted and slick enough with its energy that work in the right places. But I can't find myself wanting to watch this film again, and I think it's because it would be like trying to read Hamlet again; sometimes you just have to let things lie where they are. It is a movie worth recommending for at least one viewing, though I should note there are numerous adaptations of the play as well. There is the 1948 version with Laurence Olivier (which won Best Picture and three other Oscars that year) or the 1996 version by Kenneth Branagh that was the first unabridged theatrical film version of the play (which runs at just over four hours). Of course there's also the 2000 version that updates the setting to the modern day...or the story done with lions in The Lion King. Whatever the case, this is a decent enough film.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

October 11, 2015

The Haunted Mansion.


Review #746: The Haunted Mansion.

Cast
Eddie Murphy (Jim Evers), Terence Stamp (Ramsley), Nathaniel Parker (Master Edward Gracey), Marsha Thomason (Sara Evers/Elizabeth Henshaw), Jennifer Tilly (Madame Leota), Wallace Shawn (Ezra), Dina Waters (Emma), Marc John Jefferies (Michael Evers), and Aree Davis (Megan Evers) Directed by Rob Minkoff (#073 - The Lion King)

Review
Yep, I knew I would get to this one eventually. Not because I actually was interested in the movie, but because I figured that I'd have to dust this off my shelf and actually watch this for the first time in years. After watching it again, I have no reason to ever touch it, unless my shelf mysteriously burns down and this is the only surviving object. If you want a movie with Eddie Murphy, look elsewhere. If you want a movie with Terence Stamp, look elsewhere. If you want a movie that's funny, look elsewhere. If you want a movie that has some scares and thrills, look elsewhere. If you want- you get the idea. The main problem is that the movie doesn't fit for anyone looking for entertainment in either comedy or horror or even fantasy, because it doesn't leave any lasting impressions. I wish the movie had focused more on the ghosts such as Gracey and his relationship with Henshaw, because most of what you get to know about it (like Ramsley interfering with the impending marriage and the aftermath) only seems to pop up after the movie has already played itself out and used up its effects. Why did Ramsely not approve of the marriage? Who was Elizabeth, because we hear her mentioned, but we never really see her as much. Instead, we get a story that's about as standard as one can get, with a workaholic character, an evil butler, and so on. At least the acting isn't bad, though I do wonder what interested Terence Stamp, who hams it up a bit, especially at the end. The movie is neither funny or scary, but it's not beyond awful. The makeup effects by Rick Baker do look well, and the movie at least runs short at around 88 minutes, which means one will probably forget the movie after about an hour. I had not realized that this was based off an attraction used at Disney theme parks. Looking back, I wonder how the attraction is compared to this.

Countdown to 750 Reviews: 10, 9, 8, 7, 6, 5, 4...

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.