Showing posts with label Sienna Miller. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Sienna Miller. Show all posts

September 28, 2024

Layer Cake.

Review #2257: Layer Cake.

Cast: 
Daniel Craig (XXXX), Colm Meaney (Gene), George Harris (Morty), Sienna Miller (Tammy), Tamer Hassan (Terry), Jamie Foreman (the Duke), Kenneth Cranham (Jimmy Price), Michael Gambon (Eddie Temple), Ben Whishaw (Sidney), Tom Hardy (Clarkie), Dexter Fletcher (Cody), Steve John Shepherd (Tiptoes), Burn Gorman (Gazza), and Sally Hawkins (Slasher) Directed by Matthew Vaughn (#042 - X-Men: First Class, #993 - Kingsman: The Secret Service#994 - Kingsman: The Golden Circle)

Review: 
"The problem is that every gangster film's been full of all this gore-blimey-cockney-mate-I'm-a-*******-hard-guy nonsense and that's what Layer Cake isn't. Lots of people in the test screenings complained that the drug dealers in the movie were middle class. But that's how life is! The idea that every drug dealer is a cockney or a scouser is just a cliché. My aspiration was to make Heat but set in Britain. That was the goal."

Twenty years ago in October of 2004, Matthew Vaughn directed his first feature film with Layer Cake, which actually was an adaptation of the 2000 novel of the same name by J. J. Connolly, who had described himself as formerly being "an end-user, a punter." He wrote the novel with a handful of it being based on anecdotes by people he knew while noting that when he wrote the book, it was a time when "smart criminals" (as he put it) getting to find the idea of having a public profile abhorrent. The interest that the book generated in the public found its way to Vaughn. The son of a banker, he had worked as a film director assistant before trying (and dropping) to attend university in London for history. He produced his first film (at the age of 25) with The Innocent Sleep (1996). His next two features were with Guy Ritchie as a director that attracted attention in Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (1998) and Snatch (2000). He happened to encounter Connolly on a train ride and found himself wrapped up in directing the film, complete with Connolly writing the script for the film. A neat hit with audiences, Vaughn has managed to direct (and produce) a handful of features over the next two decades. Connolly wrote a follow-up novel eleven years later with Viva La Madness, which has yet to be adapted in any form.

Really one could say this is a skewed look at "the process", only now in the view of a criminal. It ends up wracked with twists and layers that end up doing a few favors in the art of clever engagement for a solid feature. Of course, it happens to be the film associated with Daniel Craig getting to play James Bond in Casino Royale (2005), and it probably goes without saying that this is a pretty good showcase for him. Sure, it is a familiar feature but being hip and spry for 105 minutes is not a hard thing to accomplish, and the commitment works when you have a cast that is worthwhile to follow with. Craig just has that "it factor" here, which is interesting considering he had been around for a handful of film roles of varying prominence (after honing his craft on the stage, naturally), but he has a way with words that draws you in how direct he is in the art of not wanting to be a career guy with such suave confidence. One wonders exactly what our unnamed lead would actually have ended up pursuing as a "gentleman of leisure", but I think you can see that whatever it could have been in terms of a pursuit, he sure would've made a killing at it. His pursuit of dancing in and out of the inane web set upon him is a fun one for him to show his charm while blood gets drawn around him, and it probably helps to have Meaney around, because the occasional humorous moments that occur (amid the violence and the situations that arise from that) are mostly because of him and his piercing qualities. Others come and go to varying effect, whether that involves Miller and a few alluring glances or the stark differences in Cranham and Gambon when it comes to established figures in the "layer cake" of crime (Gambon in particular is quite amusing). Evidently, there were a few endings shot for the film before Vaughn maneuvered it so the one used was the one he wanted (one that apparently is distinct from the book, but they share the same last line). It is a startling ending to the film but worthwhile when you really get down to it, at least when compared to the usual fare. As a whole, it is a pretty good feature with entertaining execution from all involved in the art of process within the criminal underworld that cuts like a knife on butter for solid results.

Overall, I give it 8 out of 10 stars.

March 31, 2021

Wander Darkly.

Review #1662: Wander Darkly.

Cast: 
Sienna Miller (Adrienne), Diego Luna (Matteo), Beth Grant (Patty Healy), Aimee Carrero (Shea), Tory Kittles (Liam), and Vanessa Bayer (Maggie) Written and Directed by Tara Miele.

Review: 
“I think as humans, story is our deepest faith, right? Story is how we make sense of the world. And I do think at the end of the day, they have to meet in the middle in this place, right?"

You are probably wondering the same question that I had when I looked at it the first time: What? Who? I have to admit that this film figuratively came out of left field, as it is the latest beneficiary of timing and attracting interest on the shelf circuit (I said shelf circuit, not streaming circuit), and March seemed exactly right for this kind of movie. This also happens to be the first work of Tara Miele to reach a certain kind of attention, since it premiered at the Sundance Film Festival in early 2020 (remember that year?); it serves as the fourth feature film for the Long Island native, as she had started her feature career with the indie film The Lake Effect (2010) after entering films with a couple of shorts (beginning with Miss Gentilbelle in 2000); she has also done some work in television. The impetus for this film came out of a car accident that Miele and her husband suffered several years ago (occurring during an argument with their kids in the car that left her with a concussion). She wanted to explore the parallels that come from one's perception after suffering an injury and the cycle of grief that all experience at some point in time. So basically, one is experiencing the fragility of life through narrative therapy that will involve flashbacks and dreams while one faces the truth about what it means to be alive.

I imagine there are two extremes one can fall into when thinking about the experience they had with the film: one will either find it to be an interesting look upon the fragility of life and memories that make for a surreal and soothing experience...or they simply will not care for its maneuvers into therapy that seems like a clunky gimmick for those who don't have the kind of patience for what it wants to say about things that might seem obvious. It really depends on just how much one goes with its existential question of what makes life worth living and all the wanderings that come from. For me, I thought it was an okay movie, because its main duo is the one sticking point that keeps things afloat when it comes to charisma in a film that practically wears "indie" on its sleeve. It aims for some sort of hope in the face of grief and manages to get a marginally useful experience out of it, in that it kept the attention going for 97 minutes without falling prey to all the clunky clichés of the surreal...in that it only gets to pick from the bag of tricks a few times, right down to trying to play with just who is exactly leading the other from the realm of the dead in a love story that I'm sure you've seen before and will see coming yet again. It is strange, because there are small moments that work much more handily in keeping one on the toes rather than the handful (i.e., hands and hands) of exchanges between Miller & Luna saying what is/what is not real in memory - consider a sequence involving our lead checking the baby in its cot, one that is not breathing or moving that alarms her before one realizes what exactly is up. At any rate, Miller and Luna are tasked with matching the other in naturalism that have distinct qualities that draw/repel each other. Miller sells it a bit better, one that expresses the doubts and fear that come from new-found purgatory nightmares that is quite captivating, wandering into terror with fair enough timing that drive the film, whether that means stuck by oneself or stuck wondering how she and Luna were ever a thing to begin with. As for Luna, he does well with what is given on the other side of the coin in terms of striking doubts and tense tenderness, and one could see the film from his perspective just as well as one could do with Miller without thinking either is overplaying their hand in drama or the inevitable argument of who seems more right (to which I shrug my shoulders). Grant and the others in the small cast play the moments with our main folks just fine with no puppetry required. The climax might prove the most interesting or the most "okay, sure" in terms of what it ends up doing in maneuvering the logical end-point for this procession of memories and grief and moving forward, which for me is mostly in the latter category - at least it isn't a complete cheat or something silly, because at the end of the day the movie wants one to end on a poignant moment and that I suppose is enough. At the end of the day, it is an okay movie, curious in its little moments spent with memory and grief that will stick with you if it connects with you after it ends or it will just pass on by with the curiosity of two decent actors to help lead it by - in that sense, being okay with a writer/director having their perspective told for a passion project is not a bad place to be.

And so we close Women's History Month. It was an interesting time trying to do fifteen reviews that would (in my mind) celebrate the month within female directors and stars, particularly in the differences that came out from era to era in perspective. As always, I hope you folks enjoyed this little series of reviews and I will see what will be done in the months ahead to keep up interest in what makes film so fun to write about.

Overall, I give it 7 out of 10 stars.

July 24, 2012

Movie Night: G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra.

Review #201: G.I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra.

Cast
Channing Tatum (Conrad S. Hauser / Duke), Marlon Wayans (Wallace A. Weems / Ripcord), Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje (Hershel Dalton / Heavy Duty), Rachel Nichols (Shana M. O'Hara / Scarlett), Sienna Miller (Anastasia DeCobray / Ana Lewis / The Baroness), Ray Park (Snake Eyes), Saïd Taghmaoui (Abel Shaz / Breaker), Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Rexford G. "Rex" Lewis / The Doctor / Cobra Commander), Christopher Eccleston (Laird James McCullen XXIV / Destro), Lee Byung-hun (Thomas Arashikage / Storm Shadow), Jonathan Pryce (The President), Dennis Quaid (General Clayton M. Abernathy / Hawk), and Karolína Kurková (Courtney A. Krieger / Cover Girl) Directed by Stephen Sommers.

Review
It's been a few days since my last review, and given the subject matters of the last two films, let's dissapoint with this film. First off, I'm not a follower of G.I. Joe (Sadly, the most I've heard of it was on That 70's Show, and that as a debate over if it was a doll or an action figure), but with this film, I wouldn't want to. The acting is standard, with not much substance to help out. And to certain fans of one actor, you'll be dissapointed that he is in this at all (Those fans? Probably 3rd Rock from the Sun or something) The action isn't much better, at one point I went to sleep at the underwater part (and I had to rewind the film, that's a first) I have one question (among others) Why do they need to steal their own warheads? Why build a base under the polar icecaps? With all the silliness, they could've had the base in space and it would've made sense. You know, with Transformers, there were Robots and humans to go with it. This is just humans and some tech that desn't have much style, but can be a film of dumb fun. Just turn off the brain, ignore everything, and don't sleep at the end. There will be a sequel to this, but after 4 years does anyone really care? Not really.

Overall, I give it 5 out of 10 stars.