Showing posts with label Ron Perlman. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Ron Perlman. Show all posts

Monday, September 30, 2013

Movie of the Week – The Name of the Rose

This week’s movie: The Name of the Rose (1986).

Monk William of Baskerville, a noted investigator, arrives at an isolate abbey to prove that a series of murders is not a sign that the abbey is inhabited by Satan, but rather that the deaths are the work of man.

The film is directed by French director Jean-Jacques Annaud. The Name of the Rose is his best film, but Quest for Fire, The Bear, and Enemy at the Gates are other notable films he has made.  He worked with composer James Horner (whose score is quite good and memorable), brilliant cinematographer Tonino Delli Colli, and production designer Dante Ferretti.

Sean Connery stars (winning a BAFTA for his performance) with Christian Slater co-starring. Michael Lonsdale, Valentina Vargas, Ron Perlman, and F. Murray Abraham feature in support.

The film is a great mystery drama with fantastic visuals and tone, but it may be most interesting for fans of Sean Connery. Disregarding his work as James Bond, Connery’s best films are as follows (in chronologic order): Marnie, The Hill, The Man Who Would Be King, A Bridge Too Far, The Name of the Rose, The Untouchables, Indiana Jones and the Last Crusade, and The Hunt for Red October. Thus, this is a must-see for fans.


Trailer: Here
Available on: Blu-ray and Video-On-Demand

Tuesday, July 16, 2013

Pacific Rim (2013) – Review

Review: Pacific Rim is big, entertaining fun, which also has enough character moments to elevate it above the typical noisy mess that clutters summer movie season. The film is about the battle for Earth. When monstrous aliens known as Kaijus arise from a portal between dimensions deep within the Pacific Ocean, mankind must create Jaegers (massive fighting robots) to protect its coastal cities from attack (and utter ruin).

With Pacific Rim, writer-director Guillermo del Toro has basically created a film that directly derives from his own obsessions within fandom. He loves to design and collect monsters and creatures, and is heavily influenced by manga. This film brings all that together. It is a Godzilla movie. It is a Voltron movie. It is everything fans could want, as it is very concerned with the specific details of each creature and robotic fighting machine. They all have names, personalities, and attributes. In many ways, this film is a visual extension of a fantasy RPG-like action video game (fantasy being used to express an ideal for fans) – a game that del Toro (as well as many others) would surely be thrilled to play. For fans, the film is just two hours and twelve minutes of awesome.

But what about everyone else? Well, del Toro does not mess about with his narrative. Utilizing voiceover narration to fill the audience in on all that has happened leading up to the events of the film, he jumps right into the action with a great prologue, consisting of a battle between a Kaiju and a Jaeger to wet the audience’s appetite for more (and not waste time in giving them what they came for). The prologue both sets the stage and introduces the audience to our protagonist (Raleigh Becket), while also relaying character information. Thus, right from the beginning, del Toro entertains his audience and more or less engages them on an emotional level (through Raleigh’s pain and narration the audience is pulled in by the narrative and character).

Del Toro keeps the pacing swift, as he jumps ahead from the good times (which are far less interesting dramatically) straight into the last ditch effort to save mankind. He keeps tensions high by continually raising the stakes, but still allows the audience moments to breath with some well-placed brevity (thanks to the very fun characters Dr. Newton Geiszler and Gottlieb, two scientists with competing theories). However, he also remembers why the audience is in the theater for Pacific Rim – they want to see robots fighting monsters, and there is plenty of that. However, unlike with Transformers, which is a loud, visually noisy, mess that ultimately just plays as a blur of inconsequential and incoherent babbling clamor, del Toro infuses the fights with human moments and real pain so that the audience actually has a stake and emotional touchstone in the fights and is not participating purely on a spectacle level.

Yet, Pacific Rim is chiefly interested in being a fun experience for the audience. Del Toro does do dramatic and emotional character work, but it is somewhat restrained and toned down in favor of keeping things fairly light overall tonally. He does not want the audience to be bogged down with weighty moments; rather, he just wants them to be entertained. But, it is a double-edged sword in some ways. Yes, the film is very entertaining, stemming from its quick pacing, bombastic action, and good character moments, and yet the audience never really completely feels connected to these characters because the emotions are held a bit at arm’s length in favor of a lighter tone. Del Toro wants his audience to be in the story with the characters, but he also wants them to enjoy the film as a spectacle of impressive action. For the most part he does find a nice balance, but overall the film tends to error on the side of spectacle, keeping it from really being great.

The writing is also somewhat questionable, and seems to serve more as an outline moving the characters from point to point and the audience from action scene to action scene than a more in depth dramatic piece (which is fine, and honestly suits this type of film better for the most part). The dialogue does not really pop, rather it exists to move the story forward (like everything else). And again, the emotional moments are somewhat restrained, relying more on genre troupes and stereotypes. However, thankfully the film is filled with actors rising to the challenge and bringing life to the characters (that are all pretty much underwritten).

Another aspect of the film that seems on the outside to make little sense is the Jaeger needing two mind-linked pilots to operate it, and not only that but the pilots must physically move and punch within the Jaeger, it mirroring their actions. This seems nonsensical. But del Toro understands that cinema is a visual medium, and that having pilots stationary, sitting in the robots or (even worse) off site, fastened to scene after scene of over the radio dialogue while the robots battle would have been boring. Having the pilots physically engage in combat allows del Toro to keep his visuals kinetic and the characters involved dramatically (instead of static shots of them controlling a joystick). While logically it makes no sense (much like the overall notion that the resources needed to build and operate these Jaegers could not be better utilized on some other weapon – but robots fighting monsters is the whole point), cinematically it is genius. The idea behind two mind-melded pilots also gives del Toro the ability to explore the emotions and backgrounds of the characters to a deeper extent, which only pulls the audience in more and raises the stakes (both things you very much want as a director). The connection also creates a strong relationship between the pilots in a very economical storytelling manner, again allowing del Toro to keep the pacing quick and the action coming. Thus, these choices both make a lot of sense from a visual storytelling standpoint and really the film ultimately benefits greatly from them.

Altogether, Pacific Rim accomplishes exactly what it sets out to be and do. It is a fantastic summer movie, with massive action that is actually engaging, when audiences have come to expect boring blusterous nonsense from these sort of films (thanks to films like Transformers and Battleship – and really all big action films now, while good overall Star Trek Into Darkness and Man of Steel also both have such moments of sheer wanton destruction seeming only for the sake of having it there as visual spectacle). What sets this film apart is that it embraces its genre clichés and presents them in a fun refreshing manner. The spectacle serves the characters and vice versa.


Technical, aesthetic, and acting achievements: Guillermo del Toro lives to create monsters and design great worlds for them to inhabit. It is this love and joy that brings Pacific Rim to life and the audience can feel del Toro’s affection in every aspect of the film. It is his best Hollywood film to date.

The tone of the film is one of entertainment first, and composer Ramin Djawadi’s score brings that mandate to the forefront. His music reinforces the feeling that Pacific Rim is a big action film in which massive robots fight gargantuan monsters with its booming drums and thundering heavy-metal pieces (here is an example). Guillermo Navarro’s cinematography and Andrew Neskoromny and Carol Spier’s production design also sets the tone well visually. The film has a very gloomy look with lots of rainy night scenes, amidst a crumbling world, playing into the main drama of the film – that these few remaining Jaegers are humanity’s last best hope. The Hong Kong sets also play into the strong Asian stylistic influence on del Toro. I love the incorporation of Kaiju skulls (and other bones) into the city designs. The robots, monsters, and special effects all look great and seamless.

As stated in the review, the characters are more or less underwritten place-holders in the narrative. However, the cast does do a great job bringing life to them and making them more than what was on the page. Ron Perlman, who appears in almost all of del Toro’s films, shows up with some good stuff, but is there mostly as a novelty. Max Martini does a good job as the salty veteran, while Robert Kazinsky basically does his impression of The Iceman from Top Gun giving Raleigh Becket a human rival (but he mostly just plays as a genre cliché). Burn Gorman and Charlie Day are both great as Gottlieb and Geiszler, the kooky scientists. They provide much needed moments of humor. Rinko Kikuchi and Idris Elba emerge as really the stars of the film in their principal supporting roles. Kikuchi almost steels the film, as she is a far more interesting character than Raleigh (but sadly is under developed) and gives a much more compelling performance. Elba is great as the Jaeger commander Stacker Pentecost. When he speaks, everyone (audience included) pays attention. Charlie Hunnam is adequate as Raleigh, but does not seem to quite understand how to play his character. He is basically a cocky reckless rebel (a Maverick) who is burnt out after the loss of his brother but agrees to return to the Jaeger program reluctantly, only to become a love-sick, easygoing, and more heroic once he sees Kikuchi’s Mako Mori.



Summary & score: Yes, in many ways Pacific Rim is just another big, loud action film in a continuous stream of big, loud action films to come this summer, but it is also maybe the most fun. 7/10

Tuesday, September 20, 2011

Drive (2011) – Review

Review: Drive is not your typical Hollywood style crime drama (or action movie as some of the marketing might have you believe); rather it is a methodical character piece that plays out as a very good crime drama in the second half. Director (and for all intents and purposes writer, as he changed essentially all of the script) Nicolas Winding Refn is not so much interested in the action-heavy, cheesy dialog and mostly meaninglessness of Hollywood action fare. He has structured Drive to build slowly, allowing for the characters to exist in the space organically (and not defined by exposition and dialog). Then, he juxtaposes moments of action and graphic violence against the calm creating much more of an impact. These scenes are exhilarating for the audience. The action set pieces, though brief and little in number, are fantastic and play extremely well because Refn has set them up perfectly. However, this is a film that does not play well for all moviegoers (evidenced by the awkward reactions and nervous laughter from some viewers). The film is steeped in indie style, and is very similar to Refn’s last film Valhalla Rising in terms of pacing and overall narrative style (but with a bit more action). Those looking for a Hollywood style action crime drama (something like Fast Five) are probably going to be disappointed and bored through most of the beginning (as the pacing is slow). As good as the action set pieces are, Refn is much more focused on the overall aesthetic and mood of the piece. He is creating a cinematic piece of art, in a sense, and not just entertainment (not to say that it is not entertaining, because it is). He wants to derive meaning out of what is on the screen and his characters, and have it register with the viewer in a much more impactful way. However, do not fear, the film is far from avant-garde. Refn has characters that are relatable and also rife with genre conventions, as are many of the plot points and themes at play. Outside the style and pacing, this plays and feels very much like your typical crime drama – Refn has just made it his own (little dialog, not a lot of outward emotion shown, music playing a large role in translating character emotion to the audience, and brief moments of hyper-violence). It is Refn’s unique take on the genre that really makes this film special (in a world where many movies are the same thing rehashed over and over). The lead character, who is left unnamed, is also different than what we typically see in this genre. He is very soft-spoken, allowing his face and energy to emote rather than dialog. Yet, it is the contrast between his softness (and even awkwardness) with his love interest Irene and his competency as both a driver and badass that makes him a very compelling and interesting character, with almost no backstory. Drive above all feels fresh, and that may be its best quality.


Technical, aesthetic & acting achievements: Nicolas Winding Refn has inserted himself into the group of cool stylistic indie directors (probably most comparable to David Cronenberg, especially with the way he shoots violence). I cannot wait to see what he does next. Tonally and visually, Drive is fantastic (it is sort of a cross between Heat and Blade Runner). Cliff Martinez’s score, consisting of atmospheric tones, is brilliant and so perfect for the film (here is an example of the score), but is overshadowed by the found music (excellent stuff like Nightcall by Kavinsky, Under Your Spell by Desire and A Real Hero by College). Newton Thomas Sigel’s cinematography also fits Refn’s vision perfectly. The film looks very sleek and clean, juxtaposing the messiness of the situation the characters find themselves in. Beth Mickle’s production design also contrasts the lighting as the locations are rundown and unremarkable, and it works really well. The cast is fabulous. Oscar Isaac, Ron Perlman and Christina Hendricks (who has a great scene with Ryan Gosling) are very good in small supporting roles. Bryan Craston plays his tragic character well, and Albert Brooks plays a bit off-type for a great villain. Carey Mulligan is very important to the film’s narrative success. She does not have much dialog, but is able to get her emotions across nonverbally and is excellent. Gosling plays the odd lead character very well and differently from most similar types in the genre – he smiles.

Summary: Drive is not for everyone (it is far too stylistic for that), but its fresh take on the crime genre is remarkable and stunning. 9/10