Showing posts with label Joseph Gordon Levitt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Joseph Gordon Levitt. Show all posts

Saturday, September 6, 2014

Sin City: A Dame to Kill For

Dustin: 3 of 5 stars Nick: 2 of 5 stars Average: 2.5 of 5 stars (Woozy canary)


Nick: The Sin City sequel brought its unique visuals, but left behind its endearing characters and hilarious dialogue. It’s been over a week since I saw the movie and I hardly remember a thing about it. That is not a good sign. Put it this way, remembering quotes from movies is not my thing. Yet, I could quote most of the original Sin City. It’s sad for me to say that everything from the dialogue to the characters feels clunky and forced. Nothing comes off right. Instead of enjoying myself and laughing with the movie, I found myself laughing at it more often than not. There are two stories I could describe in a single sentence and another that I would have no idea how to describe. Therefore it’s pointless to give a description. Shit happens in Sin City: A Dame to Kill For.

Dustin: I thought this was a fine movie for the most part. I think it suffered from having to follow the original, which was such a distinct movie. Tough act to follow. This felt sort of like a straight-to-video sequel to the first.

The movie basically had two plot lines. Eva Green plays against type as a woman named Ava, a manipulative femme fatale who uses Josh Brolin’s character to set up her husband’s death so she can inherit his fortune. The other plot line follows the various people who want to bring down a powerful and corrupt senator, including his illegitimate son (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) and the lover of a cop the senator killed (Jessica Alba).

I found the plot engaging and interesting. I liked the characters, especially Mickey Rourke. But the execution was a little clumsy, and it didn’t feel as well crafted as the first.

Nick: Did you know that Josh Brolin’s character was the same character that Clive Owen played in the original? Brolin plays Dwight before he has surgery and at the end all the make-up on Brolin’s face was to make him look like Clive Owen’s Dwight but ended up looking more like Marv (Mickey Rourke). The story lines were decent, but the way they were edited together made it hopeless. The original did a great job of this interweaving. Once again, the dialogue was one of the things that made me love the first Sin City while here it sounds so defeatist and depressing instead of fun and engaging, which is one of the reasons why I think so many critics are calling the film misogynistic. The first one was as well, but it was so silly and tongue-in-cheek it would be ridiculous to call it out, but now that the film has taken on more of a somber tone and has nary a laugh it’s more obvious and more unsettling.

Dustin: I only saw the first one once, shortly after it came to home video, so I only vaguely remember it. I’ll judge this movie on its own merit.

I also felt this one was depressing. I thought the dialogue was OK. It felt like an imitation of Jim Thompson. I won’t criticize it for that. I wish more writers would imitate the man who wrote the screenplay to Paths of Glory.

My criticism of the plot isn’t so much the way it wasn’t so interwoven. I did have a problem when the “Dame to Kill For” plotline ended, but the movie went on and on with the senator plot. That wasn’t so bad. At least it didn’t continue forever in a pointless direction like another movie we reviewed recently (Boyfood). But I didn’t like how the characters, especially Mickey Rourke and Jamie Chung (Miho) seemed to be invincible at times. It takes away tension when you know they will cut down their opponents without breaking a sweat.

Nick: I think all the problems here start and end with the writing, so I’m going to continue down that path. In Sin City, the three main characters are Dwight, Marv and Detective Hartigan. Dwight was the one who was between depressing and light, but was so charismatic all the depressing events he saw had a bit of levity with his hilarious insight. Marv was all about fun. His scenes were fan favorites because he thought anything that involved sex and violence was one hell of a good time. Hartigan is who brought the heart. His story was just straight depressing. Hardly anything to crack a smile about. His story was the one that made you feel and care. It is quite simple to put these stories together in terms of when you need a different emotion going through the film put a scene where one of these very different characters can bring what they alone can bring. Now in the new film the main characters are Dwight, Johnny and Nancy. All three characters are straight depressing. Johnny (Gordon-Levitt) smiles every now and then, but he is just a fast talker, not necessarily someone who brings light to a situation. Nancy is an alcoholic now who cuts herself and wants vengeance. Dwight’s wit is replaced with anger and being brutish, he is now basically Marv without the charm. While Marv is now given the intro, which is enjoyable enough, and a side character gig in all three stories to try his best to give some glimmer of fun to an otherwise all gloom-and-doom script.

Plus, get over Boyhood!

Dustin: I thought this movie did a great job with Ava. She was a great movie villain. She went beyond femme fatale to movie monster. If there’s one thing that’ll stick with me about this movie, it’s her character.

Nick: That’s a good point. Eva Green was fantastic, and I thought most of the secondary roles in the film were very well cast. Green was certainly the highlight of the film, and like you will be the one thing that I will remember with fondness.  

I’m also curious on why Rodriguez and Miller (directors) decided not to color random objects like they did in the original. It gave the world more depth and was another thing that was interesting. There are a couple in A Dame to Kill For, but nowhere near as many as the first.

Wednesday, October 2, 2013

Don Jon

Nick: 3.5 of 5  Laura: 3 of 5 Average: 3.25 of 5 (Woozy canary)


Nick: For a couple of weeks, Dustin will be off gallivanting around Asia for his real job. In his stead, I am rewarded with the lovely wit of Laura McGee.

Laura: Thank you, Nick! I consider myself to be mostly an expert on reality television, but I will try my best to live up to Dustin’s fine work in movie reviewing!

Nick: Don Jon is the writing-directing debut of Joseph Gordon-Levitt about Jon Martello whose life is perfect between his place, car, church, family, gals, friends and most importantly his obsession with pornography. What did you take away from Don Jon?

Laura: Well, the film was really enjoyable. When the commercials first aired, I figured it was a big screen version of Jersey Shore, which wasn't entirely accurate…

Nick: Which you thoroughly enjoy, right?

Laura: Ha, well yes, it is a guilty pleasure of mine. However, I’m genuinely intrigued by this idea of second and third generation Italians, who seem entirely self obsessed, particularly when it comes to their body and clothes. I’m not clear how realistic this is of young men in New Jersey, but after watching the reality show and now Don Jon, I must assume that this culture really does exist.

Nick: Normally I don’t read reviews before reviewing the film myself, but since it took us awhile to review (my fault entirely) I chose to in order to remember what happened in the film. In the review by Odie Henderson, he tore into the film for over exaggerating the stereotype of Italians in New Jersey. Henderson is an expert in this because he is from New Jersey and is insulted by what he sees on screen. In another article that I read yesterday, the Italian American One Voice Coalition spoke out against the film for the exact same reason. Haven’t films mostly been an exaggerated version of life? Look at most cop films where there is gun usage everyday in their lives, but in real life I’m sure that’s not the case. Must a film only exaggerate when it comes to violence as to not be taken seriously? Don Jon is a comedy after all.

Laura: There has to be a certain amount of truth to some of it, although some of these things can be exaggerated for a film or television show. However, one of the first things I noticed about this movie is how misogynistic it was. Early on in the film, Jon and his friends go to a club where they rate every woman on a scale of 1 through 10, calling a perfect 10 “a dime.” After finding someone that ranked high enough for them on the scale, the next move seemed to be some drinking, making out in the club and then getting said girl home for what was certain to be a one time hook-up. It was hard for me not to watch that and compare it with the guys on the Jersey Shore reality show whose main objective was always to find a girl who was ‘DTF’ (down to fuck).  

Nick: The difference between them is that Don Jon is not a misogynistic film, but has its main character grow from that into something that is considered an adult. So in no way does the film say the main character is right for thinking this way, but laughs at him and his OCD ways, especially when you see the true insides of “a dime.” While in the Jersey Shore the misogyny is “the show,” but is also justified by just how sexually perverse the women are too (at least in action). I must state I have never seen the show but have seen many clips on The Soup and I read many entertainment articles.

Laura: Haha, well I am going to stop drawing comparisons to the television show at this point, it is just a little bit hard not to associate the two. But anyway, yes, Jon does go from being a shallow guy, spending all his time on making the things he cares about look up to his standard. Early in the film he meets Barbara (a dime!) played by Scarlett Johansson and begins a monogamous relationship with her. He seems to adore her, although he seems motivated by her looks more than anything. She in turn, almost immediately begins to try and subtly change Jon, suggesting that he start night school and telling him he would be so “sexy” with a “real job.”

Nick: Barbara had amazing negotiating tactics! After withdrawing sex from the beginning of the relationship and then dry humping Jon while subtly giving her demands for their relationship to further itself. Something that irked me about the film was the writing whenever a character went through a transformation. Every time a character “transformed” it seemed abrupt instead of building steadily. Barbara with her reaction to the Swifer and Jon with any moment he has in the film.

Laura: The transformations did move quickly, although I felt like there were warning signs of the type of person she was right off the bat. A major theme in this movie is Jon’s pornography addiction. He claims to prefer porn to real sex and watches it all the time. Barbara has no idea the extent to which he watches it, but catches him looking at some the first night they spend together and tells him he can no longer watch it. She makes him promise. Granted, he did watch an awful lot of porn, but what did you think of her immediate demands that he stop?

Nick: It’s a somewhat ridiculous demand, but that is what some real relationships ask for. I have certainly heard of some that dealt with the watching of porn and other demands that are even crazier. Jon said he would stop just to calm her down and make her stay, although to his credit he tried to stop, but failed miserably. It was pretty funny that he insulted his father for not knowing what a TIVO was, but failed to recognize the irony of a search history, which shows all the porn he watches and has been around longer.

Laura: Ha, I didn't even think about that, but was surprised he didn't know how to clear his history, considering the amount of porn he watched. As the movie progressed, it became clear that he was attached to porn as he had never had a real relationship and tended to look at women as objects more than people.

Nick: Barbara was as much of an object to Jon as he was to her. Barbara saw him as a broken object that she could potentially mold into something better.  

Laura: Very true. They sort of used each other, although I did feel that Jon really wanted to make the relationship work, even when it became clear that Barbara wasn't an especially layered or even nice person. In his night school class though, he meets Ester (Julianne Moore), who is a bit older and very much the opposite of Barbara.

Nick: The film is very harsh on Barbara, who becomes more and more of a caricature the longer the film goes on. In her final scene she is brought back to show how ridiculous of a character she is while trying to make us think Jon is clear of all misdoings. Ester is another perfect person right from the start, but she never gets to have a downswing of emotion so the viewer never gets to know her well. This is OK because Jon’s name is in the title and the only purpose her character served is to be, as you said, a complete opposite of Babs.

In all the reviews I read before writing this, not one critic mentioned Jon’s possible obsessive compulsive disorder. Is this something I’m imagining or did you ever feel that way?

Laura: Jon was a controlling person and liked to have order in his life. He seemed like a man of routine. It never really occurred to me that it was affecting his life negatively.

Nick: Depends on how one looks at it. As you stated, all the times he did a routine in order to get a girl in bed, then he does a routine after he gets the girl in bed (jerk it, never call her again, and clean his place). These routines are negative and lead to his inability to give himself emotionally to another person because as he states in his voice over narration he has figured out the perfect formula for life.

Laura: This is a more enjoyable film than I thought it would be. In the beginning it looked as if it was going to be another movie that sort of objectifies women and promotes a certain type of lifestyle. However it was surprising how the characters grow and also, being forced to accept that their is some double standard in getting upset with men for focusing on looks and sex so much, when in fact women can do the same things, their focus tending to be on status and money.

Nick: Very well stated. Don Jon is a piece of edgy filmmaking with scenes from pornographies spliced throughout and showing sex between the characters as something that is not so special. The film never takes itself too seriously, but maybe should have in regards to making Jon start off as even more of a prick instead of just making him charmingly sleazy. Although it’s nowhere near perfect, Don Jon shows that the world of film has an interesting new voice that will make his main characters obsessed with masturbating!