Showing posts with label Brad Pitt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Brad Pitt. Show all posts

Sunday, May 10, 2020

Second-guessing which films got the BBFC the most complaints in 2019

This blog is rated 15 for strong sex references and descriptions of violence.

After years of releasing their annual reports every July, 2018's BBFC annual report was instead released in late May. As I really love testing my BBFC senses on a yearly basis, to see how good I am at reading the general public's perception of what BBFC ratings for films ought to be, I thought I'd guess which films got them the most complaints in 2019!

Note, when I refer to a '2019 release', this actually means any film that came out in cinemas in the UK in 2019. So The Favourite, although a 2018 film by American release dates (and eligible for the 2019 Oscars and BAFTAs for that precise reason), didn't hit UK cinemas until January 2019, and is thus a 'UK 2019 release'. 

My guesses:

01. Joker



Thursday, April 02, 2020

10 Most Attractive Men in a 2019 Film

2018's list, in case you wanted to get a flavour for Emsy's taste in Hollywood hunks!

10. Lakeith Stanfield, Knives Out (new entrant)


Sunday, February 02, 2020

BAFTA predictions, 2020.

My predictions last year were decent, especially in how I anticipated that we'd give Best Film to Roma, a move that was not mirrored by the Academy Awards, who went for Green Book.

Thus, as is a tradition on my blog, I'd try my hand at predicting tonight's British Academy Film Awards! Remember, the below is who I think will win, which very rarely overlaps with who I think actually should win.

Best Film: 1917


Sadly, I think this uninspired Dunkirk rip-off will triumph, even though it's not a patch on Dunkirk, and feels like watching someone play a computer game for 2 hours. I see BAFTA falling for the 'made to look like it was filmed in one shot' gimmick, and even more sadly, the Oscars to do the same next week.

Sunday, January 31, 2016

Film review: THE BIG SHORT (Adam McKay, 2015)

The financial crisis of 2007-2008 was quite the talking point. People became bankrupt; many lost their jobs and their homes. The haphazard behaviour of bankers cost many people’s livelihoods and the developed world has never fully recovered. Adam McKay, famed for directing entertaining comedies such as Anchorman and The Other Guys, steps into the realms of the big boys with the multi Oscar-nominated The Big Short, an adaptation of The Big Short: Inside the Doomsday Machine by financial journalist Michael Lewis.

My favourite film critic Mark Kermode has a trope he often enlists in film reviews, known as ‘Meg Ryan as an airplane pilot’ (an allusion to Courage Under Fire), whenever he comes across a piece of casting in a film that nobody would buy in real life because the actor is too glamorous or mis-suited to the role. Well, going by that benchmark, there are three Meg Ryan as airplane pilots in The Big Short, with mis-casting so shockingly woeful, these proverbial helicopters would easily crash into each other.

Firstly, Ryan Gosling as a smarmy banker, complete with brunette hair-dye and poor treatment of his Yes-man of an assistant, does not ring true in the least. In films such as Crazy, Stupid, Love and The Notebook, dishy Gosling was in his element playing the dreamy heart-throb. Even in grittier, violent movies such as Drive or Only God Forgives, Gosling is able to transcend his good looks and lends credibility to the role of guys who will travel through the road to hell, laced with good intentions, trying to do what they believe is right. But in The Big Short, as the know-it-all smug Deutsche Bank employee Jared Vennett who spots a loophole in the fragile housing market that he can capitalise on to his gains, he does not convince, and no amount of dark hair or sharp suits will make him a credible banker.

Then we’ve got Christian Bale. Somehow, miraculously recipient of an Academy Award nomination for his portrayal of Michael Burry (although Jennifer Lawrence is on four Oscar nominations now, so, there’s no accounting for taste), a former doctor-come-number cruncher who runs his own asset management company, Bale reaches his intense peaks of American Psycho and The Fighter, but nowhere near the same level of credibility. As his eyes dart around at you (one of his eyes is a glass eye, although I never worked out which) in an attempt to convey Burry’s inability to relate to other people, I couldn’t help but feel faintly embarrassed. The heavy metal music and frenetic drumming that his character has a penchant for are all components in the novel, but by retaining them all in The Big Short for Bale, they do nothing other than illustrate how mis-suited he is to the role. As he is photographed lying on the ground, notes strewn across the floor, I never buy the frame as anything other than an over-cherographed scene of MOVIE STAR Christian Bale, surrounded by some finance notes.

Brad Pitt completes the Holy Trinity of awkward casing. He, like Gosling, has to overcome the hurdle of having to transcend his good looks, and his role in The Big Short is as misanthropic eco-aware Ben Rickett, who, having worked there previously, despises everything Wall Street stands for, but begrudgingly uses his reputation to get a seat at the table for The Brownfield Trust, a small investment firm run by yuppies played by Finn Wittrock and John Magaro. These two lads who a
re not particularly likeable in their roles but at least one of the film’s few believable elements, in their earnest, callow enthusiasm, and their interactions with each other as they stumble upon the mess of sub-prime lending are some of the slightly more nuanced elements of The Big Short's shambles of a screenplay. In one scene, Pitt's character lectures Wittrock and Magaro for being excited that their bets against the housing market are coming in, because whilst it's good news for them, it's awful news for many others. This is certainly true, but having handsome Brad Pitt playing morose with nothing but an unconvincing wig deliver it definitely dampens the strength of the message significantly.

Of the A-list poster-billed cast, only Steve Carell escapes with any pride in tact. His character is angry and has a very personal score to settle with the finance world, having a brother who worked there who suicided years previously. Carrell balances the pathos that this loss causes his character, along with amusing comedy of his raging tirades and general poor social etiquette, so that when his character is disgusted by the amoral people in finance and the little caution they throw to the wind when dealing with other people’s lives, we, too, share his disgust. The crew who work for him, which includes Rafe Spall, are also a semi-honourable bunch, amidst all the other wankers, and the camaraderie and fraternity between them, and the way they look out for Carell’s character, was one of the few elements of The Big Short I enjoyed.

Many critics have commended The Big Short’s irreverent take on the subject and off-the-wall execution. Admittedly, there are some effective scenes; the use of Gorillaz’s Feel Good Inc was nostalgic heaven, and the use of pop culture references to depict the passing of time certainly sits quite well. But mostly, the machine-gun, rat-tat-tat, not staying with any scene for too long, breaking the fourth wall and making Family Guy-style cutaways film ultimately gave me a headache.

I love Margot Robbie and Selena Gomez as much as the next person. But to enlist them to dumb down the subprime mortgage crisis to me, when I hold an Economics degree from the University of Bath, was the wrong side of off-kilter, and downright patronising. Margot Robbie, covered in bubbles, tells us that whenever we hear the word ‘sub-prime loan’, we should think ‘shit’. Well, in that vein, whenever someone mentions The Big Short, you should think, The Big Sh

5/10

Tuesday, November 01, 2011

Film review: THE TREE OF LIFE (Terrence Malick, 2011)

Pretension. It’s a funny thing. I prescribe to the Monica Bing school of thought, that a little bit of pretension never hurt anyone. It is definitely a thing of which, however, too much of can kill. 

Cannes winners have, in the past, gone into one set column or the other for me. Pretty much half of them, I appreciated their artistry, but, even more than that, connected with them on an emotional level, and thus really adored them. The others, I have found frustrating and to be perfectly honest, far too clever for their own good. The Tree of Life is one which firmly falls in the latter camp.

Brad Pitt and Jessica Chastain head a good ol’ Christian style family in Texas. Pitt's character is the epitome of graft as he trains his songs to fight, build things and generally toughen them up against the big bad world, which he believes will take advantage of you if give it the chance. 

Sunday, August 30, 2009

Film review: INGLOURIOUS BASTERDS (Quentin Tarantino, 2009).

It opens with a beautiful Spanish guitar spin on Beethoven's Für Elise by Morricone and ends with an epic a cinematic shoot-out as you're likely to see. In between, we have plucky female plotting, scalping of Nazi soldiers, close-ups of strudels, feet fondling and a whole babel of languages. It can only be Tarantino.



Sunday, May 10, 2009

Life lessons from cinema #2.

“Love is passion, obsession, someone you can’t live without. If you don’t start with that, what are you going to end up with? Fall head over heels. I say find someone you can love like crazy and who’ll love you the same way back. And how do you find him? Forget your head and listen to your heart. I’m not hearing any heart. Run the risk, if you get hurt, you’ll come back. Because, the truth is there is no sense living your life without this. To make the journey and not fall deeply in love - well, you haven’t lived a life at all. You have to try. Because if you haven’t tried, you haven’t lived.”

- Meet Joe Black.

Wednesday, October 22, 2008

Burn After Watching.

Have just gotten back from the cinema, where I saw Burn After Reading, a film I'd been quite anticipating - for the crazy looking trailer, the cast and crew involved, and the Oscar buzz already being generated. Most importantly, however, the film posters, which are a throwback to the work of legendry movie poster designer Saul Bass ( 1 // 2), are bunging wonderful. Even though my cinema ticket cost the equivalent of £1.42 and a half pence (Orange Wednesdays bb), I was not impressed in the slightest. It was a load of turd.

- The cast were AWFUL; living proof that you can bung as many talented performers as you want into a movie, but they’ve actually got to, you know, bother acting. Frances McDormand epitomized irritation, Brad Pitt did nothing apart from hang about looking like he was missing a few up there, John Malkovich swore a bit, George Clooney looked beardy and confused, and Tilda Swinton worked the asexual cold bitch shtick that is like, beyond passé. The guy that played Juno’s dad in Juno was OK enough, but eh. And no-one needs to know what George Clooney and Tilda Swinton bunging sounds like.

Bung

- The plot was just ridiculously poor. Don’t get me wrong, I love fun and frenzy as much as the next guy – District 13 is bloody marvellous – but one got the distinct impression that the Coen brothers had no idea what to do with this movie, created a bunch of characters and threw in a sex toy for good measure. Er, no.

- Speaking of the Coen brothers, those Oscars for Direction & Best Film they picked up earlier this year must have really gone to their head, and instilled them with the belief that they can fob their fans off with just a bunch of crazy shit that doesn’t make much sense. Whilst it’s paid its dividends in the past – The Hudsucker Proxy & Intolerable Cruelty were good fun – Burn After Reading lacked the heart and soul that those movies had, and a result, just looked lost. As for the SPOILER killing off of Brad Pitt's character /SPOILER, it was irritating when you did it with Josh Brolin in No Country for Old Men; don't try and pull that same stuff twice in two years, please. You're not as clever as you think you are; your viewers do actually have memories.

Really, really shit film.
f
- Furthermore, um, Working Title and Focus, what the 4-x were you thinking? If it wasn’t for the likes of Atonement and Pride & Prejudice that these two production companies have collaborated on, I would be pretty unimpressed with the pair of them. How is it possible that the producers did not step back, look at their excuse of a film, and feel ashamed?

- Lastly, was this meant to be a comedy? I laughed a little at the start (due to wanting to larf at a Coen brothers' movie more than anything), but as the movie went on, the laughs wore thinner and thinner. Brad Pitt repeating "Osbourne Cox" over and over again does not a funny scene make. The main lulz I got from this movie was in how terrible it was.

All in all, I’d quite like my time and money back. I’m deeply, deeply disappointed in the Coen brothers for wasting my time with this, and feel that everyone involved in this should hang their heads in shame. If this gets anywhere near Oscar nominations, then there is something seriously wrong with the world.