by Tony Dayoub
Zero Dark Thirty begins with heart-wrenching audio recordings of 911 calls placed from inside the World Trade Center towers on 9/11. From there, the long awaited film about the manhunt for al-Qaeda leader Osama Bin Laden follows a rigid three-act structure that is one part Michael Mann-style procedural—in which we get to know a protagonist simply through process—and one part meta-analysis of how America once again lost its innocence, possibly for good this time. That director Kathryn Bigelow and screenwriter Mark Boal frame this film through a unique perspective rarely found in war films—that of a female—is the key innovation. Instead of attempting to duplicate the action beats of their last Academy Award-winning film, The Hurt Locker (2008), by predictably zeroing in on the SEAL operation to capture or kill Bin Laden, aka UBL, Bigelow and Boal open up the canvas to spin a sprawling tale involving everyone from CIA field operatives to their more political Washington-based intelligence counterparts, from suspicious informants to the most trustworthy of military officers.
Showing posts with label Mark Strong. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mark Strong. Show all posts
Thursday, December 6, 2012
Monday, March 12, 2012
Movie Review: John Carter
by Tony Dayoub
No movie can withstand the scrutiny John Carter—a lavish and, no doubt, costly science fiction blockbuster—has been subject to. But as usually happens in movies of this order, some people start actively rooting against it (read this piece and its author's own comment, the third one down). Ask James Cameron, an innovator and showman who's faced such discouragement from fickle critics too many times to list (Avatar, Titanic and others). Curiously, someone like George Lucas gets a pass despite blatant attempts at cravenly bleeding his Star Wars franchise drier than a squeezed lemon for profits at the expense of its naive fans. Perhaps there's a little creative envy involved. Or in the case of some Hollywood reporters, maybe there's a bit of settling old scores against a studio, actor or filmmaker. All of this attendant anti-fanfare is to be expected when a leviathan like John Carter dares to flirt with greatness and disappointingly falls a little short. But the most frustrating aspect is the way many, even those who haven't seen the film itself, start racing behind the agenda-driven critics like a bunch of lemmings headed off a cliff. Especially when the movie they've decided to beat on is a beautifully lensed, well-acted, escapist fantasy as clever as John Carter.
No movie can withstand the scrutiny John Carter—a lavish and, no doubt, costly science fiction blockbuster—has been subject to. But as usually happens in movies of this order, some people start actively rooting against it (read this piece and its author's own comment, the third one down). Ask James Cameron, an innovator and showman who's faced such discouragement from fickle critics too many times to list (Avatar, Titanic and others). Curiously, someone like George Lucas gets a pass despite blatant attempts at cravenly bleeding his Star Wars franchise drier than a squeezed lemon for profits at the expense of its naive fans. Perhaps there's a little creative envy involved. Or in the case of some Hollywood reporters, maybe there's a bit of settling old scores against a studio, actor or filmmaker. All of this attendant anti-fanfare is to be expected when a leviathan like John Carter dares to flirt with greatness and disappointingly falls a little short. But the most frustrating aspect is the way many, even those who haven't seen the film itself, start racing behind the agenda-driven critics like a bunch of lemmings headed off a cliff. Especially when the movie they've decided to beat on is a beautifully lensed, well-acted, escapist fantasy as clever as John Carter.
Friday, December 9, 2011
Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy is a Worthy Remake Filled With Lonely Characters
by Tony Dayoub
The tall, athletic man introduced earlier in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy as British Intelligence officer Jim Prideaux (Mark Strong) walks into a class room and begins to write his name on the chalkboard. Only he does not write the name we’ve come to know him by. The typically garrulous young males attending the tony prep school remain blissfully unaware of their new teacher’s identity as he starts handing out the class assignment. But the viewer is all too keenly aware of who Prideaux is if only for the fact that we saw him shot in the back at the start of Tomas Alfredson’s film adaptation of the John le Carré novel. Is this a flashback? Or did Prideaux somehow survive the shooting? Prideaux’s mild demeanor belies his efficiency, a fact his students become aware of when a bird trapped in the chimney suddenly flies into the classroom in confusion. Prideaux rapidly pulls out a club from his desk drawer and swats the bird down to the ground where it continues to squeal in pain. As Alfredson directs the camera to capture the students’ horrified reaction, the sound of Prideaux beating the bird to death comes from off-screen...
CONTINUE READING AT PRESS PLAY
The tall, athletic man introduced earlier in Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy as British Intelligence officer Jim Prideaux (Mark Strong) walks into a class room and begins to write his name on the chalkboard. Only he does not write the name we’ve come to know him by. The typically garrulous young males attending the tony prep school remain blissfully unaware of their new teacher’s identity as he starts handing out the class assignment. But the viewer is all too keenly aware of who Prideaux is if only for the fact that we saw him shot in the back at the start of Tomas Alfredson’s film adaptation of the John le Carré novel. Is this a flashback? Or did Prideaux somehow survive the shooting? Prideaux’s mild demeanor belies his efficiency, a fact his students become aware of when a bird trapped in the chimney suddenly flies into the classroom in confusion. Prideaux rapidly pulls out a club from his desk drawer and swats the bird down to the ground where it continues to squeal in pain. As Alfredson directs the camera to capture the students’ horrified reaction, the sound of Prideaux beating the bird to death comes from off-screen...
CONTINUE READING AT PRESS PLAY
Saturday, June 18, 2011
Movie Review: Green Lantern (2011)
by Tony Dayoub
There are many reasons why Green Lantern fails. Here are three of the primary ones. First, the movie spends far too much time on the GL's earthbound subplots instead of his distinctive galactic milieu. Second, Warner Brothers is so concerned with strip-mining its stable of DC Comics characters in order to compete with Marvel Entertainment that the larger conglomerate slavishly follows their rival's blueprint for success instead of merely looking for inspiration in it. Last, the filmmakers who cooked Green Lantern up miss a great opportunity to offer us a different take on the superhero film, transforming the square stoic of the comics into the same prototypical smart-aleck movie antihero that's a dime a dozen these days. More on this in a moment, but let's begin with a quick primer for those unfamiliar with the 52-year-old comic book hero.
There are many reasons why Green Lantern fails. Here are three of the primary ones. First, the movie spends far too much time on the GL's earthbound subplots instead of his distinctive galactic milieu. Second, Warner Brothers is so concerned with strip-mining its stable of DC Comics characters in order to compete with Marvel Entertainment that the larger conglomerate slavishly follows their rival's blueprint for success instead of merely looking for inspiration in it. Last, the filmmakers who cooked Green Lantern up miss a great opportunity to offer us a different take on the superhero film, transforming the square stoic of the comics into the same prototypical smart-aleck movie antihero that's a dime a dozen these days. More on this in a moment, but let's begin with a quick primer for those unfamiliar with the 52-year-old comic book hero.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)



