Apologies for my absence: Part 1

I’ve been busy of late, so much so that my last post was about 2 months ago! Time to get back in the saddle. But do not fear, I have been watching many, many movies. So, today, I’m going to give you lots of mini-reviews. Right here. Right now.

  1. Crazy Heart (Scott Cooper)

This film follows the story of aging, alcoholic country star ”Bad Blake” (Jeff Bridges) and his attempts to turn his life around after meeting Jean, a local journalist (Maggie Gyllenhaal).

This film is really built around the exceptional performances of Bridges, who an an oscar for his role, and Gyllenhall, who was nominated. Their nuance, truth and heart raise the film above its mediocre source material. The film looks beautiful, but has a dragging pace which is often exacerbated by a clunky script. However, their is a wonderful soundtrack and the film does leave you fondly reflecting because of its’ feel-good charm.

VERDCIT: Who doesn’t like a bit of country every now and then.

2. Eastern Promises (David Cronenberg)

Anna (Naomi Watts) is searching for the family of a new-born baby whose young mother died during child-birth. Following the mother’s diary she ends up intwined with the Russian Mafia and their loyal driver (Viggo Mortensen).

Dark, clever and real, this British thriller is a wonderful film and provides an entertaining glimpse into the underworld of London’s organized crime and their exquisite tattoos. Anchored by strong performances from the entire cast, especially Mortensen, and bolstered by a lightning pace and strong attention to detail and realism. For instance, few films would unabashedly flaunt the male anatomy so completely during an assassination attempt in a men’s bath-house. Many would avoid the awkward dangle with close-ups, quick cuts and shaky cam. Add to this a wonderfully crafted twist and a morally ambiguous ending, definitely worth a watch.

VERDICT: Aragorn,”If by my life or death I can protect you, I will. You have my sword…”. Frodo, ”Great, but did you have to tell me that when you were naked in the bathroom?”

3. FRIDAY THE 13TH (Sean S. Cunningham)

20 years after a tragic incident at Camp Crystal Lake, a group of teenage counselors are terrorized as they make preparations to re-open the camp.

I felt Lucky, having not seen this film until now. Following the last decade’s dirge of terrible, monstrously boring, ludicrous, CGI-fest, cheap jump-scare, sequel spewing, terrible horror movies (breathe) I was excited to watch another of the classics. Even watching this film today, armed with the tropes this film and others helped create, I was amazed to still find myself scared, tense and anxious. The tension was built carefully and cleverly, without CGI gore and a unearned jump-scares. Coupled with the creepy soundtrack, it makes for one hell of a scary film.


4. Inherent Vice (P.T. Anderson)

Doc (Joaquin Phoenix), a hippy/stoner/P.I, is enlisted by his ex-girlfriend to find her, current, billionaire boyfriend has been kidnapped and ends up embroiled in a drug-filled, bizarre and typically 70’s criminal scheme.

This is not a bad film. Far from it. It is funny, charismatic, joyfully over the top and superbly acted by a typically large P.T.Anderson ensemble cast. But given Anderson’s previous work, including Boogie Nights, Magnolia and There Will Be Blood, it just left me thinking what it could have been. Anderson’s films are never simple but here the overly convoluted and chopped plot looses the audiences interest. The was so much to follow that you(I) ended up following the minimal amount. His previous film with Joaquin, The Master, was a great film and featured an outstanding performance from Joaquin and the late, Phillip Seymour Hoffman (a long time Anderson collaborator), check out the scene below. Maybe, this time, less really could have been more.

VERDICT: ”Motto panukeiku… motto panukeiku! MOTTO PANUKEIKU!”

5. Dear White People (Justin Simien)

This film follows the increasing racial tensions at a predominantly white Ivy league school, through the eyes of several African American students: Sam (Tessa Thompson) a DJ and filmmaker, Coco (Teyonah Parris) a youtuber and aspiring star, Lionel (Tyler James Williams) a journalist and Troy (Brandon Bell) the house president.

It’s hard to pin this film down into a genre. Political satire. Comedy. Drama. Think-piece. It is all of these things. As a whole it is a brilliant film. Refreshing, energetic and organic. Cinema oft-avoids the discussion of race but here it is tackled head-on with acerbic wit, careful thought and cutting honesty.  This film is thoroughly entertaining AND educational; something vital to help evolve the movie industry (and the audience).

VERDICT: Dear everybody…It’s on Netflix, go chill.

That’s all for now folks… please come back for Part 2!


Apocalypse Brando: The heart attack of darkness

A WORD TO THE WISE: when watching a 3+ hour movie on a plane, do not. I repeat DO NOT delay the start of viewing, or you will end up being made to put the laptop away for landing with only 100 seconds of footage left. After watch 190 minutes of cinematic masterpiece, you have to stop and watch the final shot 4 hours later when you get to your hotel. GOD DAMN IT!

Anyway, that is what happened when I watched Apocalypse Now (the extended Redux version). Widely regarded as one of the best films of all time. Directed by Francis Ford Coppola and starring Martin Sheen, Robert Duvall, Marlon Brando, a very young Laurence Fishbourne, Dennis Hopper and many, many more! So here is the trailer:

The film follows Captain Willard (Sheen) as he is sent on a secret mission, during the Vietnam War, to ”terminate the command of Colonel Kurtz…with extreme prejudice”. Kurtz (Brando) has gone rogue, despite an exemplary and exceptional military record, using brutal and horrific tactics to win the war for the US. His unsanctioned and rogue behaviour has been deemed too extreme by the higher ups and has to be removed from his position of power over US, Vietnamese and Cambodian fighters and tribesman who see him as a God-like figure. Willard must complete his top-secret mission by traveling up-river on a small naval vessel, crewed by Chief, Lance the surfer, Chef and Clean (Fishbourne). This journey brings them to a surf obsessed, Lieutenant Colonel Kilgore (Duvall), three playboy bunny’s and a journalist infatuated with Kurtz (Hopper); among a whole world of chaos.

This film is an all out masterpiece; gripping from start to finish, brilliantly acted, clever and quote-able screenplay. THE WORKS. But when you read about the problems during production it is amazing the film was finished at all. Here are some of the more major ones:

  • BRANDO – everything about him (Ill explain why later)
  • HARVEY KEITEL was initially cast as Willard then replaced weeks into filming by Martin Sheen.
  • TYPHOON OLGA destroyed the set
  • THEFT of one days entire payroll, required hiring of bodyguards
  • SLAUGHTER of a live buffalo
  • POOR SOUND LIBRARIES lead to lots of dubbed backing sounds
  • DENNIS HOPPER requested and was given cocaine to better play his role
  • ACTUAL CORPSES were used as set dressing in Kurtz’s empire. It turned out they were not medical cadavers but had been recently relocated from graveyards

The fact that this film was made at all is frankly incredible.

Is this the one with pre-drug crazed, porn star addled Charlie Sheen?…No this is his dad….Okay, makes sense.

With such an ensemble cast, it could have been difficult to really flesh out characters coupled with poor performances, however the acting is tremendous. Aside from the Willard and Kurtz, the two highlights for me are Clean and Kilgore. Clean was Fishbourne’s debut, only 14 at the start of filming. For such a young actor, his performance as the cocky, young soldier was very strong, really capturing the journey from innocence to hardened fighter. Kilgore, played by Robert Duvall, is such an iconic character; delivering classic lines such as ”I love the smell of napalm in the morning” and ”Charlie don’t surf”. His character epitomised American bravo, unflinching in the face of war and bombs around him. An, almost, arrogant sense that he knew he would not get a scratch. He also provided some of the few and fleeting moments of comedy through his obsession with surfing.

So… to Willard, who in essence is our eyes for the film. For the most part he is a passive observer, he has a singular purpose and anything beyond the scope of this is irrelevant. Sheen’s nuanced, subtle and understated portrayal of Willard really helps ground the film within the absurdities and horrors surrounding the viewer. His narration points out the hypocrisies of war, his glazed eyes match the shock the audience feels. While we relate to Willard, his dispassion becomes vexing at times; over-ruling Chief on the boat, demanding the crew focus on his mission solely, not helping stranded soldiers or civilians, minimal interaction with the boat crew and spending much of his time analyzing Kurtz. He didn’t take his mission out of pride, duty or honour he just took it because it was there. Even killing Kurtz is a passive action; following his superiors orders without question and simultaneously doing as Kurtz wanted.

”Everyone gets everything he wants. I wanted a mission, and for my sins, they gave me one. Brought it up to me like room service. It was a real choice mission, and when it was over, I never wanted another”

For most of the characters, this film is a journey into the darkness and terrors of war, and how far they can be pushed before they reach their breaking point. Chef’s encounter with a tiger. Lance’s decent into drugs. Chief’s emotional meltdown. Whereas Willard was broken by his 1st tour at the start of the movie, in a coincidentally brilliant scene. Instead his journey, as he learns more about and begins to empathize with Kurtz’ fall from grace, is about whether he will give in to the madness and join Kurtz or whether sanity and the mission will prevail. Interestingly, the use of masks, shadow and face-paint is repeatedly used to denote a characters breaking point or new identity, Lance, Kurtz, Willard are all part of this symbolism.

Kurtz (played greatly but problematically by Brando) is for want of a better stereotype, an evil genius, yet his insanity is a debatable question. His understanding and involvement in war has lead him to feel great burden and responsibility for the prevailing ”horrors”. Fed up with the hypocrisies of the US army, he commands his own force. The severed heads and mutilated bodies attest to his madness and the horror that is now his life but when viewed in the context of the rest of the film and the other acts of war, they are normal, maybe even tame. These acts are the language of war and he see’s them as pure, constructive horror. Yet he speaks of these horrors as if they are from a different era and have no place in modern times. This way he is free from any morality, for which he sees no place in war, and therefore accountability.

Even with this rational, Kurtz wants to die but needs an heir to inherit his philosophy and continue his legacy, this heir is Willard. His final words, ”The horror.. .the horror” (along with many others are from T.S. Elliot poems), and his readiness to accept his death at Willard’s hand suggest that maybe he saw death as the only escape from his madness, his demons he let win and the atrocities he has tried to rationalize.

Brando’s portrayal produces a vision of a God-like character who is intellectually, physically and spiritually on another plane to everyone else. While much of this is due to his and Coppola’s brilliance it is also very much due to Brando’s failings. He arrived on set having no preparation, hating the script and ending, 40+ lbs overweight and generally problematic. He spent weeks re-writing the ending with Coppola. Brando demanded they only film him his face and coated in shadow. So they dealt with his weight by dressing him in black and using tall body doubles. These restrictions, along with his 18 minute improvised on camera monologues (much of which is cut from the film) lead to this is great portrayal. Despite, roughly, only15 minutes of screen time he really did earn top billing as his character drives the entire film.

Kurtz was meant to look withered by the jungle. Brando went the other way. Along way the other way!

The themes throughout this film, whilst not overtly anti-war, are certainly critical of all that comes with it. Willard’s mission is one snowballing hypocrisy; a waste of resources, energy and intelligence to kill a high ranking US official whilst US soldiers and Vietnamese civilians are being slaughtered all around. The river and its surrounding fog and haze help to highlight the soldiers descent into madness. As they journey further up river and become more hardened or eventually broken the film takes a hallucinatory turn to solidify this transition. Their madness is further driven by the emptiness of the American values featured in the film. Vietnamese are fighting for their homes, the US are fighting because they feel they have a right to fight in Vietnam and are fighting for Surfing, rock n roll and playboy bunnies. Even, Kilgore demands his soldiers surf or fight!

One final point of interest is the soundtrack, which often seamlessly fits and ties in with the hallucinatory tone of the film. For instance the opening scenes over ”The End” by The Doors, especially as this song moves from atmospheric sounding (over scenes of Vietnam jungle) to eery (Willard devolves in a drunk stupor). BUT perhaps the most recognizable music from Apocalypse is the use of Rise of The Valkyrie as Kilgore flies into battle, an absurd soundtrack for a reckless decision and a pointless airstrike. Additionally music is used throughout to symbolize home and the US values soldiers are fighting for.

Regardless of all of this. No matter what you think of this exceptionally lengthy essay. Watch the film. You will not be disappointed, it is exceptional!

NB/ The redux version has 45 minutes of extra footage, which while not vital to see does add some interesting ideas to the film.

VERDICT: ”I will not hurt or harm you. Just give me back the board, Lance. It was a good board… and I like it. You know how hard it is to find a board you like…”

Disneyland? Fuck, man, this is better than Disneyland! 

The Great Red Dragon: Blake’s PR Guy

Next up in the Hannibal series, is ”Red Dragon”, directed by Brett Ratner, which was released in 2002. So despite being the first entry into the Hannibal trilogy’s canon, serving as a prequel to ”Silence”, it was actually the last film released. Presumably because a previous adaptation of the same Thomas Harris book, released in 1986, entitled ”Manhunter” needed time to fade out of memory. Anthony Hopkins stars as the infamous Hannibal Lecter, while Edward Norton plays Special Agent Will Graham and Harvey Keitel takes over the role of Unit Chief Jack Crawford.

Anyway here is the trailer:

The film opens with Hannibal as a free man; his exceptionally refined taste, disturbing dinner parties and his interactions with a young and brilliant FBI agent Will Graham. I wont go into any more detail here as this scene is a delight to watch and like a fine cut of meat, deserves to remain unspoiled.

The film jumps a few years in time following the opening credits; Will is retired and lives with his family in Florida and there is a new killer du jour. The Tooth Fairy (Ralph Fiennes) is butchering families in their homes in sync with the lunar calendar. The victims are from different states, with no common factors and the FBI is stuck. Jack Crawford persuades a reluctant Will to return to catch this killer before the next full moon. As much as Will learns from the crime scenes he knows he needs a special kind of insight.  He needs to talk to Hannibal; considering how their last meeting lead to Dr. Lecter’s arrest and some serious injuries this is not a pleasant prospect.

We wouldn’t want to be rude, so we’ll start with Anthony Hopkins as Dr Lecter; given this is his 3rd outing on film the character no longer has such the shock factor that it did when he first appeared onscreen. However, the physical menace, the unsettling voice and mannerisms and most importantly those piercing eyes are all still here! The story gives Hopkins more screen time than silence and has plenty to work with and delivers another wonderful (maybe the wrong word for what it is) performance. There are some negatives however, as the writers have tried to flesh out his character a little more, make it more over the top and pronounced. For the most part this works by delivering us something new and intriguing but at times it seems too much.

For instance when ending a conversation, with Graham, Hannibal says, ”I’ll call you if I think of anything else, would you perhaps like to leave me your home phone number?”. This just seems a stretch, Hannibal is not stupid and knows Will is not stupid. Furthermore Hannibal is usually very precise and pointed with his words, he would considering a wasted sentence like this at best a chore, and at worst rude!

The two main additions to the cast here are Norton as Will Graham and Fiennes as the Tooth Fairy.

Norton is a brilliant actor, I dont think I’ve ever seen him give a bad performance. Even when he was nothing to work with, like Ang Lee’s ”Incredible Sulk Hulk”, he is still good. He manages to bring some solidity and heart to a film which could easily have been lacking in quality. His on-screen chemistry with Hopkins was palpable and the scenes between the two were always tense and thrilling. This relationship was never going to beat Starling’s from ”Silence” so they wisely took it elsewhere. Will and Hannibal worked together prior to the the latter’s incarceration, they have a student-mentor relationship. This not only brings about clashes in pride and ideology but also sparks competition. Seeing who is truly the master manipulator.

There relationship is characterized by this one quote:

Dr. Frederick Chilton: Dammit, man, you must have some advice. You caught him. What was your trick?

Will Graham: I let him kill me!

The Tooth Fairy aka Francis Dollarhyde  aka The Great Red Dragon is played excellently by Ralph Fiennes. His affectations, his body language, the way he shies away from attention due to his disfigurement, it is all first class. The way he slips between calm sociopath and a complete embodiment of a delusion is fascinating and impressive. The most interesting relationship here is not the communication between Francis and Hannibal but in fact between Francis and a blind film developer, Reba (Emily Watson). She is confident, extremely well adapted and despises pity, a trait she shares with Dollarhyde and  a trait hat brings them together. As their relationship develops, these feelings of genuine care and affection begin to conflict with The Red Dragon delusion. Even at the height of his chaotic devolution, Francis cannot give Reeba to the dragon. This grounding relationship adds great depth to Francis and pushes him to the brink.

This film greatly features The Great Red Dragon paintings by the great William Blake.  They are strikingly powerful and beautiful; they have a sense of ordered chaos within these scenes from The Book Of Revelation. I would recommend learning about them, here is somewhere to start (Sorry it is only wikipedia).  The painting predominantly featured in the film is ”The Great Red Dragon And The Woman Clothed In Sun” (although in the original book it is titled  ”….clothed with the sun”, a different painting, whilst describing the former). Here it is:

It is easy to see how you could become so completely captivated by such an image.

Francis’ abusive childhood, isolation, disfigurement all lead to his desire to transform. Transform into a all powerful entity from which he can avenge those who wronged him and take the power he feels he deserves; power contained within the painting. I almost feel sorry for him. Except he then kills families and bites people and burns peoples and eats a priceless painting. On the whole he’s a pretty bad person.

Light relief is few and far between but focus around Phillip Seymour Hoffman’s character, Freddy Lounds, a crime reporter for The Tatler who has some history with Will and the Lecter case. This humour is more based around the shock and awe depths Lounds will sink for a story, more of a laughing out of discomfort than wise-cracks. But his character has a crucial arc in the story and Hoffman did great work here. Probably the most disturbing scene of the movie features Lounds in one on one with The Red Dragon and it is a masterful scene. Here it is:

This is a good film, dark, suspenseful and well acted. It was never going to live up to the bar set by ”Silence Of The Lambs” but is far superior to ”Hannibal”, the other entry in the film series. Generally, the film is beautifully shot and directed with great set pieces and dialogue. But there are those few instances where the writing lets the actors and film down a little, and some cliche cop briefing and detecting scenes being the worst offenders. Especially when compared to the caliber of the FBI written in the first film, even though the same screen writer, Ted Tally, was around. Maybe the magic just wasn’t there.

But do watch this film. It is well worth your time! Plus there is a great little tie in to ”Silence” at the end!


”Hannibal, confess. What is this divine-looking amuse bouche?”

”If I tell you, I’m afraid you won’t even try it.”

Silence of The Lambs: I’m having an old friend for dinner

Recently, Hannibal served us it’s last course and closed out a pretty phenomenal 3 seasons. Despite its beautifully dark tone and phenomenal acting, NBC has cancelled it. So to say goodbye to Hannibal, I’m having an old friend for dinner. By which I mean I’ll be reviewing the trilogy of films starring the incredible Anthony Hopkins as our favourite cannibal. One of my favourite cinematic character portrayals of all time.

Let’s start with ”Silence of The Lambs”, our first introduction to Hopkins as Hannibal Lecter, based on the Thomas Harris book of the same name. This film, directed by Jonathan Demme, is an incredible cinematic achievement, leading to its status as the only horror film to win the Best Picture Oscar (the only other even nominated is ”The Exorcist”). On top of this, the film won Best Actor, Actress, Director and Adapted Screenplay. Making it one of 3 films to win the Big Four: ”It All Happened One Night” and ”One Flew Over The Cuckoo’s Nest”.

Here is the trailer:

Jodie Foster stars, in an Oscar winning performance, as Clarice Starling, a determined, resilient and sharply intelligent trainee FBI agent. FBI behavioural analysis unit chief Jack Crawford (Scott Glenn) recruits Starling for a sensitive, nuanced, almost surgical task. To interview and analyze Dr Hannibal Lecter (Hopkins); a pure psychopath responsible for a heinous series of cannibalistic murder, now residing at Baltimore Mental Asylum under the care of the sadistic and opportunistic Dr Chilton (Anthony Heald). Meanwhile, the FBI desperately search for Buffalo Bill (Ted Levine), a serial killer who kidnaps, starves and skins his victims. As events unfold, Clarice winds up caught in a game of cat and mouse between Jack, Hannibal, Buffalo Bill and even Dr. Chilton. All the while, Lecter knows much more than he is letting on about the case and Clarice herself.

Hannibal is intriguing, horrifying and impossible to turn away from, in equal part due to Harris’ original writings but also through Hopkin’s stellar performance. For most of Lecter’s screen time he is limited either through the confines of his cell or by restraints. Yet despite these confines, Hopkins has a powerful  physical presence that is never anything less than menacing. His statuesque posture and deliberate steps, all carefully constructed to fully bring Lecter to life. Each and every word is delivered with purpose and point, wholly embracing the role of an exceptionally intelligent but malevolent Lecter.

What is most terrifying though, are his eyes. You know the hideous monster he is but he reveals nothing. Instead you can see his piercing, eyes focused directly on Clarice, searching her mind, seeing through her facade. He sees everything and reads more from every minuscule detail and in return Clarice gets self-reflection and a small trickle of information Lecter deems necessary. Carefully weighed, enough to intrigue but not enough to complete the puzzle.

The writing and dialogue here are exceptional, the best example being the verbal sparring between Lecter and Clarice. Clarice is scared and captivated by Lecter and never backs down from his abrasive questioning or intellectual challenges. But this is in essence what Hannibal is. He elevates himself to a higher plane of existence, intellectually and spiritually. He toys with those unworthy. Kills and eats those he deems rude or discourteous. For those few he finds interesting or deserving of his time he continually provokes and challenges to prove his superiority. To prove that they are beneath him, And to prove that he is in control.

Here he is in full flow:

Although cleverly shot, thoughtfully crafted and brilliantly acted throughout, the stand out for me (besides Lecter) is the strength of Clarice Starling as a character. Not only is she strong, dedicated and equally, if opposingly, brilliant to Lecter but she does this in a world designed to belittle and dismiss her. The Law enforcement of this film, and real life, is a strikingly male dominated world, with a multitude of evidence for this. Often the only woman in the room. Lustful or comical looks from male counterparts. The attitude towards women in the Bureau is summed up, in a typically confrontational, question by Lecter about whether Clarice has considered that Jack wants to sleep with her. She replies, ”That does not interest me Doctor and frankly, it’s, its the sort of thing Miggs would say”. In reference to her previous visit with Lecter where his neighbour Miggs threw semen at her; Lecter responded by convincing Miggs to kill himself… This exchange typifies Clarice, no matter the trauma or situation, she will become stronger, she will evolve and triumph. Further more, she challenges superiors to change and adapt their attitudes towards women because as she rightly states,” It matters, Mr Crawford. Cops look at you to see how to act. It matters.”

Here is my favourite scene of Clarice’s, discussing her childhood during quid-pro-quo with Lecter and explaining the films title:

Clarice is a strong character. She isn’t strong for a woman. Or strong for a man. She is a strong person in her own right. Defined by her drive and her goals. Now although times have moved on, the world of movies hasn’t really improved in this area. I can’t think of many women in film as strong since Clarice, apart from maybe Furiosa from Mad Max Fury Road (I’m sure there are a good few examples I’m blanking on). These characters are great not because they are physically strong (although I’m sure they are), like say Hope Van Dyne (Ant Man) or Isla Faust (MI:Rogue Nation), but because they are real people. They have complex emotions and beliefs, they are driven and have faults and stand against the obstacles in their path. They earn their place in cinema in there own right, not by serving as a foil for someone else or even worse as window dressing.

No horror film is complete without a big, scary villain. In this case we have two! Alongside Lecter we have Ted Levine giving a jarring and unsettling performance as Buffalo Bill. It was almost like playing two characters; the low-key and conspicuous public persona and the unstable, confused and angry murderer in private. He does this brilliantly, switching between the two seamlessly. Bill does not just kill for pleasure, he has a deep and complex pathology. A confusion and intricacy Levine brings to all his scenes; allowing us to empathize with him on some level knowing the years of abuse he suffered and his difficulty with self acceptance.

This film has received some criticism for featuring the often used trope of having trans-gender or homosexuality cause psychopathy (something especially common on procedural shows where fresh ideas for criminals run out fast), which is obviously COMPLETELY WRONG. LGBT rights and tolerance have come along a way since 1991 but the fact that this is still a writing device shows that there is a ways to go yet! I think these criticisms of the film are valid but I also think there is more to Buffalo Bill, as Lecter states;

”Look for severe childhood disturbances associated with violence. Our Billy wasn’t born a criminal, Clarice. He was made one through years of systematic abuse. Billy hates his own identity, you see, and he thinks that makes him a transsexual. But his pathology is a thousand times more savage and more terrifying.”

Bill hates who he is and thinks being someone else will bring him acceptance. He covets women and sees them as better and worthy of acceptance and so attempts to transform himself into one to gain self acceptance. But gender identity is an intrinsic part of us, the change in our external characteristics or appearance come later, if at all, and completely depend on each individual. Bill’s pathology has lead him to believe that wearing a suit of women to change his exterior will change his fundamental identity. He is too unwell to grasp that his self-hatred does not means he has a trans-identity.

Anyway….this is an exceptional film. Dark, scary and intense. Watch it.



SKIP to 1:20 for the classic exchange

Blue Ruin: Revenge Murder Spree For Dummies

Now, for me, most social media tools are basically vanity projects to manufacture a fictionalized image of yourself: Instagram, Vine, Twitter etc. (Granted I am a hypocrite because I have Facebook.) And as a consequence I have never really understood their use as a marketing platform whether directly or through Kickstater. Up until now this was my entire experience of Kickstarter:

NB/ This is exceptionally unsafe for work, as you’d expect from South Park and Cartman. You have been warned!

However, last night this all changed… I watched the film, ”Blue Ruin”; whose production was funded through a successful Kickstarter campaign. This little known thriller, directed by Jeremy Saulnier and starring Macon Blair, is brilliant and currently on Netflix (UK anyway). You should watch most definitely watch this. SO here is the trailer:

The film opens on a seemingly tranquil, domestic life of Dwight (Blair) in the bath, only to be startled by a noise outside. Your assumptions are immediately turned upside down as Dwight escapes out of the bathroom window as a family returns home from holiday. Dwight was the outsider there. Dwight is an outsider everywhere. You then cut through different aspects of his day-to-day life. Collecting plastic rubbish of the beach to exchange for coupons. Bathing in the sea. His entire life, home and place to sleep within a rusted blue pontiac, our eponymous blue ruin. All poignantly framed and without a single word of dialogue.

But the highlight of this montage, in what is one of the most beautiful shots I have seen in recent years, is Dwight alone, at night, outside the illuminated, happiness of Funland. Riffling through the bins for food amongst the screams of joy. It is a devastating but beautiful moment.

The following morning, Dwight is woken by a Policewoman and escorted to a station. Reassured that he is not in trouble but that he should be with someone and somewhere safe when he hears the news. The news that a man is being released from prison. The look on Dwight’s face tells us everything we need to know; that this man is responsible for a tragedy in Dwight’s past.

From here Dwight goes on an increasingly unhinged quest for revenge, to close this terrible chapter of his life. This journey is incredibly tense. Each scene builds upon the previous to a finale where your nerves are so tautly wrung that it is almost unbearable. This is really a master class in story telling, something any film-maker (whether independent or blockbuster) could learn from. The film was made on a small budget and is only 90 minutes long, meaning every single scene and word had to count. And it did, absolutely nothing was wasted.

There is violence, there was no way around it, but more important is the constant feeling that the story could explode into violence at any second. Nothing is safe. Nothing is peaceful. What’s more is that the eruptions of violence are realistic. The wounds looks agonizing, you can feel them in your flesh. And they have consequences, people don’t just get up and run off after being shot or just shake an arrow wound off. This realism is biting and brutal.

Usual on-screen murderers are hit-men, mercenaries or soldiers, all trained in the art of bloodshed. Or they are an ordinary person who is inexplicably good at it because it serves the story. Both of these take away from the experience, as it brings the story out of the realms of possibility or relate-ablity for your average Joe. Dwight has no training just his basic common sense. He makes decisions we all could make. There are no elaborate plans just flawed attempts at doing what he thinks is right. His mistakes and normality really bring you into the film. What would you do in this situation? How would you handle it? This is perfectly demonstrated by two key points in the film.

  1. Dwight misses a ”fish in a barrel” shot from 2 yards because he is nervous, terrified and shaking. Not the incredible, long-range, head-shot action we usually see.
  2. This quote from Dwight’s friend, Ben, ”I know this is personal and that’s how you’ll fail. No speeches. You point the gun, you shoot.” How many times have we seen the ”Good/Bad guy monologue” on film just to be thwarted at the last minute. It is infuriating but this is how it happens in films, therefore it is not surprising Dwight, like all of us, would need warning to avoid doing this.

Watching how this journey effects Dwight is captivating. Its initial toxicity and nausea, through to a grudging and numb familiarity and the eventual resigning to its depths. These are human responses to such extreme terror and loss of innocence.The performance by Macon Blair is gut-punchingly strong, he makes you feel all of these lows and his desperation for it to end. It is near perfect.

Murder is a messy business. Maybe he should have taken a leaf out of Patrick Bateman’s book and worn a murder anorak.

The action pieces are cleverly set-up and executed. The plot is excellent, realistic and very carefully thought out. This really is one of the best films I’ve seen in recent years and cannot recommend it enough. Stylish, beautifully filmed, jarringly tense and full of great dialogue. Do yourself a favour and watch it.


The Lord Of The Rings (Full Trilogy) IMDB Top 250 Guest Review

Recently I was fortunate enough to do a guest post for Cinema Parrot Disco. The subject? The entire Lord Of The Rings Trilogy. Please follow the link below to take a look. Hope you enjoy!

Ill be back soon!

Cinema Parrot Disco

Today’s IMDB Top 250 Guest Review comes from James of Slate The Silver Screen. Thanks for the review, James! 🙂 Now let’s see what he has to say about The Entire Lord Of The Rings Trilogy, IMDB ranks 9, 13 & 21 out of 250…

There are still some movies up for grabs if anyone wants to do a guest IMDB Top 250 review. You can find the list of remaining films HERE. See the full list & links to all the reviews that have already been done HERE. Also, if you’d like to add a link to your IMDB review(s) on your own blogs, feel free to use any of the logos I’ve used at the top of any of these guest reviews.


Peter Jackson’s critically acclaimed Lord of the Rings (LOTR) trilogy is adapted from J.R.R. Tolkein’s incredible books. These films take…

View original post 2,006 more words

Inside Out: The Animation of Neuroses

The latest Pixar film to hit cinema’s is ”Inside Out”, directed by Pete Docter and starring Amy Poeler and Phyllis Smith. Here is the trailer:

Ill be honest here…this is the first animated movie I’ve seen in the cinema in about a decade. I wasn’t sure I was going to enjoy it.

But I was wrong…I really did enjoy it. It was funny, emotional and clever. Yes it isn’t as good as Toy Story or Finding Nemo or Monsters Inc! And Yes I thought parts were too childish, but I guess that is the point? THIS IS A KIDS FILM; one that is well made, very thoughtful and definitely worth a watch. I enjoyed it and I’m a grumpy 24 year old man-child.

The pre-show short is about a Volcano looking for someone to ”Lava”, complete with catchy ukulele song that stuck in my head for far too long, was nice although a little twee for me. Id rather watch the one about a young lamp jumping around.

I would lava it if you stopped singing!

Anyway onto the main event! ”Inside Out” follows the story of 11 year old girl Riley and her struggles to adapt to her new life in San Francisco following her move from the beloved family home in Minnesota. Except there is one big difference, the story is mainly told from the point of view of the personified emotions who control Riley. Joy (Poeler), Sadness (Smith), Fear (Bill Hader), Anger (Lewis Black) and Disgust (Mindy Kaling) run Riley from ”head-quarters”, where they help control her mood, responses, personality and memories. Up until now Joy has run the show, happy memories and minimum Sadness. However, the move to California coupled with Sadness’s increasing incompetence leads to Joy and Sadness getting stuck in the labyrinth known as long-term memory storage. Disastrously leaving Anger, Fear and Disgust in charge. Joy and Sadness try to make it back to HQ before any permanent damage is done to Riley and her family.

I really liked how clever this film is. Not in a ”Memento” or ”Inception” way which makes you pay attention and either gives you a migraine or a coma. Here their complex idea i.e. YOU is portrayed in an interesting, original and entertaining way. Personified key emotions run the show. Core memories used to create personality islands to form the basis of you. Memory balls, long term storage. A literal train of thought.  All presented and brought together in a simple but very clever representation of the infinitely complex YOU.

The choice of emotions for personification was great; if you’re really honest with yourself then Joy, Sadness, Fear, Anger and Disgust play a part in every decision, reaction and situation. Big or small! The vocal performances were great and surprisingly 3D for characters literally defined by one emotion!

Whilst watching the film I did have a bit of a problem with Joy, although funny and brilliantly voiced, and just how over-zealous and obnoxiously happy she wanted everything to be. No wriggle room. Happy is good. Sad is bad. But then I realised two things. 1) I am British and showing any outward sign of emotion, especially unbridled joy is frowned upon! 2) Little kids are really happy nearly all the time. They don’t deal in the grey, complex emotions. They deal in Happy or sad. But mainly JOY. Maybe this is why Joy didnt always sit well with me.

For me it wasn’t all sunshine and puppies though. At times the film is slow, spending too much time focusing on Joy and Sadness’ journey back to HQ from long term memory storage. Yes it was charming and had some great parts, but there were far too many examples proving that Joy and Sadness are different and incompatible. And not enough examples of the important role of sadness in combining with joy to create meaningful and complex emotions during the final pay-off (And no development of the other emotions’ roles). Having said this I enjoyed Bing Bong, the pink-elephant/imaginary friend. A fact that makes me question ever part of my being.

For the sake of transparency,  my imaginary friend was called Arthur and, fortunately, he looked absolutely nothing like this nightmarish monstrosity.

My favourite parts of the movie were the hilarious discussions in HQ on how the emotions should handle Riley’s situations and seeing how different they all are. I would have loved to have seen more of these, with lots more different emotional combinations taking control. But hey…it is a minor complaint.

Is this the best Pixar film? No. Is it ”Finding Nemo”? No. Is it worth watching? YES. ”Inside Out” is a great film, with lots of heart and lots of fun. More importantly it is a good story that we can all relate to: growing up. moving house, new schools and learning how to handle the complex emotions and thoughts that come with getting older. The problem of learning that the world isn’t black or white, or rather yellow and blue, but rather both.

Wait blue and yellow makes green?…But green is disgust?…Ah shit now I’m confused.


Mission Impossible: Rogue Nation. A Tom Cruise Triathlon

Most franchises start with the best entry and get progressively worse, eg Jurassic Park or Spider-man trilogies. Some produce entries of equal quality, for example all the Lord Of The Rings films are excellent and all of the Twilight  and Transformers films are complete and utter, abominable and intolerable shit!

Mission Impossible, however, ignores these popular models; good first entry, average second entry, slightly worse third, an excellent 4th… and now an excellent 5th movie! Amazing considering the characters are already old and the star, Tom Cruise, is even older! Let’s be honest, action movies tend to be a young man’s game, Neeson and Arnie aside. This entry is directed by Chris McQuarrie.

Here is the trailer:

Looks fun doesn’t it!

It is. Action movies are not new, they are too many, they are big budget and little thought. Even worse is that M.I is not a new franchise! Yet despite this being Cruise’s 5th outing as IMF agent Ethan Hunt, we are given a smart, stylish, witty and entertaining action movie. Definitely give it a watch.

Ethan Hunt (Cruise), Benji (Simon Pegg) and field operations director Brandt (Jeremy Renner) have been following a bread crumb trail of disasters left by an enigmatic and shrouded organisation known as the Syndicate. Hunt’s briefing in London is compromised by the Syndicate, who capture him with the aim of turning him or breaking him. A mysterious double agent within the Syndicate, Isla Faust (Rebecca Ferguson), helps him escape drawing significant suspicion upon herself. Meanwhile in Washington, the IMF is deactivated and acquired by the CIA who believe the Syndicate is a figment of Hunt’s imagination to justify the existence of the IMF. With no one to help and no where to go, Hunt and his team, including old friend Luther (Ving Rhames), must find and defeat the Syndicate before the CIA can get to them.

So… first of all, the action set pieces. They are great and small but IMPRESSIVE; from sprawling ciity vehicle chases, to complex heists and Tom Cruise actually strapped to a plane. All filmed with clever direction, shooting and editing. I especially enjoyed the fight scenes, beautifully choreographed, like a dance. What made them so great to watch is that the camera was steady and without editing cuts. This means  you can actually tell what is going on, whereas most movies like a fight/battle to have shaky/spinning/zooming cameras with constant jump-cuts and grey-wash colour pallets to ensure maximum confusion and utter pointlessness. It doesn’t matter how much danger your characters are in if we can’t tell what is going on! My only complaint here would be that the CGI is occasionally shoddy, particularly the motorbike chase scenes which look like something from a video game.

Next up, Tom Cruise. Your local, fun loving, confident, Scientology socio-path (see below). Of late, Mr Cruise has been a bit unhinged which has diminished his appeal somewhat. Personally I still enjoy his films, I just wouldn’t want him to check my Thetan levels. He was commanding onscreen, charismatic and charming. Funny where needed and the die-hard physical, intelligent action hero we know the rest of the time. It was a very strong performance and neither this film nor the preceding Ghost Protocol would have worked without it.

Also, if the guy wants to strap himself to the outside of a plane for the sake of a realistic action film. Good for him, Ill cut him a bit of slack.

This genre of movies is rife with cliché, many of them due to Mr TC himself. So here is a list of them for your entertainment: NB/ Those in bold are MI specific

  • Shots of TC running (x3)
  • Shots of TC riding a motorbike 
  • And to complete the action hero triathlon. TC swims 
  • The villain is British.
  • Gratuitous shot of woman’s bum whilst in an appealing dress
  • ”Gratuitous” shot of a woman in a bikini
  • The word ”disavowed” is used
  • Good guys disobey superiors for the greater good
  • Foreign mercenaries for TC to beat up (Eastern European preferable)
  • Using every single trick in the book to make TC look taller than 5’5”
  • An amazing face mask that somehow makes your body-shape match too (Kind of anyway)

This brings me onto my next point. This is a great film and still it contains the clichés above and probably many others. However, they are not over the top or silly and they all serve a valid plot point. For example, the ”girl in a bikini” is not just a ”money shot”, like any Bond girl in any Bond movie (There are too many examples to list here! Google it! Carefully!), but serves a purpose. Ilsa is using a pool in Casablanca to test her breath holding capacity to successfully complete her mission. The camera doesn’t linger as she leaves the pool and she quickly dresses in a towel before continuing her conversation with her male counterparts. Good job film!

One of the best things about the film is in fact the treatment of Rebecca Ferguson, the female lead. She doesn’t need anyone’s help because she is just as and often more capable than her male counterparts. She is smart, witty and NOT just window dressing. Her character serves and furthers the plot in her own right not  by just helping a man see the right thing to do. Furthermore she was incredible in her fight scenes; elegant, powerful and strong. Even better is the fact Rebecca isn’t 20 and incredibly thin but she is 31 and looks strong, athletic and healthy. A great message for all! She does look great but that’s a by product of being in film, because everyone does, but she brings a maturity and mystique to her character which is captivating to watch. Also she is the centre-point during the first part of the final action sequence and TC is the human shield, a lovely twist.

Granted, she doesn’t have a female co-star to talk with so bye-bye Bechdel test. BUT this franchise has a poor track-record with women. Remember, TC’s romance with Thandie Newton in MI2? NO, well that’s because they swapped her in for TC’s new on-screen wife Michelle Monaghan in MI3. Who, because she did nothing on screen, was consequently dropped from this film. As well as dropping Paula Patton after her good performance in Ghost Protocol. Hopefully, they have learned their lessons!  Plus, Ferguson takes her heels off during an action scene which playfully shines a light on some of Jurassic Worlds artistic license! They both fit with the tone of their movies; MI5 is realistic and tense where Jurassic World is about losing yourself in an out of this world and extraordinary story, where running away from a super-powered dinosaur through a rainforest is completely plausible.

I know I’m taller than you without them but will you please take my shoes? …Well let’s see you abseil in 6 inch heels!

Pegg and Renner’s characters help to provide natural moments of comic relief within the chaos, these breaks in intensity and tone are not forced (see Age Of Ultron for reference) and help propel the movie forward. This way their characters help provide the heart and soul to Hunt’s cold, dedicated intensity.

Anyway, this is a great film. Watch it. Enjoy it!



Good Night Robin Williams: A Good Morning Vietnam Review

Robin Williams was an immense talent, incredibly funny, lighting fast; no one could compete with him. He was a brilliant actor, from Mork and Mindy to Jumanji and Good Will Hunting. Raw emotion or just intensely funny comedy. Sadly, just over a year ago he passed away. This was a huge shock to the entertainment community and anyone who had ever enjoyed one of his shows, films or stand-ups. The tragic circumstances of his death have helped bring some much needed awareness and acceptance to mental illness.

But rather than dwell on the sadness, I am going to focus on the genius of his work. In particular the acclaimed comedy and drama ”Good Morning Vietnam”, directed by Barry Levinson and starring Williams as Airman 2nd Class Adrian Cronauer who arrives on placement in Saigon as a Armed Forces Radio DJ. This role was the first of 4 Oscar nominations; the others being Best Actor for Dead Poets Society (1989) and The Fisher King (1991) an his Supporting Actor win for Good Will Hunting in (1998). Click on the film titles for a great Williams scene for each movie!

So without further ado here is the trailer:

Cronauer arrives in Saigon for his new posting, once there Private 1st Class Edward Garlick (Forrest Whitaker) helps him settle in. Cronauer’s exciting, unpredictable and raucous presenting style, featuring the best of modern music rather than the same old sound, quickly wins over many listeners but also infuriates his two immediate superiors. As the weeks go by, fed up with bureaucracy and censorship he questions the importance of his role as a DJ. Yet, in the middle of all this craziness Cronauer develops a friendship with a young Vietnamese boy, Tuan, whilst also trying to win the affection and attention of his older sister, Trinh.

Williams is astonishing, as DJ Cronauer. He exudes ludicrous charm and confidence, or ”a deplorable excess of personality” as Dr Hammond would say. His broadcast scenes are full of impressions, characatures, wit and barely caged-insanity. You feel witness to your own personal Robin Williams stand-up performance, the speed at which he changes direction leaves you in speechless. And what’s more…it is hilarious. Here is Robin Williams at his best, his sheer joy at being an entertainer, it is no wonder he was so at home as Adrian Cronauer.

Williams is not just a joke machine. There are touching moments; heartfelt bonding between Cronauer and Tuan who in theory should be enemies, Cronauers sheer force of persona forming instant camaraderie with his peers. Cronauer’s clashes with his superiors are some of the best moments of the film; his resentment, their jealously.. and all dealt with through a biting sense of humour.

My favourite Williams’ scene in the movie is towards the end. SPOILER WARNING. And involves Cronauer and Tuan. Sorry for the poor quality, couldnt find a better link.

This scene is all about betrayal, trust and the causalities of war; seeing the war from both perspectives!

Beyond Robin there is a great surrounding cast, Forest Whitaker has a great and nuanced turn as Edward Garlick. While Tung Thanh Tran (Tuan) and Chintara Sukapatana (Trinh, Tuan’s sister) also gave great performances, especially the former as Williams friend and ally.

The film is very well directed and while often framed to focus on Williams and his eccentricities; just as important, however, are the establishing and surrounding scenes of ”Vietnam”. Although, filmed in Thailand, the scenery is remarkably beautiful, showcasing normal daily life in the villages or ”Saigon”. These visuals are often accompanied by 60’s pop-sounds of Cronauer’s show. The Beach Boys. James Brown. The Marvellettes.

The prime example of this is set to Louis Armstrong’s ”A Wonderful World”. The wonderful tones of Satchel Mouth play over contrasting scenes of military drills and local life, which suddenly change to panic and terror. Napalm bombing paddy fields. Riots in the street. Bombs in Saigon. A bloody sandal in front of a burning building. It is a haunting, beautiful and upsetting disparity. Watch the clip or watch the film…it’s up to you.

Although great, alas this movie is not perfect. As with many films of the era there is a little bit of dated, lazy racism through impressions or stereotyping. Fortunately, this is kept to a minimum and doesn’t overly detract from the film. Especially given the way modern ”comedies” try to get away with this and much worse. My other criticism would be the constant and unrelenting animosity from Cronauer’s two superiors, with no reason to really warrant it. One is partially understandable as he wants to be the funny man and so resents Cronauer’s talent and adoration, especially after he hilariously fails to take over the show and bombs (see below). The Staff Sergeant, however, is just mean because….he’s a military man? But why?  Why hate nice people so much? Why be such a dick? Again he got some form of come-upance as he is transferred out of Vietnam to a peace zone for being mean. But it is really hard to care about these wrongs being righted when there wasn’t a bloody reason for them in the first place!

Overall though, this is a wonderful film. Funny, dramatic, heart-warming and thought provoking. Mainly in part due to the never-ending talent of Robin Williams. I cant recommend this film enough.

Other Robin Williams films you really should see are: Dead Poets Society, Birdcage, Jumanji, Aladdin, The Fisher King, One Hour Photo, Good Will Hunting. And many many more!

Hope you enjoyed it. Like Comment and follow if you agree with my take on one of William’s greatest film.

VERDICT: ”You are in more dire need of a blowjob than any white man in history.”

Daniel Day-Lewis: The Cinematic Cobbler

Actors basically  pretend to be other people for a living. Usually they research their character to best understand them so that they can produce the most realistic and intimate imitation of them. At worst, this research involves turning up and reading loud and stumbling over the tough words. At best these performances transition from impersonation to personification and embodiment. This can involve substantial physical changes be it prostetics, drastic weight and physique changes or CGI. Some actors produce this sort of performance once in a career like Natalie Portman in Black Swan or J.K. Simmons in Whiplash or even Nicolas Cage in Leaving Las Vegas (although some attribute this to supernatural phenomena). Some can do this repeatedly like Meryl Street, Jack Nicholson or Robert De Niro.

BUT… there are few who can produce these performances as consistently and brilliantly as Daniel Day-Lewis.

Here he is in ”There Will Be Blood” in the brilliant and intense ”milkshake” scene:

Suffice to say his milkshake brings all the boys to the yard!

Daniel is the only man to win 3 Oscars for Best Actor, for his work in ”My Left Foot”, ”There Will Be Blood” and ”Lincoln”. He received 2 further Best Actor nods for ”In The Name Of The Father” and ”Gangs Of New York”. NB/ Walter Brennan and Jack Nicholson have also won 3 Oscars but over the Best Actor and Supporting Actor categories.

”You’re telling me it’s going to take 1 hour to put all this make up on?…The sodding Gettysberg address was only 2 minutes long!” Lincoln (2012)

Now while Oscar success is not an accurate singular measure of an actor’s ability, due to the Academy’s somewhat questionable record with race and snubbing movies, amongst other things. It is a testament to his skill.

Now some could argue that the reason for his ability to commit and perfect each role is his selectivity. And you’d be right. Since he won the Oscar for ”My Left Foot”, in 1989, he has only been in 10 films, often with years between each. To you I say, does that matter? These days film stars appear in multiple films a year and make millions for each one. But it you look at these extensive filmography’s, how many of the films are truly great? And more importantly how many of the performances are memorable or worthy of recognition? If we looked at the same time period I would bet the number would be less than Mr Lewis’s. This is especially important when you look at the constant barrage of terrible films which violate the eyes of the general public on a daily basis.

Furthermore, when money is not an issue, who wouldn’t want to bide their time and find the right project and vehicle to produce your best work, using your spare-time to fulfil other passions and hobbies. Daniel’s dissociation from the Hollywoodland bubble only serves to benefit his acting work by allowing him to relax and truly consider each role. In fact between films he has dedicated time to his passion for woodwork and spent time being a cobbler. These periods remain very illusive and mysterious as he has said, ”…a period of my life that I had a right to, without any intervention of that kind”. He has taken a hiatus since filming 2012’s Lincoln as he believes he will not be able to surpass this work for some time. Remember, QUANTITY IS NOT THE SAME AS QUALITY…for example Michael Bay sticking 200 explosions in a film does not make it good! Or even tolerable.

However, what I believe sets Daniel Day-Lewis apart is his absolute, unshakeable dedication to each role. He takes method acting to a new, almost comically insane, stratosphere. He caught pneumonia and refused to wear a warmer coat during the filming of ”Gangs Of New York”. He spent the entirety of filming ”My Left Foot” in character as paraplegic writer, Christy Brown, being carried around or pushed in a wheelchair and being spoonfed; he even broke two ribs from being constantly slumped over. He only ate food he killed for ”The Last Of The Mohicans”. Lost 30lbs and underwent intense interrogations for ”In The Name Of The Father”. And he didnt bathe for the entire filming of ”The Crucible” to experience the life of a 17th Century man.

While he is not the only method actor: Dustin Hoffman, Robert DeNiro, Christian Bale, even Leto and McConaughey for Dallas Buyers Club, and Danny Dyer (just kidding). These actors go through rigorous and chameleon-like physical changes, alter and distort their personalities and deliver incredible performances, rivalling those of Day-Lewis. But… Daniel’s level of diligence, intensity and commitment to his research and performance puts him a step above in terms of (method) acting and, consequently, consistency of performance. If you don’t believe me, take look at, and cringe through, some of the crappy films the above actors have made: The Family, Chapter 27, all McConaughey rom-coms, Little Fockers, Meet The Fockers, Terminator Salvation, Exodus and Grudge Match.

An example of Day-Lewis’ preparation is here in Lincoln, a role he prepared for by over a year by reading 100s of books on Lincoln and perfecting the make-up!

His groundwork allows him to produce some of the most memorable and most accomplished performances in recent cinema. They are diverse, restrained, anarchic, troubled and inspiring. His characters are complex, interesting and unique. Everything a person is. Except he achieved this for characters completely foreign and distant from himself, a middle-class English son of a Poet Laurete. In the hands of lesser actors, the intensity or vigour of these performances could be cartoonish and silly. But instead they are engrossing and more importantly, real!

For example, Lewis as Christy Brown in ”My Left Foot”.

Anyway, this is my take on Daniel Day-Lewis, I hope you enjoyed it. Here are some of his films you should definitely see: My Left Foot, Last Of The Mohicans, In The Name Of The Father, The Crucible, The Boxer,Gangs Of New York, There Will Be Blood and Lincoln! Do yourself a favour and take a look!