seanebuckley
Joined Jul 2002
Welcome to the new profile
We're still working on updating some profile features. To see the badges, ratings breakdowns, and polls for this profile, please go to the previous version.
Ratings3.9K
seanebuckley's rating
Reviews19
seanebuckley's rating
Zero Dark Thrity is the new movie from Hurt Locker director Kathryn Bigelow who has enjoyed a rich and varied career to date which will surely be swamped under the weight of opinion lumped on this picture. She is a highly adept film-maker and the aforementioned Hurt Locker might just be the finest example of a war movie since Apocalypse Now and Full Metal Jacket. Zero Dark Thirty is a different beast altogether. It is a fact-based account of the events leading up to the killing of Osama Bin Laden. Its a touchy subject which is largely handled with great care and aplomb by the cast and film-makers. Thats not to say the movie is perfect, its actually far from it.
The movie is talky without being overly analytical or detailed. I learned nothing from the 157 minute runtime that i couldn't find out in 20 minutes on the web, but maybe that's the point. The word chronicle is often bounded around when talking about Zero Dark Thirty. Chronicle is defined as 'A factual written account of important or historical events in the order of their occurrence' and thats precisely what the film is and not a touch more. There is no meat offered to the viewer by way of engaging character or story development, indeed, the film is mostly an anti-cinematic experience aside from the last 20 or so minutes.
An interesting counter point is the popular 'Homeland' show which also charts a driven female CIA agent as she tracks a known and dangerous terrorist. Its true that both works have completely different end-games but it is interesting to note just how far removed the two are. Homeland is purely for entertainment purposes and Zero Dark Thirty strives to be factual and relevant. I would argue that Zero Dark Thirty could have never won over every critic and begs the question, can you really expect to make a piece of solid entertainment about tracking and killing Osama Bin Laden? The answer is no. They would have been surely lambasted for glorifying a potentially inflammatory event (please see Oliver Stone's dreadful 'World Trade Center'). Therefore, we are left with this glossy, extremely well made, pseudo-documentary which is never particularly involving or like-able.
Also with all due respect, Chastain can count herself very lucky to have just been nominated for best actress. She was surely a shoe-in for the Oscar nod for just turning up here as the film lends itself, due to its 'factual' nature, to receiving the adoration of the academy. Her performance, much like the film, barely exists but to prop up and relay the events. She cries when people die and she is cast iron in the face of a male dominated, scary world but she is barely a character in her own right. People aren't talking about Maya's dominance of the screen, they are talking about the half-truisms of the events themselves. I'm not asking for any meaningful superfluous back story or exposition but i wanted to see her out of the situation, if just for a few minutes. As an audience we need to know the characters aside from them telling us what is going to happen in the movie. Don't get me wrong, Chastain does nothing wrong here, its more a problem with the writing or maybe just with the style of movie they were trying to make here that breaks her for me. Another interesting counter-point is Ben Affleck's excellent Argo. Here we have a movie based on some pretty harrowing true events but its handled with a cinematic eye. Affleck takes some liberties with the truth in Argo but what he does make is a piece of cinema that excites the audience, involves you in the picture and the characters completely and most importantly stays with you after the fact. I felt nothing at Zero Dark Thirty's conclusion, even when watching Chastain cry, i didn't appreciate the action or care. I didn't feel anything for her character, i knew her about as well as i did Osama Bin Laden (movie equivalent of course).
I think my main problem was with the point of the whole exercise. Its a film that sits on the fence, never glorifies or revels nor does it offer any comment or insight. So what then was the point? Do we really live in a world where is it necessary to make a film about every important event in history? How is this any different to watching a fluffy news story? Do we really need attractive people on the silver screen for people to give a sh*t about whats going on in the world? I hope not.
All of that being said, Zero Dark Thirty is never an exercise in patience, it rumbles along at a steady pace and if all your looking for is a chronicle of events post 9/11 you'll find a lot to be interested in. I just cant shake the question, what was the point?
The movie is talky without being overly analytical or detailed. I learned nothing from the 157 minute runtime that i couldn't find out in 20 minutes on the web, but maybe that's the point. The word chronicle is often bounded around when talking about Zero Dark Thirty. Chronicle is defined as 'A factual written account of important or historical events in the order of their occurrence' and thats precisely what the film is and not a touch more. There is no meat offered to the viewer by way of engaging character or story development, indeed, the film is mostly an anti-cinematic experience aside from the last 20 or so minutes.
An interesting counter point is the popular 'Homeland' show which also charts a driven female CIA agent as she tracks a known and dangerous terrorist. Its true that both works have completely different end-games but it is interesting to note just how far removed the two are. Homeland is purely for entertainment purposes and Zero Dark Thirty strives to be factual and relevant. I would argue that Zero Dark Thirty could have never won over every critic and begs the question, can you really expect to make a piece of solid entertainment about tracking and killing Osama Bin Laden? The answer is no. They would have been surely lambasted for glorifying a potentially inflammatory event (please see Oliver Stone's dreadful 'World Trade Center'). Therefore, we are left with this glossy, extremely well made, pseudo-documentary which is never particularly involving or like-able.
Also with all due respect, Chastain can count herself very lucky to have just been nominated for best actress. She was surely a shoe-in for the Oscar nod for just turning up here as the film lends itself, due to its 'factual' nature, to receiving the adoration of the academy. Her performance, much like the film, barely exists but to prop up and relay the events. She cries when people die and she is cast iron in the face of a male dominated, scary world but she is barely a character in her own right. People aren't talking about Maya's dominance of the screen, they are talking about the half-truisms of the events themselves. I'm not asking for any meaningful superfluous back story or exposition but i wanted to see her out of the situation, if just for a few minutes. As an audience we need to know the characters aside from them telling us what is going to happen in the movie. Don't get me wrong, Chastain does nothing wrong here, its more a problem with the writing or maybe just with the style of movie they were trying to make here that breaks her for me. Another interesting counter-point is Ben Affleck's excellent Argo. Here we have a movie based on some pretty harrowing true events but its handled with a cinematic eye. Affleck takes some liberties with the truth in Argo but what he does make is a piece of cinema that excites the audience, involves you in the picture and the characters completely and most importantly stays with you after the fact. I felt nothing at Zero Dark Thirty's conclusion, even when watching Chastain cry, i didn't appreciate the action or care. I didn't feel anything for her character, i knew her about as well as i did Osama Bin Laden (movie equivalent of course).
I think my main problem was with the point of the whole exercise. Its a film that sits on the fence, never glorifies or revels nor does it offer any comment or insight. So what then was the point? Do we really live in a world where is it necessary to make a film about every important event in history? How is this any different to watching a fluffy news story? Do we really need attractive people on the silver screen for people to give a sh*t about whats going on in the world? I hope not.
All of that being said, Zero Dark Thirty is never an exercise in patience, it rumbles along at a steady pace and if all your looking for is a chronicle of events post 9/11 you'll find a lot to be interested in. I just cant shake the question, what was the point?
Django Unchained isn't Tarantino's most consistent work nor is it his best, it is however, still a truly great spectacle.
The film initially focuses on Dr Schultz (Waltz) who is a skilled and charismatic bounty hunter. The good doctor soon enlists the help of a hopeless slave called Django (Foxx) who crucially can identify conclusively the men currently on Schultz's kill list. Shultz who is sympathetic to the black slaves of the deep south despite his own morally corrupt profession, soon sees the potential and merit in having Django around. Then the focus shifts as we learn that Django has been separated from his wife and the odd pair endeavour to rescue her from a plantation run by the eccentric and possibly psychotic Candie (DiCaprio).
I'll start by stating the obvious, Tarantino is a Cinephile. This often works to his advantage but every so often its a hindrance, Django represents a good case to highlight this. Django's opening two acts are very strong, focusing on character and setting, providing us with a rich and inviting world that is equal parts grim and hilarious. However, much like Tarantino's more recent efforts Inglorious Basterds and Kill Bill, Django suffers from an odd and inconsistent tone. When the film is funny, it is very funny. When it is sad, it is truly heartbreaking (see all of the numerous torture scenes). However, when the shoot-outs and action began, by and large i switched off. The violence here is campy (as are most of the performances) but there is an odd cinematic grandiosity that simply isn't present in much of the rest of the film. It is strange to focus so much on character and development to dispel it so whimsically with a series spurts and loud bangs. Its mainly the last act that is afflicted with this problem, bullets fly and blood is spilt but the films bite and feeling gets lost in the mêlée. Django himself soon becomes a caricature, he becomes the movie equivalent of what his character sets out to be at the start of the movie and this is a shame. Thus, the last 45 minutes is shade too light and throwaway, seemingly at odds with the world Tarantino painted with his first hour and 45 minutes.
The above being said the film is still masterfully crafted. Everything from the tawdry vernacular (i wont comment on the rights and wrongs use of the N word), to the costume design right through to the performances are simply sublime. Waltz, Foxx and DiCaprio are all great as the various shades of humanity on parade but its Waltz who again steals the show. His charming, effervescent musings mixed with his unwavering empathy make Schultz a force of nature from his brash entrance to his heroic exit in the film. All of the Tarantino-isms are present, the fluid use of time, witty villainous monologuing, extreme violence and an expert use of cinema language. Tarantino shuffles his deck like few can and once again shows why he is a true original. Most films struggle to nail down one mode or tone and Tarantino valiantly tries (with varying success) to juggle a plethora of moods with an intelligence and arrogance few can match. Case in point is the films tongue in cheek seriousness, even in the face of Django's vengeful retribution the film isn't afraid to jolt straight back into farce with the wink of an eye.
It might be a little long for some and it could have been wrapped up more cleanly but hey, thats just not the Tarantino way. I think a more straight forward, more succinct ending would have been more effective than the one offered here but Tarantino is much more comfortable being subversive and revelling is his ever colouful, lovingly created pastiches.
So in short, this is an often great but ultimately solid piece of cinema and yet another interesting chapter in the already bulging book of Quentin Tarantino.
The film initially focuses on Dr Schultz (Waltz) who is a skilled and charismatic bounty hunter. The good doctor soon enlists the help of a hopeless slave called Django (Foxx) who crucially can identify conclusively the men currently on Schultz's kill list. Shultz who is sympathetic to the black slaves of the deep south despite his own morally corrupt profession, soon sees the potential and merit in having Django around. Then the focus shifts as we learn that Django has been separated from his wife and the odd pair endeavour to rescue her from a plantation run by the eccentric and possibly psychotic Candie (DiCaprio).
I'll start by stating the obvious, Tarantino is a Cinephile. This often works to his advantage but every so often its a hindrance, Django represents a good case to highlight this. Django's opening two acts are very strong, focusing on character and setting, providing us with a rich and inviting world that is equal parts grim and hilarious. However, much like Tarantino's more recent efforts Inglorious Basterds and Kill Bill, Django suffers from an odd and inconsistent tone. When the film is funny, it is very funny. When it is sad, it is truly heartbreaking (see all of the numerous torture scenes). However, when the shoot-outs and action began, by and large i switched off. The violence here is campy (as are most of the performances) but there is an odd cinematic grandiosity that simply isn't present in much of the rest of the film. It is strange to focus so much on character and development to dispel it so whimsically with a series spurts and loud bangs. Its mainly the last act that is afflicted with this problem, bullets fly and blood is spilt but the films bite and feeling gets lost in the mêlée. Django himself soon becomes a caricature, he becomes the movie equivalent of what his character sets out to be at the start of the movie and this is a shame. Thus, the last 45 minutes is shade too light and throwaway, seemingly at odds with the world Tarantino painted with his first hour and 45 minutes.
The above being said the film is still masterfully crafted. Everything from the tawdry vernacular (i wont comment on the rights and wrongs use of the N word), to the costume design right through to the performances are simply sublime. Waltz, Foxx and DiCaprio are all great as the various shades of humanity on parade but its Waltz who again steals the show. His charming, effervescent musings mixed with his unwavering empathy make Schultz a force of nature from his brash entrance to his heroic exit in the film. All of the Tarantino-isms are present, the fluid use of time, witty villainous monologuing, extreme violence and an expert use of cinema language. Tarantino shuffles his deck like few can and once again shows why he is a true original. Most films struggle to nail down one mode or tone and Tarantino valiantly tries (with varying success) to juggle a plethora of moods with an intelligence and arrogance few can match. Case in point is the films tongue in cheek seriousness, even in the face of Django's vengeful retribution the film isn't afraid to jolt straight back into farce with the wink of an eye.
It might be a little long for some and it could have been wrapped up more cleanly but hey, thats just not the Tarantino way. I think a more straight forward, more succinct ending would have been more effective than the one offered here but Tarantino is much more comfortable being subversive and revelling is his ever colouful, lovingly created pastiches.
So in short, this is an often great but ultimately solid piece of cinema and yet another interesting chapter in the already bulging book of Quentin Tarantino.
Just like its characters This is 40 is witless and empty. Mann and Rudd are portrayed as a loveless, incompatible couple stuck together by their bratty kids. This makes it difficult to invest in any kind of meaningful conclusion to the film. Why should they stay together? What do they have in common? Why should i care? They just seem to fixate on sex and suppressed violence. When the couple aren't swearing or talking crudely about sex, they have nothing to say and neither does the film. It struck me just how childish the whole thing is/was, the film seems to be written by and played by mindless adolescents obviously still high on saying the F word and talking about tits. A love letter to Appatows wife this surely isn't...
However, the films main problem is its just too long, scenes dither and meander which ultimately detracts from any possible cinematic weight or substance. The film also sets up some fairly large problems that it doesn't resolve, such as the kids and their attitude, are we to assume they are just f*cked up and that's it? That just because they're parents stopped having sex and watched each other shitting that they are irreparably damaged? The kids aren't ever sympathetic or sad, they're written as ungrateful brats. Also, there is no resolution to their financial woes and it seems to exist solely in a shoddy attempt to stay relevant with the current economic climate and to make the childish humour seem more grown up and meaningful. In the end, we are left to assume that they will just sell the house and everything will be fine. Fat bloody chance.
Around the 45 minute mark the film seems to want to introduce a plot but much like its ADD characters it gets ignored for the want of more cock jokes and ill conceived blow job scenes. We learn that someone is stealing from the shop that Mann's character now runs and that Rudd is a failing record company owner. It's odd then that these are the weakest moments of the film, Rudd's lifeless music industry monologue and Mann's sit down confrontations with her colleagues are as blunt as they are awkwardly conceived.
The 'people' in the movie are annoying and whiny instead of being well written and honest. It's true that you don't have to necessarily like everyone in the movies but you should at least care whether they are OK at the films conclusion. Stuff gets said by the various 'adults' but nothing ever changes or progresses, we just get the same scene over and over.
Someone said previously that Appatow is the Cassavetes of the R-rated comedy and if that were true he would surely strike a better balance between the two worlds. Rather than knocking over the proverbial stools Apatow prefers to p*ss and sh*t on them. Like previously stated the supposed rawness or honesty of the film takes the form of crude sexual references or uncomfortable admittance. Cassavettes would have at the very least given us actual character development and weight amidst his patented free-form murk.
Kevin Smith's Apatow-lite Zack and Miri is STILL the best example of this type of R-rated comedy movie despite its box office flopping. Its main difference is its embrace of cinematic convention. It isn't the work of somebody that likes brazenly painting his family life on screen, its the work of someone who enjoys other peoples films and film itself. Zack And Miri manages to be equal parts foul and likable (although i accept that its not wholly successful).
Finally, I have no doubt that there is a perfectly funny, rather astute 90min movie itching to get out of this fatty 134min sludge of a film. But then again thats precisely the point, rather than make a movie other people might enjoy, Apatow made a home movie and nobody likes watching those.
A crying shame.
However, the films main problem is its just too long, scenes dither and meander which ultimately detracts from any possible cinematic weight or substance. The film also sets up some fairly large problems that it doesn't resolve, such as the kids and their attitude, are we to assume they are just f*cked up and that's it? That just because they're parents stopped having sex and watched each other shitting that they are irreparably damaged? The kids aren't ever sympathetic or sad, they're written as ungrateful brats. Also, there is no resolution to their financial woes and it seems to exist solely in a shoddy attempt to stay relevant with the current economic climate and to make the childish humour seem more grown up and meaningful. In the end, we are left to assume that they will just sell the house and everything will be fine. Fat bloody chance.
Around the 45 minute mark the film seems to want to introduce a plot but much like its ADD characters it gets ignored for the want of more cock jokes and ill conceived blow job scenes. We learn that someone is stealing from the shop that Mann's character now runs and that Rudd is a failing record company owner. It's odd then that these are the weakest moments of the film, Rudd's lifeless music industry monologue and Mann's sit down confrontations with her colleagues are as blunt as they are awkwardly conceived.
The 'people' in the movie are annoying and whiny instead of being well written and honest. It's true that you don't have to necessarily like everyone in the movies but you should at least care whether they are OK at the films conclusion. Stuff gets said by the various 'adults' but nothing ever changes or progresses, we just get the same scene over and over.
Someone said previously that Appatow is the Cassavetes of the R-rated comedy and if that were true he would surely strike a better balance between the two worlds. Rather than knocking over the proverbial stools Apatow prefers to p*ss and sh*t on them. Like previously stated the supposed rawness or honesty of the film takes the form of crude sexual references or uncomfortable admittance. Cassavettes would have at the very least given us actual character development and weight amidst his patented free-form murk.
Kevin Smith's Apatow-lite Zack and Miri is STILL the best example of this type of R-rated comedy movie despite its box office flopping. Its main difference is its embrace of cinematic convention. It isn't the work of somebody that likes brazenly painting his family life on screen, its the work of someone who enjoys other peoples films and film itself. Zack And Miri manages to be equal parts foul and likable (although i accept that its not wholly successful).
Finally, I have no doubt that there is a perfectly funny, rather astute 90min movie itching to get out of this fatty 134min sludge of a film. But then again thats precisely the point, rather than make a movie other people might enjoy, Apatow made a home movie and nobody likes watching those.
A crying shame.