HOOOOOOOLY HORSES SLOW HORSES IS DAMN GOOOOOOOOD

Ok. Fnaf movie news just dropped with some people cast even if we don't know as who.

In that spirit. If Bendy got a live action film. (I know people would want it animated but.) Who's your cast?

Very exciting to see! I’m curious how the movie will go. 👀

As for Bendy, I’m terrible at picking actors sometimes. If I could go back in time to pick, I would say Gregory Peck for Henry and Vincent Price for Joey. But for modern times, I’ll list some just for fun.

Bendy: voiced by Sean Crisden, of course. He did an amazing job in Dark Revival.

Henry: George Clooney, Pierce Brosnan, or Timothy Olyphant.

Joey: Tom Hanks, Gary Oldman, or Timothy Dalton

Susie/Alice: Emma Stone, Cate Blanchett, or Margot Robbie

Sammy: maybe Austin Butler

I’m not great with matching actors to headcanons, but those might be some picks if I had a choice. Haha.

I know that it was John Lydon who was against the creation of this series, but in my opinion "Pistol" gave him justice. He showed that he was right from the very beginning, that he was the heart of this team that was worried about his friends. I haven't read Steve's biography that inspired this series (because I can't get it anywhere in my country ☹️), I don't know if maybe there was something inappropriate there, or maybe John just didn't want to share his private life in this way, but it's good that this series was created and showed that this nonsense from "Sid & Nancy" is just nonsense. It felt more like fan fiction than something related to a biopic. I don't recommend it. I didn't like Gary Oldman's Sid, even though I think he's a good actor, but Louis Partridge's one made me like him (but I'm still not a fan of the real Sid). Maybe it was because it felt like he was a young man and not an adult pretending to be twenty, or maybe it was because he and Anson Boon had really good chemistry together. I'd rather watch them than Sid and Nancy, lol. There was a sense that they cared about each other like brothers, and it hurt Johnny when they started to grow apart. (And although I consider RP fanfiction to be yuck, I'm not surprised that after the series premiere on AO3 they started being shipped more. But still yuck) I love that even the way he dresses, his hair, and his tension changed throughout the series. There was a lot to read from it. And that scene with his mom when he invited the band after the album was released! It meant so much to him! And then it started to go wrong :(

Yes, yes and yes again. It's a real shame that this show didn't get any awards for HOW it was made. Everything you mentioned was at the highest level and you could feel that Danny Boyle put a lot of heart into it. He and the entire gang, so it's a great pity that the series ended up in the trash due to low viewership :( In my country, it was on Disney+ a few months before it was canceled. It didn't even get a single review from any pop culture portal. It's a disgrace :(

I don't know anyone who watches the series, only you and another person on tumblr, so I'd love to read everything you write about 😊

Sorry for the slow answer, I was very very busy!

Now I'm reading John's autobiography and everything he tells there was pretty accurately shown in the series, I didn't find any significant differences, so yes, I agree. I started watching Pistol without knowing anything specific about the band members and John instantly won my love and respect - which means the creators did everything right, even if the real John was against this project.

In general, the book is wonderful, I advise you to read it if you're suddenly interested in the band. It covers the time period from John's childhood to the breakup of the band. It's wittily written and really reveals John's relationship with the people around him, including Sid. I marked the places I found interesting and ended up with them on every page lol.

And yes, in my country, even the series itself was very difficult to find, especially in English with subtitles. I spent several hours on this.

The actors did a great job and it can be seen. Sid and John have amazing chemistry. Despite the fact that I can't stand Sid, I almost started to sympathize with him simply because of their relationship with John and how everything that was happening affected him. Weird huh.

I think how much content could have been obtained if the series had gained more popularity and I feel sad. I need art, fics and stuff(

like the things i genuinely, passionately love about coppola's dracula are constantly at violent war with the things i genuinely, passionately loathe about it

like - the in-camera effects that give the whole film the feeling of a stage production? brilliant! cary elwes as arthur holmwood and anthony hopkins as van helsing? inspired casting choices! the fact that they actually kept all three suitors? refreshing as hell! nailing jack seward's character within the first three seconds of screentime? fabulous! set and costume design, and cinematography? breathtaking! that moment where the count's shadow strangles jonathan's? chilling!

and yet

the whole dracmina reincarnated lovers thing? absolutely revolting. and while, yes, gary oldman did a great job with the character he was given, said character was vehemently not bram stoker's dracula and yet entered the public consciousness in such a way as to turn dracula into a romantic figure even more than ever before, and that is also revolting. keanu reeves, my darling, i love him, but either he was wildly miscast as jonathan and/or the script absolutely did not give a shit about jonathan. lucy is treated as a vapid flirt with little personality.

like, it's an excellent movie with a mostly-great cast and beautiful design and clever camerawork that absolutely and profoundly disrespects the book it's based on. it's like the scriptwriters read the book and went "BORING. we can make this better!"

and they were emphatically wrong.

I feel sorry for Gary Oldman. He has done something rarely attempted by stars of year-end Oscar-bait movies: He has turned in an understated performance! He plays superannuated spymaster George Smiley in the new movie version of John le Carré’s Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. And it seems all anyone can talk about is the 1979 BBC TV version, starring Sir Alec Guinness in the same role.

In The New Yorker, Anthony Lane gushed over Guinness’ “opaque yet disarming sagacity.” The Atlantic’s James Parker dubbed his “the definitive performance.” (My favorite of Parker’s many astute observations: Guinness’ Smiley “moved as if he were wearing three overcoats.”) They’re both right, of course. Oldman understands that Smiley’s strongest urge is to blend in with the hideous ’70s wallpaper, and he seems appropriately worn down by the life he’s led. Nevertheless, Oldman can’t quite embody the retiring world-weariness and disappointment that Guinness so effortlessly conveys.

The problem is one of reality vs. verisimilitude. Guinness was 65 years old when he first put on Smiley’s spectacles; Oldman is a mere stripling of 53. The same can be said of the period setting: Director Tomas Alfredson did an amazing job of summoning up the dismal gloom of Britain in the 1970s—all smoke and fug and nary a glimpse of color. It’s an artful reconstruction. But Guinness and the murderers’ row of great British actors assembled by the BBC were twitching net curtains and visiting bland safe houses in the real 1970s. How can Alfredson possibly compete with that?

Greater length doesn’t always mean added depths, but le Carré’s complicated story makes more sense when it spills out over the course of the TV series’ six hours rather than the movie’s 127 minutes (as my colleague Dana Stevens can also attest). Both versions turn a thinky book into a talky teleplay—even in the big-budget movie, some parts of the story are conveyed in conversation rather than shown.

The TV series is full of brooding menace, but there aren’t a lot of thrills—it’s more cerebral than that. The mole at the top level of the British intelligence service is trapped using logic, not firepower. (Smiley is a very scholarly detective who spends hours examining documents.) The movie’s most heart-racing scene involves an attempt to smuggle a folder full of documents out of a library-like place. It’s the old-school version of that contemporary cliché: a hero copying computer files onto a thumb drive as bad guys approach.

Watching the TV version after seeing the film is a fascinating exercise, but it’s also a little repetitive. If you can’t face the same mole hunt all over again, check out Smiley’s People, a BBC production from 1982 in which Smiley once again returns from retirement to save “the Circus,” as le Carré called British intelligence. It was filmed three years after Tinker, Tailor, but the rudimentary computers that have started to pop up around the office make the setting seem positively prehistoric. In this adventure, Smiley heads off to Europe in pursuit of his nemesis—proving that the man can maintain his composure even among foreigners and hippies. The highlight of the series is an amazing face-off between Smiley and the Circus’ new boss, Saul Enderby, in Episode 5. Barry Foster plays Enderby as a slimy showoff who treats Smiley like a doddering fool. It’s worth sitting through the whole six hours just to see how effectively Guinness can express annoyance and dismay in a momentary glance. You may not even notice—and that’s kind of the point.

10 Reasons Why Oppenheimer Is A Modern Cinematic Masterpiece

Nolan's new movie "Oppenheimer" gets praised for amazing acting and an exciting story. Here are the top 10 reasons why it's a modern movie gem.

Christopher Nolan's latest movie, "Oppenheimer," starring Cillian Murphy as J. Robert Oppenheimer, the smart guy behind the first atomic bomb during World War II, finally came out in theaters on July 21st. It's based on a true story from the book "American Prometheus" and has a bunch of famous actors. The movie shows how the U.S. worked hard to make this super powerful bomb that was used on Hiroshima and Nagasaki in 1945. But it also looks at all the bad stuff that happened because of it, like the big moral problems.

To celebrate this big movie release, here are ten reasons why "Oppenheimer" is such a great film, according to people who've seen it. It's not just a movie; it's a masterpiece that's breaking box office records and getting lots of love from critics and fans around the world.

1. The movie deals with a tricky moral issue, making it a bit of a head-scratcher

"Oppenheimer" is a movie that tells the story of a man who played a big role in making atomic bombs, which can destroy entire cities. But it doesn't just paint him as a hero or a villain; it shows the struggles he faced and the scary things that can happen when science goes too far.

This guy, Oppenheimer, was a complex figure. He was once a regular student, then a famous scientist, and even seen as a potential spy. The film lets you decide what you think of him. Even if you don't know much about him, you probably know he changed history with atomic bombs. But the movie also highlights his support for good causes, his opposition to even more dangerous bombs, and his tough times during a trial in the 1950s.

2. Oppenheimer based on a really good original story

Christopher Nolan, known for his grand storytelling, took on a big challenge by making a three-hour movie about the man who created the atomic bomb. But unlike some of his other films that became too complex, this one stayed interesting throughout.

One reason for its success is that it's based on a really well-researched 700-page book called "American Prometheus: The Triumph and Tragedy Of J Robert Oppenheimer." The authors spent over 25 years studying and writing about Oppenheimer's life, from his early days as a physicist to his time leading the project that created the atomic bomb and the tough times he faced during the McCarthy era.

Having such a solid source of information ensured that Nolan's movie, which covers many different parts of Oppenheimer's life, could switch between different times without any problems.

3. Cillian Murphy did a great job as the main actor

Cillian Murphy, known for his roles in Nolan's previous movies and "Peaky Blinders," takes the lead in "Oppenheimer" as J. Robert Oppenheimer. He delivers a powerful performance, embodying the physicist's complexity and inner struggles. Critics are already praising him as a top contender for Best Actor. They say he captures Oppenheimer's contradictions and turmoil perfectly, with precise acting that makes the character seem almost mysterious. If awards season comes around, Murphy is likely to snag his first Oscar.

4. A really talented cast

Christopher Nolan, a well-known filmmaker, has the prestige and resources to bring together a big and impressive cast. This cast includes famous actors like Cillian Murphy, Robert Downey Jr., Matt Damon, Emily Blunt, Florence Pugh, Casey Affleck, and Gary Oldman. They're all willing to play smaller roles in his movies because they trust Nolan to make everyone shine. In his upcoming film "Oppenheimer," Robert Downey Jr. stands out as a powerful character. But even the other actors in the movie, despite discussing complex topics like quantum physics and security issues, manage to make these scenes very interesting.

5. It teaches us important history lessons from the past that still matter in today's world

"Oppenheimer" is a special kind of movie that comes around once in a while. It manages to be relevant to today, look back at the past, and even predict the future. The movie deals with the scary idea of nuclear bombs and the chaos they can cause, something we've worried about since World War II. Even though the director, Nolan, had this idea for a long time, it's even scarier now because the risk of nuclear war is higher than it's been in decades. Nolan wants to remind us how dangerous nuclear weapons are, especially with all the tension between powerful countries making the news.

6. No CGI in the movie

The filmmaker, who is 52 years old, said that in the movie "Oppenheimer," they didn't use any computer-generated special effects. This is a pretty daring statement in today's film world, where CGI, or computer-made visual tricks, are commonly used to make movies more exciting and lifelike.

7. Movie shot in IMAX

People are really impressed with this movie. It's been filmed using a special IMAX camera that makes it look amazing, like top-notch quality. And what's cool is that you don't even need those 3D glasses to feel like things are popping out at you – it's like you're right there in the action!

8. A different approach to Filmmaking

Nolan's no-nonsense and super dedicated way of making the movie, like how the actors explained it, makes the movie feel real and like everyone really cared about making it.

9. Barbenheimer: Something cool that helped keep going to the movies fun

After years of pandemic uncertainty and Hollywood disputes, the "Barbenheimer" movie double-feature, featuring Greta Gerwig's fun doll comedy and Christopher Nolan's character-focused film, became a global sensation. Together, they made an astonishing billion dollars in just 9 days. This success is a big deal because it's rare for original, non-franchise movies, like "Oppenheimer," to do so well these days. Nolan, a big fan of theaters, used fancy IMAX cameras to make the movies look awesome on the big screen. He wanted to give folks an experience they can't get at home, and it seems to have worked.

10. The Trinity test sequence was the step-by-step process of conducting the first-ever atomic bomb test

In 1945, during World War II, scientists conducted the first atomic explosion called "Trinity" in New Mexico. Christopher Nolan recreated this explosion for a movie using real explosives instead of computer effects. The result is a stunning 10-minute scene that captures the danger and beauty of the historic event.

The Batman Review

So better late than ever. I saw The Batman starring Robert Pattison in IMAX last March and it was surprisingly amazing. Originally a stand alone Batman movie was going to be part of the DC Extended Universe and have Ben Affleck star in the film. However due to DC Extended Universe failing to have the same success as the Marvel Cinematic Universe, the new Batman is rework as a reboot and having Matt Reeve who of course directed Dawn of the Planet of the Apes and War for the Planet of the Apes to direct a Batman movie. This is also the second DC film since Joker (2019) not to be part of the DC Extended Universe. The story of this film is about Batman in his second year of fighting crime. Batman has pursues the Riddler, an evil serial killer who is targeting the citizens of Gotham City. Batman would later uncover corruption that connects to his own family during the investigation. Because of this, Batman is forced to team up with new allies including the mysterious Catwoman to fight and catch the Riddler and bring the corrupt to justice. I find the story of this film to be excellent. Plus there are a lot of exciting moments, intense moments, and darker moments as well. The special effects in this film are wonderful, the costume designs are very creative, the designs of the weapons and the vehicles are also very well designed, the make-ups are very good, and the action scenes are so brutal, intense, and groundbreaking to watch especially the fight scenes and the chase scenes. Now for the actors in this film. Let’s start with Batman played by Robert Pattison. Wow. Robert Pattison did a super awesome job playing Batman/Bruce Wayne who of course is a  A reclusive billionaire who obsessively protects Gotham City  as a masked vigilante to cope with his traumatic past. His performance as Batman is so dark, so tough, and so vengeful that he is good at solving the case, using his gadgets, and fight his enemies. Much like Michael Keaton, we all thought Robert Pattison is not the right guy to play Batman. But we were wrong. He did great. In my opinion, Robert Pattison is my third favorite Batman after Christian Bale and Michael Keaton. Then there Catwoman played by Zoë Kravitz. Catwoman in this film is a nightclub waitress, drug dealer, and cat burglar who meets and help Batman solve the mystery and find someone. She is of course very attractive and is good at fighting. Zoë Kravitz is now my third favorite Catwoman after Anne Hathaway and Michelle Pfeiffer. She is definitely much better than Halle Berry in that god awful Catwoman movie back in 2004. Also appearing in this film are James Gordon played by Jeffery Wright, Alfred played by Andy Serkis, Carmine Falcone played by John Turturro who was from Do The Right Thing, The Big Lebowski, O Brother Where Are Thou, and the Micheal Bay’s Transformers franchise, and Gil Colson played by Peter Sarsgaard. James Gordan is one of Batman’s allies in the Gotham City Police Department who helps Batman solve the Riddler case. I think Jeffrey Wright did just as great as Gary Oldman who plays James Gordon in The Dark Knight trilogy. Alfred is Batman loyal butler and mentor. Andy Serkis is now my second favorite Alfred after Michael Caine. Although Andy Serkis is known for playing motion capture characters, he has become one of those actors who has been in both Marvel and DC. Carmine Falcone is a Gotham crime lord who is a very dangerous guy just like Noah Cross from Roman Polanski’s Chinatown. Gil Colson is Gotham's district attorney. This is the second time that  Peter Sarsgaard is in a DC movie since he did appear in Green Lantern. Now for the villains, the Riddler played by Paul Dano who was from Little Miss Sunshine, There Will Be Blood, Cowboys and Aliens, 12 Years of Slave, and Prisoners and Penguin played by Colin Farrell. I think Paul Dano did a very splendid job playing the Riddler that is one of Batman’s enemies who is so smart, dark, menacing, threatening, and down right evil and in this film is a serial killer who targets elite Gotham citizens and livestreams his crimes. Unlike Jim Carrey’s Riddler in Batman Forever who is just a funny villain, Riddler in this film is very serious and much like Heath Ledger’s Joker, this is the Riddler you do not want to mess with. Penguin is also one of Batman’s enemies and in this film, he is  Falcone's chief lieutenant who operates the nightclub called Iceberg Lounge. Colin Ferrell is so unrecognizable in this film because the make up. Penguin in this film is basically a mixture of Robert De Niro as Al Capone from The Untouchables and one of the mafias in The Sopranos. Although Colin Farrell did a good job, I still think the best Penguin for me is Danny DeVito from Batman Returns because he is scary looking. Matt Reeves did a super wonderful job directing this movie especially he made this film so realistic, dark, and brutally epic. The music composed by Michael Giacchino sounds very intense and it feels like a Batman movie. It is also awesome to hear that song Something in the Way by Nirvana in this film. So overall, this is a wonderful Batman movie. This in my opinion is my fourth favorite Batman movie after The Dark Knight trilogy. I am most definitely excited for the sequel and hopefully the next villain should be Mr. Freeze and it has to be done right. Anyway, if you’re a fan of Batman and DC, this is a must see. So I give this movie 5 out of 5 nuclear bombs.

eye of the camera

The thing about watching a mix of new and older films is that sometimes you realize how many older films contain a particular male gaze in such a way that sexualizes females. One of the most uncomfortable films I've seen in my series of trying to watch a film every day has been Luc Besson's Leon: the Professional. The plot of the film in its initial state is interesting--hitman takes in a girl and she learns how to kill from him. The execution and... well, the script, is incredibly uncomfortable. It's very clear in the way the camera shoots and pans over Matilda and how the film dresses Matilda that there's extensive sexualization of a child actress. I was so incredibly uncomfortable with it. Then you also read about how Luc Besson was with a minor at the time this movie was shot--and you can only imagine how much his life and personal preferences influenced the film. I can't tell you how many times I paused this film with the idea to stop watching it. Nonetheless, in my self-study and enjoyment of films this year, I thought it was important for me to see why some films should not be okay and it's why I stuck through it. What works for films--and what doesn't. What I want to do as a storyteller and what I absolutely want to avoid.

The film--excluding those very uncomfortable shots--has some great cinematography and shots for action. Natalie Portman is phenomenal in her role despite the grossness that was no fault of her own. Gary Oldman is a villain in such a way I've never seen him in before. Lead actor for Leon did such a great job of portraying a killer who is stunted in some way emotionally as an adult. And then you have the disturbing male gaze of Luc Besson and his thought to include that sexualization.

It's upsetting. It's so strange to me that having seen pictures of Leon the Professional here and there and thought it was cool cinematography-wise that I didn't see mentions of how creepy his film is in regards to Matilda as a character. It's like how in better films there are deranged characters, but the film makes you very aware they are deranged. Take Joker or Taxi Driver for example. In this film... it tries to normalize what's clearly very disturbing and for that, also allows that disturbing content to be executed by a child. I hate it.

Film ask if you're still doing them: Drop Dead Fred, Rocky Horror Picture Show, and Fifth Element.

PUT A FILM IN MY ASK !!

                                                        ✧･ﾟ  𝐀𝐍𝐒𝐖𝐄𝐑𝐄𝐃.

Drop Dead Fred

never seen | want to see | terrible | boring | OKAY | good | great | a favorite

I don't remember much about it tbh but I think I kinda liked it as a kid?

Rocky Horror Picture Show

never seen | want to see | terrible | boring | okay | good | GREAT | a favorite

It's so fun, amazing and bold. I never had a bad time watching it, especially not with others. But I'm talking about the original here and not whatever strange remake they made years ago... though I guess Adam Lambert was fine as Eddie? Not Meatloaf and hence, perfection, but he did the best job xD

Fifth Element

never seen | want to see | terrible | boring | okay | GOOD | great | a favorite

This used to be one of my favorite movies until I re-watched it on my nightflight back home from Canada in 2018. The many plotholes and illogical things still bother me, but it's a fun and visually amazing movie. The production value is really great - and did I mention my beloved Gary Oldman?? I still like it a lot.

As 2023 has become, personally, 'the year of the book' (12 books down; 2 in progress, including the weekly Frankenstein emails; 3 just checked out from the library), movies have sort of taken a backseat. There was also that spell of TV shows, but binging most of 1 season of Arrow and Flash (yeah, didn't even get a full season done!) threw in enough angsty drama that I almost threw my remote at the TV, so that's taken a backseat again.

I have turned on a couple of movies - that Kevin Costner/Gary Oldman/Tommy Lee Jones/Ryan Reynolds (in a guest appearance)/Gal Gadot (also in a guest appearance?) movie ... Criminal, I think it was called; Kuttey, the new Bollywood movie on Netflix - but didn't really make it too far into either one...

Actually, on that note, about Criminal - I get why they pick the person they did, based on the set-up of the story (much like why I get that that show Stitchers picked the main character that they did). But heavens, when you make our protagonist such a heartless/horrible person, it makes it very, very difficult to keep going. Maybe he'll become good over time, but seriously, when you start out and give us someone with zero redeeming qualities (and then, even worse, make the entire think start in present day and then tell the whole story in flashback), it's very hard to make it far enough to witness that progression.

But, anyhow, The Terminator. Obviously, now being almost 40 years out, the basic plot is pretty well known. That said, they do a good job at the beginning of introducing two characters (later named as Terminator and Reese) and not really telling us who we should be rooting for. I mean, sure, one of them sticks his hand into someone and pulls out the guy's heart (usually not the sign of a hero; aforementioned horribly written, unsympathetic protagonists aside), but then, the other guy steals a homeless man's pants and eventually a gun, so he's not exactly perfect either.

Of course, things eventually become more clear as we see more and more death, and eventually the story is relayed to us (and to our protagonist). And they go on the run, trying to survive (or, at least, keep her alive). She does a pretty good job initially of not listening to him (sure, I get that, it's not exactly the most believable story) and then, later, after just a few hours, being so in love with the guy that she refuses to listen when he says "run" - and almost gets herself killed in the process.

All those cops in the station, and it seemed like only one of them even hit The Terminator. I mean, sure, it wouldn't have done much of anything, but like, how bad does your aim have to be in a small hallways to miss over and over again. And I mean, clearly they've made his character semi-invincible, but I've been wondering that a lot while watching Doctor Who as well - all of these stories, it's like every single villain is completely unaffected by any sort of weapon, and like - how is that possible. And more importantly, why the fuck is that still everyone's go-to, is more usage of weapons. I mean, the old Doctor Who stories have plenty of issues with that, and with just how stupid every single human is that immediately discounts the Doctor simply because "I am clearly right" and they refuse to see otherwise until they're dead (no human, essentially, has any sort of moral compass or any desire to do great for humanity - which I guess is also very fitting for the current day-and-age).

Having never seen any of these movies up til this point (I know), I'm excited to see where the series goes from here.

Rosencrantz and Guildenstern, from 1990. The protagonists ramble obliviously through Elsinore Castle and its environs as the events of William Shakespeare's "Hamlet" unfold around them. While visiting their old friend Hamlet, the pair engage in an ongoing philosophical debate about free will versus predestination, each trying to prove absurd positions through misbegotten experiments. Meanwhile, the clueless friends attempt to make sense of the peculiar goings-on in the castle. The characters debate over free will is especially entertaining, considering we already know the fate set to befall them. Any criticism of the movie centred around the opinion that it was more suited to the stage, and didn’t translate to the screen. I thought it was great though; Tim Roth and Gary Oldman, two of my favourite actors, did a fantastic job, and their characters inspired two of my most enduring NPCs. The last time I looked, the entirety of the movie was on YouTube for free.

american psycho, the company of wolves, beauty and the beast (og disney), beauty and the beast (disney remake), tim burton's sleepy hollow, the over the garden wall miniseries, disney's legend of sleepy hollow (lmao i want it to be fall so bad), sofia coppola's marie antoinette, sofia coppola's the beguiled, the innocents, fire walk with me, crimson peak, coppocula

Hoo boy! Stuffing this big series of answers below the cut.

American Psycho:

never seen | want to see | the worst | bad | whatever | not my thing | good | great | favorite | masterpiece

Love it! I don't think the book would do it for me (I don't do well with graphic torture) but I thought the movie did a good job of showing us the kind of things he was doing, while also leaving enough ambiguity even before the twist at the end, and letting us sympathize with his depression (even if he can't name it) while also making him deeply unpleasant.

The Company of Wolves:

never seen | want to see | the worst | bad | whatever | not my thing | good | great | favorite | masterpiece

Do I like it as a big feminist statement? Honestly, not really- there's no sympathy for any women who aren't Rosalie or maybe her mother, and I think we are supposed to be conflicted over whether the choice she makes at the end is the right one. Do I like it as an exploration of an adolescent female id? Absolutely. Sex and violence and terror and quests are all on her mind and are all equally awful and thrilling, and Rosalie wants what's bad for her and isn't sure it's actually bad for her and the balance of power is always see-sawing and the whole thing feels like the most amazing dream.

Beauty and the Beast (original):

never seen | want to see | the worst | bad | whatever | not my thing | good | great | favorite | masterpiece

I thought the Beast was too mean when I was a little kid and forming my Disney opinions- I might actually like it more now. This is probably why I like the Cocteau version, even though what he does is basically still just as bad, because at least he's not a dick about it (and Panna a nevtor, which plays it all for gothic horror.)

Sleepy Hollow:

never seen | want to see | the worst | bad | whatever | not my thing | good | great | favorite | masterpiece

In retrospect, this one shows a lot of the problems that would later kill my love for Tim Burton, but it's still a lot of fun. The Hessian is genuinely scary, Johnny Depp is mugging a bit but it's not as bad as it would eventually get, and I want all the dresses.

Over the Garden Wall:

never seen | want to see | the worst | bad | whatever | not my thing | good | great | favorite | masterpiece

Pure distilled autumn in its aspects of both harvest and death, fun and fear. It's a world based on vintage Halloween postcards and fairytales that don't actually exist but feel like they do. I love every character, and that momentary flash where we see what the Beast looks like haunts my nightmares. My only caveat is that I do sometimes have to tell other people to keep watching after Schoolyard Follies, there will be a plot I promise!

Disney's Legend of Sleepy Hollow:

never seen | want to see | the worst | bad | whatever | not my thing | good | great | favorite | masterpiece

I think this is one of those where I never saw the whole thing, just the main song on one of those Best of Disney compilation videos. I'll at least give it credit for preserving the original story rather than making the Headless Horseman actually real (which I think most adaptations do because frankly the original story isn't long enough for feature length.)

Marie Antoinette:

never seen | want to see | the worst | bad | whatever | not my thing | good | great | favorite | masterpiece

This seems like one of those movies where you've supposed to get into the mood of the music and the visuals more so than the plot or characters? I can get into that.

The Beguiled:

never seen | want to see | the worst | bad | whatever | not my thing | good | great | favorite | masterpiece

I still don't know if I want to see this or not! The concept sounds cool and creepy, but I don't like the idea that these ladies are the good guys. Or maybe I'm wrong and nobody's supposed to be a good guy? Or maybe I should watch the grimier original since I unfortunately find young Clint Eastwood hot?

The Innocents:

never seen | want to see | the worst | bad | whatever | not my thing | good | great | favorite | masterpiece

I'm personally of the opinion that the ghosts in The Turn of the Screw were real (it's just that screaming at a child is not a good way to exorcise them), but the deliberate ambiguity/unreliability of this version is also creepy in its own way. It's a much darker ghost story that you'd get from most big studio films of the time, certainly.

Fire Walk With Me:

never seen | want to see | the worst | bad | whatever | not my thing | good | great | favorite | masterpiece

This really did a good job of portraying its protagonist as a real person rather than just an object of clinical observation or perverse whimsy (which I think Twin Peaks the Return fell into.) It's just so heartbreakingly sensitive and Sheryl Lee does such a good job of portraying Laura as both kind and mean, loving and hateful, and absolutely the victim of someone she should have been able to trust. And then the end, where Cooper is smiling gently at her and the angel has come back and she's laughing in relief? Oh my god.

Crimson Peak

never seen | want to see | the worst | bad | whatever | not my thing | good | great | favorite | masterpiece

I didn't love this as much as I thought I would (maybe because I was spoiled about what was up with the Sharpes, or maybe because I didn't like the implication that Edith should have gone with the nice boy best friend she didn't love) but I'd still say it's a good entry in the gothic romance genre. Stunning clothes and scenery, great actors, scary ghosts, an ending open enough for fanfiction. If I picked this up as an Avon Satanic Gothic at a thrift store, I'd definitely be happy!

Coppocula (Bram Stoker's Dracula)

never seen | want to see | the worst | bad | whatever | not my thing | good | great | favorite | masterpiece

Oof. I don't want to be a snob about this. I've definitely liked Dracula movies that were wackier or dumber than this (looking at you, 2004 BBC version!) This one just breaks my heart because there's so much talent on display and I just. fucking. hate it! That soundtrack deserved a better movie. That red dress deserved a better movie. All the characters deserved better writing. Whenever someone tells me they love this movie, I have to nod and say that it's certainly beautiful looking, because I don't want to be a terrible gatekeeper, and if it was an original vampire story it might well be a guilty pleasure of mine. I just fucking hate it. On the bright side, it did give us Vlad the Poker in the What We Do in the Shadows movie, a pitch-fucking-perfect parody of Gary Oldman's Dracula, and the Nadja/Gregor plot in the What We Do in the Shadows tv show, a pitch-fucking-perfect deconstruction of the reincarnated wife trope.

The Best of 2020

Better late, than never. I enjoy seeing other people’s top-10 lists and I said I’d do one for 2020, so here we go. I haven’t had the chance to watch EVERYTHING I wanted to, but you’ve got to pull the trigger at some point. When the Academy Awards took place on Sunday, I felt like I hadn’t seen ANYTHING nominated but I could remember dozens of times where I felt like I wasted my precious minutes with cinematic detritus. I assumed putting this list together would be easy. It wasn’t. I’ve got a lot of runner ups but for now, here are my Top 10 “Best” (by which I kind of mean my favorite) movies of 2020:

10. Never Rarely Sometimes Always

Never Rarely Sometimes Always gave me a lot to think about. On the surface, it's about a teenager who has to travel outside of her hometown to get an abortion, but it could've been any kind of procedure she's uncomfortable (or unable) asking her parents for. It's about the lengths she has to go to when her main source of support is cut off. You feel uneasy throughout, wondering what lengths the girls will have to resort through and whether something horrible is just around the corner. For this reason, I think many parents would find the film enriching.

9. Mank

I haven’t posted my review of Mank yet - just haven't had the time so consider my star rating for it "spoiled". If you don't know, it's about Herman J. Mankiewicz (Gary Oldman) and the time he wrote Citizen Kane for Orson Welles. I can’t call Citizen Kane one of my favorite films, but I do often think of it. The story, the characters, specific shots, the overall look, etc. Every time I revisit it in my memory, my appreciation for it grows and in a way, Mank helps complete my relationship with the film. For that reason, I foresee myself revisiting Mank in the future - probably as part of a double-bill. I’d love to see it enough times to memorize some of Gary Oldman’s best lines.

8. One Night in Miami

One Night in Miami addresses the present while being set in the past but something about it clicked with me more than Ma Rainey’s Black Bottom. It's essentially a series of long conversations, the kinds that force you to really examine tough questions and see these legendary figures as normal people. Unlike Mank, it isn't so much the individual lines that stand out, it's more the vibes you get from the exchanges. Out of all the movies on this list, it's probably got the best ensemble cast.

7. Sound of Metal

I'm sure you've seen that clip from Un Chien Andalou where an eye gets sliced with a razor? It gives me the willies just thinking about it because if I were blind I wouldn't be able to watch movies or draw. In Sound of Metal, we're dealing with a career cut short because of deafness but the dots are easy to connect.  I immediately connected with this movie, which made its ending feel like a punch in the gut.

6. Tenet

I keep telling myself that I won’t love a movie Christopher Nolan directs just because his name is attached to it. Hopefully, this doesn't make me a fanboy, despite my falling for pretty much everything he's released. I love how ambitious Tenet is. The plot is so complicated but then again it isn't because once you're able to grok the mechanics of its reverse-entropy technology, you'll probably figure out most of the plot's mysteries. For me, that was the fun part. It felt good to see my understanding of the story and theories confirmed. I'll be watching it again once groups can gather so my friends and I can discuss everything in detail.

5. Trial of the Chicago Seven

I know The Trial of the Chicago Seven fudges history in ways certain people would say is irredeemable but I never go into a film “based on true events” assuming liberties won’t be taken. At the end of the day, I care about being entertained. My enjoyment was also amplified by the fact that I didn't know what the verdicts would be - my American history is spotty, at best. It's got laughs, outrage, drama, and inspirational moments. Aside from romance, you've got pretty much all the bases covered.

4. Palm Springs

Out of all the pleasant surprises of 2020, Palm Springs was the biggest. I thought the Groundhog Day thing was played out and the 0-star-worthy Love Wedding Repeat did nothing to convince me otherwise. Then, this movie comes along and does everything you want in one of those movies, and then some. Not only did Palm Springs give me the romantic comedy I'd been craving for (feels like we haven't gotten a good one since "Crazy Rich Asians" it also examines what love and relationships mean through smartly written metaphors.

3. Possessor

No, I didn’t put this movie on the list just because it’s Canadian; Possessor is on this list because it’s the most unsettling movie of 2020. I mean that in a good way. I've already talked about how unsettling the premise is but it's also the execution. Those bizarre “dream” scenes with the different identities merging in unnatural ways is unforgettable. That mask of Tasya's face, half-melted is already creepy enough, when worn by Christopher Abbott as he re-enacts her memories is just so weird it makes you wonder if you’re actually seeing what you’re seeing, or if you’re going mad. Then, there's that shot with the fingers at the end! Makes me wince just thinking about it.

2. Soul

During the Oscars, I get a little mad at Pixar. They effortlessly churn out these masterpieces that mean no other studio has a chance of winning an Academy Award for the Best Animated Film category. It makes me wonder if the voters even bother to watch the competition but I don't think anyone could argue against Soul. It's among their best films. It’s gorgeous, profound, and modern without showcasing any issues that might flush your day down the toilet.

Runner-Ups:

Enola Holmes

I never believed Enola Holmes would end up on my "Best of the Year" list but this movie is a lot of fun. If you haven't seen it yet, you should. Just wanted to remind you.

Birds of Prey (and the Fantabulous Emancipation of One Harley Quinn) I was disappointed when audiences didn’t seem interested in Birds of Prey. Seeing Margot Robbie go all-out and given a script that actually makes good use of her character was lots of fun. I also found it refreshing to see a superhero movie (not really, but kind of) that didn’t involve a plot to destroy the world, upheaval all of civilization, or shoot a giant beam into the sky. I think this is one people will discover down the line and go “why didn’t I go see this in theaters when it was playing?”

Borat Subsequent Moviefilm I’m not 100% in love with Borat 2 but boy am I looking forward to showing it to people who have no idea what’s coming. That scene with Rudy Guliani might not have the same impact down the line as it did when I first saw this sequel, but that’s ok. It’ll still have you picking your jaw off the floor.

Nomadland It’s a great movie and I might’ve put it on my list of the best… but I just don’t see myself watching this one again anytime soon. Great movie though. It deserves every accolade you see directed towards it. Chloé Zhao is shaping up to be a major talent. While before I might’ve said “Eternals who?” Now, I’m excited.

The Vast of Night Until I saw Possessor, this was my favorite horror film of 2020. I love the way this movie does so much without showing anything. It’s all about letting your imagination do the work.

Hamilton I’m still unsure how I feel about the casting in Hamilton. Everyone does a terrific job. I understand why actors of color were chosen to portray the historical figures we meet during this story. It still doesn't sit 100% comfortable with me. Then again, who can argue with those results? I’ve seen the movie twice and the songs are still playing in my head.

1. Promising Young Woman

I only had so much before this post went up. Enough for one more movie. It was a tossup between The Father, Judas and the Black Messiah, and Promising Young Woman. As you can imagine, I’m pretty satisfied with the choice I made. Writer/director Emerald Fennell takes the rape-revenge genre and reshapes it into something that feels completely new. Like many of the other films on this list, it also feels relevant to what’s going on today. There are many reasons why I could’ve given it this slot. The writing, the performances, the way it puts your stomach in knots as you wonder what’s going to happen next, the pitch-perfect ending… but I’m going to pick a more personal reason. I try to look at films as snapshots of when they were made. There’s a part of me that winces when I look at Gone with the Wind but I’m also able to take a step back and say “but other than that…” and then just enjoy the movie. In Promising Young Woman, the past is confronted in a way that made me pause and think about two movies on my shelf: Wedding Crashers and American Pie. The Vince Vaughn/Owen Wilson comedy, in particular, has a lot of questionable bits of comedy, bits made even more eyebrow-raising by the fact that it isn't an "old" movie whose entire cast is now dead. Let’s just say that when a movie makes me go “This movie is replacing X”, makes me think this hard about things, and does everything else you want in a thriller… it’ll stick in your head for a long time. That's why I'm calling it the best/my favorite movie of the year.

[PREVIEW OF CAMERON’S INTERVIEW FOR GRUMPY MAGAZINE]

Cameron Monaghan reflects on his rise to stardom with Liana Liberato

  Cameron Monaghan is the type of actor who has proved throughout his many years working in the industry that he can do it all. As he just turned 27, Monaghan has claimed his own space at the forefront of a generation of actors committed to telling stories that are relevant to today’s society. Growing up in Florida, Cameron has been climbing the steady road to success for over 20 years, diving into television, film, and now video games. He was that deeply disturbed kid in cult sitcom Malcolm in the Middle, and had screen time with Hollywood royal Meryl Streep in The Giver. But his major break came when he was cast as Ian Gallagher in Showtime’s Shameless and became a fan favorite. Since, his outstanding performances have been critically acclaimed, including his interpretation of “the Joker” in FOX’s Gotham.

At the beginning of the lockdown, Cameron connected over the phone with his longtime friend Liana Liberato — who he came up in the business with — to recall their first audition together and reflect on his eclectic career — discussing his most iconic roles in TV shows Shameless and Gotham, as well as his recent acting experience on video game Star Wars: Jedi Fallen Order. It was 2PM in Los Angeles — on the other end of the line, Cameron cheerfully greeted his pal with a mischievous ‘‘Liana, it’s 2:03PM. This is unacceptable and so unprofessional.’’ The actress apologized before adding, ‘‘Do you regret asking me to do this?’’ This was a clue about their great complicity, and Cameron’s warm and jovial personality — to the point he started flipping the interview to question Liana as well.

On growing up in Florida, influences, and first approach to acting…

“I was very young when I started. My mom was a single parent who worked two jobs, so she did her best for me. But that meant that I spent a long time by myself, entertaining myself with movies and TV. I was a hyper kid and I didn’t really focus well, so my mom got me involved with local community theater and commercials. She needed something to put my energy to and I actually really enjoyed doing it. […] I grew up in the 90s and one of the movies that blew my mind as a kid was The Matrix. I would play on the playground, pretending to be the characters from it. We would fight each other — which we probably shouldn’t have done. As for actors, I was very strange. I really liked Christopher Walken, Steve Buscemi, Gary Oldman, William H. Macy — who I actually ended up working with for many years on Shameless.”

On his evolution as an actor…

“When I was younger, I was so much more interested in how the plot functions, and some of the mechanisms of that. As I get older, what interests me more is humanity, how characters interact, what it’s trying to say about how we relate to each other, how characters change over the course of the story. I think that a really well-written relationship, saying something interesting about a person’s morality, or what they do in a time of struggle, is so much more interesting to me now than any amount of tools or special effects. […] I love when you’re able to have a story where the characters are so well-defined. There’s something really enjoyable about that, and some sort of emotional catharsis in that. I feel like the reason why we do our job, why we become activists or artists, is to express the stuff that is somewhat broken or challenging.”

On signing onto Shameless at 15 and evolving with a character for a decade…

“I had a pretty even ranking of success. I wasn’t one of those kids who became really successful at a super young age and get all of this responsibility, money, and fame thrust on them at one time. I was lucky that I spent enough time around people who made smart decisions. Also, all the people who I worked with on the show were really supportive and interesting. I learned a lot from them too. We formed a little family who we’re all still tight with. We all support each other and call each other out when they’re making bad decisions. […] I still feel like I’m learning so much and growing as a person. Some of the times, the character was going through specific struggles and those struggles happened prior to me in my own life, or sometimes some of my own personal things were then reflected back within the character. Being able to put that and have a symbiotic relationship with your character over the course of the decade, it’s a really interesting exercise, and something that I’m lucky to be able to have done.”

On why Shameless is so important to today’s society…

“It’s interesting because when the show came on air 11 years ago, the landscape of American television was a little bit different. Now with all the streaming platforms, there’s so much more about family dynamics that are more uncensored, and speak more frankly about sexuality, poverty… When you’re 15-16 years old, talking really openly about things like sexuality, and maturing through adolescence, is an interesting thing. It was a little bit scary at first, but it was also something that I’m really happy to have been able to do. It allowed me to reflect on myself, learn, and become comfortable with who I am. […] I’ve heard from a number of teenagers who were gay, in the closet, or struggling to come to terms with certain things that my character or other characters in the show really reflected what they were going through. That’s always amazing to be able to hear about that.”

On taking on the role of the Joker in Gotham…

“A lot of times, I would finish up on the set of Shameless, get on the plane, land in New York, and literally go straight from the plane to work on Gotham. While I loved the Shameless set, crew, and the cast, it is nice to be able to always experience other things outside of it. You learn so much each time you step foot on a different set. […] When I filmed my first episode of Gotham, it was just a few years after Heath Ledger played the role in The Dark Knight and won the Oscar. He became the most iconic person to touch that role. That’s saying something considering he was following Jack Nicholson. No one else had played that role since then up to that point. That was intimidating, but it was also really exciting and a huge honor. I liked what they were trying to do with the character. It was something very different, and distinct from the movies and the media that had come before. It was a really unique opportunity.”

On diving into the world of video games with Star Wars Jedi: Fallen Order…

“I had never done a video game before. I’ve played games for most of my life, and I’ve really appreciated how they’ve matured and grown over the last decade. Right now is an interesting time as an actor, because so much is based off of media that people are familiar with, and there’s a challenge. You have to take that, and make stuff that still feels human and still says something about you as a person. That’s my interest with it — trying to see if there’s something about the character in a story that raises interesting questions, because otherwise what’s the point of doing it? […] We had a lot of really great and wonderful conversations with the creative team, our writers, Lucasfilm story group, and all of the actors about what we wanted to say. So much of that story is about dealing with trauma, guilt, and things that were out of your control when you were younger or in your life. Pretty much every character in the story has experienced loss — how they grieve, or how they come to cope with the loss defines them as a character. Being able to access the story from that angle was what made me want to do the job.”

On dealing with the level of heartbreak and rejection inside the industry…

“There is a certain level of […] all of these things that you do have to learn how to deal with. Ultimately, it takes a certain level of acceptance and trust in yourself. I want to represent the things that I value, and the things that I find interesting and important. Right now too, with all the quarantine and the fact that we, as actors, don’t have the ability to work, it is very frustrating. It’s difficult, but I think all you can really do is try to either make opportunities for yourself, or work on yourself. I know for me, I’m writing and talking to friends who are trying to do stuff. […] I think that I’ll probably be an actor for the majority of my life, unless I get to the point where I either fall out of love with it, or if I feel like I can’t perform to the best of my abilities.”

FULL CONVERSATION AND STORY WILL APPEAR IN GRUMPY MAGAZINE’S ISSUE NO.16.

The great author recalls Smiley’s origins in one of his last pieces of writing, a new introduction to Call for the Dead.

I wrote Call for the Dead, my first novel, because I had been boiling to write for 20 years but had never quite had the prompt. I had done book illustrations, I had written bad poetry and one or two stories, and produced a couple of amateur plays, and become a reasonable hand at caricatures. In a bookless household, I had managed to acquire some sort of taste for books, largely because of a master at one of my early schools who read aloud to us beautifully from Conan Doyle and GK Chesterton. At 16, having fled my English public school, I took a huge sidestep into German language and literature and ended up teaching them at Eton, with the result that English letters always played second fiddle. It took a lurch from Eton into the intelligence community to get me writing Call for the Dead, and the prompt came from John Bingham, novelist, spy and colleague.

In MI5 the standard of report writing was very high indeed. Registry and senior officers were all pedants and descended on you like eagles if they spotted a sloppy sentence or an unsubstantiated claim: “Too fluffy. Can you actually demonstrate this? If this is hearsay, kindly say so clearly,” ran the marginal comments in different handwritings as your report came whistling back to you from the top floor. It was my first experience of having to battle for every sentence I wrote as if it had to stand up in court.

The agent-running section to which I was eventually attached was dominated by two figures, both men: Maxwell Knight, naturalist, broadcaster and the subject of at least two published biographies, and Bingham. Knight, allegedly of the far right, though I never heard him on politics, was by the time I knew him tolerated only on account of the agents he had recruited long ago and that were still beholden to him. He was a big, unwashed, silvery, boy scout of a man, of great charm and idiosyncratic habits that included bringing ailing small animals such as gerbils into the office in his jacket pocket. Bingham could scarcely have been more different.

Everything about Knight suggested that he be enjoyed with caution, but John was approachable, unassuming, quietly spoken and a kindly shepherd and confessor to his agents, mostly women. He was also a needle-sharp intelligence officer of great experience, as I had good reason to learn when one of my agents was blown and I needed his urgent advice on how to limit the damage. And John of necessity did much of his work in the evenings, when his agents returned home from their high-wire acts needing his consolation and wisdom and a large gin.

So by day, when he wasn’t writing a report, John was writing a novel. He had written quite a few by then, thrillers, all published by Gollancz and well received. I don’t remember that we ever talked about the process of writing. John, once a journalist, didn’t see himself as a literary man, just a thorough writer doing a job. The one piece of advice I remember him giving me was to stick a postcard with £100 written on it above my desk and look at it every time I thought of giving up. But far more inspiring than anything he could have said was the simple act of him sitting five yards from me day after day at his desk with his head down and a hangover, writing himself a novel on lined paper. And I suppose, at the most primitive level, I decided that if he could do that, I could.

I lived in Great Missenden in those days and commuted to Marylebone station, then walked or took the bus to Curzon Street. The train journey was an hour plus, so I wrote in small notebooks supplied, I am ashamed to say, by Her Majesty’s Stationery Office. I just wrote. And the first person who came to mind was the man who got me going: John Bingham, one of the meek who do not inherit the earth.

But no real character in my experience is drawn directly from life, and for George Smiley I needed a lot of things that John simply hadn’t got and didn’t wish to have: an obsession with German literature (although he spoke decent German), a miserable private life, a sense of being strapped to the secret treadmill and not knowing how to get off it, and most importantly serious moral questions about the work I was doing. John was, to say the least, a nationalist, and doubts of that sort were simply not his thing, particularly when his every evening was spent buoying up women agents who were, in their estimation and his, sacrificing their private lives for England. So where to turn?

Well, my own life had been pretty well supplied with moral doubt, not least by my father, a conman on the run from the law. But I needed more stately concerns for George Smiley, bred in me in part by the unsparing plays of Schiller, Lessing and Büchner and the anguished cries of 17th-century Germany.

But Smiley is not at heart an academic. In the beginning was not the word but the deed, Goethe tells us through the agency of his Faust, and Smiley refuses to shirk from action where he believes in the rightness of his cause. And so it seems to me now, with the luxury of hindsight, that for Smiley’s conflicted inner life I resorted to my beloved mentor, Dr Vivian Green, by then rector of Lincoln College, Oxford: scholar, administrator, closet iconoclast and Anglican priest whose institutional faith over time gave way to a universal humanism. I don’t know any more whether you will find the seeds of all this theorising in my first stab at George Smiley, but I do. We have grown up together, changed and matured together, and seen his likeness exquisitely portrayed by two great actors, Alec Guinness and Gary Oldman. But for me he’s still the same soul-searching secret sharer that I wrote about in little notebooks on the rattly commuter train from Great Missenden to Marylebone.

Extracted from Call for the Dead by John le Carré; the 60th anniversary edition is published by Penguin Classics on Thursday.

January 19, 2021: Léon: The Professional (Epilogue)

Hey, look! An elephant in the room! We should address that, huh?

So, recently, actress and Léon star herself Natalie Portman was interviewed about acting in this movie, and she said that the movie itself was fine to act in. It was the response to that work from...y’know what, perverts - let’s not dance around that - that she wasn’t the biggest fan of. It changed the roles she was willing to accept, and her acting style in general. Which makes absolute sense for her to do.

But now, you may understand why this film is...awkward. Because let me clarify something: this is a good movie! But, especially with relatively recent revelations from Hollywood in the last few years, you know that some people enjoyed this movie in a WHOLLY UNACCEPTABLE fashion. Which is...well, again:

Because of that, this film was gotten a lot of negative attention, then and now. And, let’s also be fair here: I’m not a fan of the fact that Luc Besson put Natalie Portman in this...uncomfortable position in the first place. It’s a little squicky to be putting a 12 year-old in that context, is what I’m saying. Roger Ebert agrees, in the closing statement of his review on the movie:

But always at the back of my mind was the troubled thought that there was something wrong about placing a 12-year-old character in the middle of this action. In a more serious movie, or even in a human comedy like Cassavetes' "Gloria," the child might not have been out of place. But in what is essentially an exercise - a slick urban thriller - it seems to exploit the youth of the girl without really dealing with it.

.Yeah, I agree with that. But OK, if we take that uncomfortable aspect away from the movie (and it is possible to do so), then what did I think? Well, let’s get into that, shall we?

Recap

Cast and Acting

Strap in, this one’s gonna be long. Three parts, and a coda at the end.

OK, first I gotta talk about Léon, or rather Jean Reno as Léon. Here's the thing about these heroic bloodshed protagonists; they’re always these cold, reserved badasses with armored hearts that have been closed off by a personal tragedy, from when they were more innocent. But with Léon, we never see that tragedy; we have no idea what makes this man who or what he is. And yet, he still has dimension as a character, hidden depths within an unknown past, and also a surprising innocence injected into him. He genuinely enjoys going to see old movies, he’s teaching himself how to read, we only really see him drink milk, he cares deeply for his plant. And, before Mathilda, he’s lonely, and you actually feel for him? THis is, by the way, despite the fact that the first sequence of the film is him MURDERING A BUNCH OF PEOPLE. And despite that, I really did feel for him in the end there. And while the directing and writing take a part of this, GODDAMN does Reno do an amazing job! He perfectly portrays the nuances of this character, but puts on an incredibly badass demeanor when he needs to. Reno deserves more credit as an actor in the USA, because he’s astonishingly great in his movie, seriously.

And then...then there’s Natalie Portman. See, back in the wild, wild west of the ‘90s, child actors were ALL OVER THE GODDAMN PLACE. And the vast majority of them weren’t very good, let’s be honest. But in her turn as Mathilda, awkward preteen crush and all, Portman KNOCKS it out of the goddamn park with this portrayal. And by the way...THIS IS HER FIRST ACTING ROLE. Yeah. Holy shit. She’s brilliant, and I’m a little mad that she didn’t get an award nod AT ALL for this role. She’s fantastic, seriously, it’s insane. And yeah, her character and the dynamic with Léon definitely makes me uncomfortable...but maybe it’s because Mathilda is surprisingly believable, acting with a surprise innocence of her own. Seriously...amazing job to Nathalie Portman.

If Reno was understatedly nuanced and complex, and Portman was talented and emotional, Gary Oldman was BATSHIT INSANE. And holy shit, is he a wonderfully engaging and terrifying villain. This is Oldman dialed up to...eh, 8? You get him dialed up to 10, and I’m pretty sure you get Dracula. But he’s a HELL of a lot of fun here, honestly, if also extremely creepy and frightening. He steals every scene that he’s in, with his speeches, mannerisms, and affectations. He upstages, well...EEEEVERRRYYYYYOOOOOOONNNNNE!!!

And is everybody else in here good? Yeah, they are, but they’re completely drowned out by these three. The acting in this film is wonderful all around. 10/10. I mean that, 10/10.

Plot and Writing

If I had a single word about the writing, it’d be...French. There are some lines, ESPECIALLY Mathilda’s lines about love, that definitely sound more French than American. After all, this is a French film, and the writer is Luc Besson himself! And other than that...the writing’s fine. Plot’s fine, too, straightforward and all that. I really don’t have much to say about the plot, if I’m honest. And if I had one negative thing to say...yeah, the childhood crush thing is still super uncomfortable, honestly. Still, put in context, it’s a little bit better. And I should mention that, while it’s SUPER CONTROVERSIAL here in the good old US of A, this wasn’t nearly as big of a deal in France. And I should also mention...it’s mildly autobiographical. Yeaaaaaaaah, that blonde girl in the very beginning of the movie is actually Besson’s WIFE. You know...the 17-year-old, who’d known Besson since she was 12 and he was 29, and they started dating when she was 15, and the had a child a year later, before this movie was made. Y-yeah. Yeah. Yeah.

 7/10 here, nothing bad, nothing great. Basically average heroic bloodshed plotline, with some...other elements.

Directing and Action

Fun fact: Luc Besson’s reception in his home country is mixed, especially early in his career. This is because his directing style is focused far more on spectacle and bombast than it is on emotion. Definitely more American in style than French. And this movie definitely has some of that, although it’s definitely not as crazy as some of the other movies on this list. But some of the shots here are weird, some of them here are crazy cool, and most of them are just great. But this movie still focuses more on emotion and character buildup and revelations, than it does on action. Which is great, but this is Action January, so how was the action? This takes off of the gun-fu genre, with essentially all of it focused around gunplay. And the interesting thing is, while these aren’t the most bombastic action scenes, its the emotion around them that keep you on the edge of your seat and invested. So, weirdly, this might be the movie that’s integrated the action scenes with the movie’s overall emotional tone the most seamlessly. Well...of the English language movies, anyway. Overall, 8/10 here!

Production and Art Design

START SPREADING THE NEEEEEEEEEEWS, because it’s New York, New York! Most of this film was filmed on location, and it shows! As someone who grew up going to NYC on a regular basis, it definitely feels authentic to ‘90s New York. Which, of course, it is. Costume design, for Mathilda especially, is good, although one or two of her outfits feels a little over-complicated at times. Still, no complaints, really. I love Léon’s tiny glasses, and Stansfield’s suit (plain as it may be). Really, this movie is simply an authentic feeling New York, and there isn’t too much else to say about that. 8/10 again. 

Music and Editing

Music’s definitely good, including this song by Sting that we hear at the end. Editing is mostly OK, although there are some weird cuts here and there. And...I’m not sure I have much to say about this category. Oof. Sorry, honestly, this is probably a sign of good editing, since it wasn’t obvious. And as for the music, I remember it...but it was mostly overshadowed by the events of the film itself. So...7/10?

80%! And I’m satisfied with that, honestly!

This movie is built to make you a little uncomfortable while watching it. But, I still believe that it’s a movie to be watched. Good action, prominent emotional development, great acting. This one’s good, and give it a watch! 

Luc Besson, Luc Besson. You gave me a French English-language heroic bloodshed action movie about an older man saving a girl a generation or so younger than him, that also produced a well-known meme on the internet. More, please!

January 20, 2021: Taken (2008)