Search
Gaspar Noe recommended An Andalusian Dog (1929) in Movies (curated)
Jesters_folly (230 KP) rated Robo Vampire (1988) in Movies
Aug 11, 2020
Contains spoilers, click to show
Drug baron Mr Young is fed up with Narcotics agent Tom Wilde interfering with his plans so he hires a Taoist monk to train a vampire to kill him. After his death Tom is rebuilt as an Android Robot and sent on a mission to help rescue a captured officer.
The cover/poster art would have us believe that this is a Robocop vs vampire movie and I suppose that it is in the looses possible sense. First off this is low budget Hong Kong Jiangshi (rotting corpse) movie with added cyborg (Sorry Android Robot) so the vampires are of the hopping type not the western 'gentleman'.
I've given this film a 6 on the basis that it's so bad it's good. Most of the vampires are ok and look like the standard hopping type but the lead vampire seems to be wearing a gorilla mask to make it look rotten. No one bleeds when shot and it's obvious when dummies are used instead of stun doubles . Even taking this into account I would have given Robo Vampire a higher rating but it gets hard to follow. There are two story-lines to follow, the rescue of Sophie, an undercover agent that has been kidnapped and the Tom-robot vs the vampire's and ghost. And this is the first confusing part of the plot. Tom's creators say that he is to be sent on the rescue mission but he is never with the rescue party. Instead he goes off to fight the vampire. So the film switches between the rescue and Tom vs the vampires. Even this wouldn't be a problem except that the story-lines seem to continue even when we're not watching. For example, the rescue party are heading towards the camp with baddies jumping out at them from all directions. The we switch to Robo and when we switch back to the rescue two of the party are swimming in a lake with no sign of any of the others and end up getting captured, then back to Robo, then back the rest of the rescue party who don't even acknowledged that two of their party are missing but aren't surprised when they see them as prisoners. This sort of thing happens a lot, it's almost as if some one just cut out random scenes. Characters also just seem to appear with no introduction and switch sides with no seeming reason.
The cover/poster art would have us believe that this is a Robocop vs vampire movie and I suppose that it is in the looses possible sense. First off this is low budget Hong Kong Jiangshi (rotting corpse) movie with added cyborg (Sorry Android Robot) so the vampires are of the hopping type not the western 'gentleman'.
I've given this film a 6 on the basis that it's so bad it's good. Most of the vampires are ok and look like the standard hopping type but the lead vampire seems to be wearing a gorilla mask to make it look rotten. No one bleeds when shot and it's obvious when dummies are used instead of stun doubles . Even taking this into account I would have given Robo Vampire a higher rating but it gets hard to follow. There are two story-lines to follow, the rescue of Sophie, an undercover agent that has been kidnapped and the Tom-robot vs the vampire's and ghost. And this is the first confusing part of the plot. Tom's creators say that he is to be sent on the rescue mission but he is never with the rescue party. Instead he goes off to fight the vampire. So the film switches between the rescue and Tom vs the vampires. Even this wouldn't be a problem except that the story-lines seem to continue even when we're not watching. For example, the rescue party are heading towards the camp with baddies jumping out at them from all directions. The we switch to Robo and when we switch back to the rescue two of the party are swimming in a lake with no sign of any of the others and end up getting captured, then back to Robo, then back the rest of the rescue party who don't even acknowledged that two of their party are missing but aren't surprised when they see them as prisoners. This sort of thing happens a lot, it's almost as if some one just cut out random scenes. Characters also just seem to appear with no introduction and switch sides with no seeming reason.
Once Were Brothers: Robbie Robertson and The Band (2019)
Movie
Directed by Daniel Roher (Ghosts of Our Forest) and executive produced by Martin Scorsese, Brian...
The Bandersnatch (199 KP) rated Memoirs of a Geisha in Books
Nov 7, 2019
Memoirs of a Geisha is a historical fiction book published on September 27th 1997. Told in the first person Viewpoint of Geisha Sayuri (Original name Chiyo), It follows her journey from her childhood in a fishing village on the coast of Japan, forcibly taken to a Hanamachi in Gion Kyoto and raised to become a Geisha before experiencing the horrors of WW2 and being a Geisha during the hard work of rebuilding after a harrowing defeat.
My opinion of the book is one of both curiosity and interest. Japan is one of those countries where its history and culture is both unusual and mysterious. The book gives a brief glimpse into the hidden world of the Geisha which are a prominent spot in Japanese culture but are relatively unknown world wide. I believe that the story of Sayuri is one of personal travel and evolution. Since we see Sayuri';s experience as a child before becoming a Geisha, experiencing the horror of war and eventually finding love with the Chairman.
Arthur Golden was born on December 6th 1956 in Chattanooga, Tennessee. When he was eight years old his parents divorced with his father dying five years later. He spent most of his childhood living in lookout mountain, Georgia before graduating from the Baylor school in Chattanooga in 1974. After earning a degree in Fine art (Specifically Japanese art), an M. A. in Japanese history, Golden spent a summer at the Peking University in Beijing and spent some time working in Tokyo. When he returned to the states he earned an M. A. in English at Boston University. Golden married Trudi Legge and they went on to have two children Hays and Tess.
After getting the initial idea for Memoirs of a Geisha Golden spent six years over the story rewriting it at least three times, changing the view point until settling on the viewpoint of Sayuri. Golden had spent time interviewing several Geisha including Mineko Iwasaki (who ended up suing Golden when the Japanese version of the book came out for breach of contract.....the case was settled out of court in 2003) all of whom provided information about the world of the Geisha. After its release Memoirs of a Geisha spent two years on the New York Times bestseller list, its sold more than four million copies in English alone and has been translated into thirty-two languages around the world. In 2005 the book was made into a movie garnering three academy awards.
My opinion of Arthur Golden is very small and somewhat limited.......I believe he is a fantastic writer and very knowledgeable about Japanese history and art....Much more so than I am but hearing he faced being sued because of citing who his sources were when he was contracted not to has put something of a dampener on his character in my eyes.
Memoirs of a Geisha was released as a Movie on December 9th 2005 under director Rob Marshall and Produced by Steven Spielberg's production Company Amblin Entertainment and Spyglass Entertainment. With its production from pre- to post-production taking place mainly in California US, with a few spots filmed in Kyoto Japan. The movie received mixed reviews in the western world and received somewhat negative reviews in Japan due to its mixed casting of Chinese and Japanese actors and actresses and its relationship to history. Despite the chaos they won three Academy Awards (Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography and Best Costume Design), a Golden Globe (Best Original Score), A national Board of review (Best Supporting Actress), a satellite award (Outstanding screenplay) and three BAFTA's (Cinematography, Costume design and the Anthony Asquith award for Achievement in film music).
Whilst I quite like the movie I definitely feel that if more effort was put into tying more of both Japanese and Geisha history was some how tied into the movie. As well as using more Japanese Actors and actresses in the roles......despite that I believe the actors and actresses did a very good job in brining the script to life and keep a layer of mystery and fluidity to their roles.
And there you have it a book for all the ages, its definitely under the banner of AWESOME!!!.
My opinion of the book is one of both curiosity and interest. Japan is one of those countries where its history and culture is both unusual and mysterious. The book gives a brief glimpse into the hidden world of the Geisha which are a prominent spot in Japanese culture but are relatively unknown world wide. I believe that the story of Sayuri is one of personal travel and evolution. Since we see Sayuri';s experience as a child before becoming a Geisha, experiencing the horror of war and eventually finding love with the Chairman.
Arthur Golden was born on December 6th 1956 in Chattanooga, Tennessee. When he was eight years old his parents divorced with his father dying five years later. He spent most of his childhood living in lookout mountain, Georgia before graduating from the Baylor school in Chattanooga in 1974. After earning a degree in Fine art (Specifically Japanese art), an M. A. in Japanese history, Golden spent a summer at the Peking University in Beijing and spent some time working in Tokyo. When he returned to the states he earned an M. A. in English at Boston University. Golden married Trudi Legge and they went on to have two children Hays and Tess.
After getting the initial idea for Memoirs of a Geisha Golden spent six years over the story rewriting it at least three times, changing the view point until settling on the viewpoint of Sayuri. Golden had spent time interviewing several Geisha including Mineko Iwasaki (who ended up suing Golden when the Japanese version of the book came out for breach of contract.....the case was settled out of court in 2003) all of whom provided information about the world of the Geisha. After its release Memoirs of a Geisha spent two years on the New York Times bestseller list, its sold more than four million copies in English alone and has been translated into thirty-two languages around the world. In 2005 the book was made into a movie garnering three academy awards.
My opinion of Arthur Golden is very small and somewhat limited.......I believe he is a fantastic writer and very knowledgeable about Japanese history and art....Much more so than I am but hearing he faced being sued because of citing who his sources were when he was contracted not to has put something of a dampener on his character in my eyes.
Memoirs of a Geisha was released as a Movie on December 9th 2005 under director Rob Marshall and Produced by Steven Spielberg's production Company Amblin Entertainment and Spyglass Entertainment. With its production from pre- to post-production taking place mainly in California US, with a few spots filmed in Kyoto Japan. The movie received mixed reviews in the western world and received somewhat negative reviews in Japan due to its mixed casting of Chinese and Japanese actors and actresses and its relationship to history. Despite the chaos they won three Academy Awards (Best Art Direction, Best Cinematography and Best Costume Design), a Golden Globe (Best Original Score), A national Board of review (Best Supporting Actress), a satellite award (Outstanding screenplay) and three BAFTA's (Cinematography, Costume design and the Anthony Asquith award for Achievement in film music).
Whilst I quite like the movie I definitely feel that if more effort was put into tying more of both Japanese and Geisha history was some how tied into the movie. As well as using more Japanese Actors and actresses in the roles......despite that I believe the actors and actresses did a very good job in brining the script to life and keep a layer of mystery and fluidity to their roles.
And there you have it a book for all the ages, its definitely under the banner of AWESOME!!!.
RəX Regent (349 KP) rated Star Wars: Episode III – Revenge of the Sith (2005) in Movies
Mar 7, 2019
Far, far away from it's potential...
Contains spoilers, click to show
After 22 years of waiting, since 1983′s "Return Of The Jedi", we were sat in the auditorium ready to witness the epic moment when Obi Wan Kenobi and Anakin Skywalker would finally turn on one and other and Darth Vader's conception would be complete.
As the 'Clone War' came to a close, the Jedi had been all but wiped of the face of a galaxy far, far away and Chancellor Palpatine had ascended to become the emperor of the newly formed 'Galactic Empire', that moment had finally arrived. Was it worth the wait? Well, since the bar had be not so much lowered, but obliterated by the the first two prequels, measured with those in mind, then yes, absolutely! In fact, it does stand up well, and on the initial viewing, it was outstanding. A visual feast or choreography, visual style and epic art direction, everything you would expect from the man who had changed cinema forever, 28 years earlier.
The only issue is that even though the fans wanted nothing more that to see this duel, the rest of the prequel franchise was merely filler, and a series of plots designed to delay the inevitable battle and to give the audience anything but what they had expected. But after a ridiculous 22 year wait, there was almost no good ideas left that hadn't been explored in two decades of fan fiction, leaving all the bad ones to be included in Lucus' second, no rather third rate scripts! We had been told that he was waiting for the technology to make these films, but what was he waiting for exactly? The technology to animate the, perhaps? The visual effects in these films, though sparkling and perfect in its details, are hollow and do not match the standards of the original films, and begs the question as to why not? Four years since the release of "Revenge Of The Sith", James Cameron would finally release a film which he had being developing the technology for, for over 10 years, ("Avatar") and the result: Groundbreaking cinema, in both the 3D and Mo-cap tech, raising the bar, as "Star Wars" had done three decades earlier.
But this film had restored something which the franchise had all but destroyed with episodes one and two. This finally felt something like the original films and was a joy to watch, even though it still falls short of the mark. The acting is poor in all the prequels, which account to Lucas' directorial style, favoring green screen and CGI over acting. But John William's score is first rate, as it has been throughout the entire saga, but this was both classic and moving, a score truly in touch with the audiences love and feeling towards the films, sadly devoid in most other aspects of the production.
That's not to say that technically this was well produced, because on paper, in the computers, and certainly in sound editing suites, it was perfect, with levels of audio visual detail to die for and the scope was awesome. But in the end, it is a hollow shell of what it should have been. "Episode III" though, is the most fulfilling of the three, but all of them rely of the decades of loyalty given to them, because without it, these would probably be laughed out of the auditoriums.
But having said all that, I enjoy this film, as a part of the saga, and still look forward to seeing it, and some of the sequences in this film , though far from perfectly realized, are fun and enjoyable. This is leagues below "Star Wars" and the superior "Empire Strikes Back", but still worth a watch.
As the 'Clone War' came to a close, the Jedi had been all but wiped of the face of a galaxy far, far away and Chancellor Palpatine had ascended to become the emperor of the newly formed 'Galactic Empire', that moment had finally arrived. Was it worth the wait? Well, since the bar had be not so much lowered, but obliterated by the the first two prequels, measured with those in mind, then yes, absolutely! In fact, it does stand up well, and on the initial viewing, it was outstanding. A visual feast or choreography, visual style and epic art direction, everything you would expect from the man who had changed cinema forever, 28 years earlier.
The only issue is that even though the fans wanted nothing more that to see this duel, the rest of the prequel franchise was merely filler, and a series of plots designed to delay the inevitable battle and to give the audience anything but what they had expected. But after a ridiculous 22 year wait, there was almost no good ideas left that hadn't been explored in two decades of fan fiction, leaving all the bad ones to be included in Lucus' second, no rather third rate scripts! We had been told that he was waiting for the technology to make these films, but what was he waiting for exactly? The technology to animate the, perhaps? The visual effects in these films, though sparkling and perfect in its details, are hollow and do not match the standards of the original films, and begs the question as to why not? Four years since the release of "Revenge Of The Sith", James Cameron would finally release a film which he had being developing the technology for, for over 10 years, ("Avatar") and the result: Groundbreaking cinema, in both the 3D and Mo-cap tech, raising the bar, as "Star Wars" had done three decades earlier.
But this film had restored something which the franchise had all but destroyed with episodes one and two. This finally felt something like the original films and was a joy to watch, even though it still falls short of the mark. The acting is poor in all the prequels, which account to Lucas' directorial style, favoring green screen and CGI over acting. But John William's score is first rate, as it has been throughout the entire saga, but this was both classic and moving, a score truly in touch with the audiences love and feeling towards the films, sadly devoid in most other aspects of the production.
That's not to say that technically this was well produced, because on paper, in the computers, and certainly in sound editing suites, it was perfect, with levels of audio visual detail to die for and the scope was awesome. But in the end, it is a hollow shell of what it should have been. "Episode III" though, is the most fulfilling of the three, but all of them rely of the decades of loyalty given to them, because without it, these would probably be laughed out of the auditoriums.
But having said all that, I enjoy this film, as a part of the saga, and still look forward to seeing it, and some of the sequences in this film , though far from perfectly realized, are fun and enjoyable. This is leagues below "Star Wars" and the superior "Empire Strikes Back", but still worth a watch.
Coach's Eye - Video Analysis
Sports and Health & Fitness
App
Video doesn't lie. Get Coach's Eye today and see your performance improve immediately! ...
5 Minute Movie Guy (379 KP) rated Focus (2015) in Movies
Jul 1, 2019
The problem with Focus is that it treats its audience like we're all as dumb as nails. While the film itself is entertaining, its cons are unconvincing, and it's not nearly as smart as it thinks it is.
After watching Focus, I thought back to a great line from Will Smith’s con artist character Nicky Spurgeon, in which he proclaims, “There’s two kinds of people in this world. There’s hammers and nails. You decide which one you want to be.” It’s a powerful and chilling line of dialogue that emphasizes Nicky’s need to exert power and control over others in order to be successful in his indecent business. The problem with the film, however, is that it treats its audience like we’re all as dumb as nails.
Unfortunately, therein lies the film’s biggest problem. While I do think there is some merit in its depiction of the con game, Focus for the most part is unconvincing. Not only did I feel like I was being conned by the characters, but I felt like I was being conned by the legitimacy of the cons themselves. Most of them are quite a stretch, to say the least, but more troublesome is that their successful outcomes don’t ever feel truly earned. Everything just cleans up too neatly, due to some inane level of planning that relies on far too many improbable factors and additionally treats every mistake as if it was part of the plan all along. Therefore, trying to take Focus seriously is something of a brain-numbing exercise. While the film itself is fairly entertaining, it’s not nearly as smart as it thinks it is.
As a viewer, it feels like there’s not much of a pay-off in watching them pull off their successful schemes, and that’s largely because we’re left out of the loop. We the audience are being played the whole time. We’re not given any room for our own participation and guesswork because the movie gives us no clues to help us solve the puzzle. Yet it’s inviting us to look for answers by emphasizing the importance of being focused and aware, while withholding any and all necessary clues to help us make sense of what is happening along the way.
In Focus, Will Smith plays con-man Nicky, who meets a beautiful woman named Jess (Margot Robbie) while dining alone one night. After inviting Nicky to her hotel room, Jess attempts to con him with the help of a friend, but ultimately fails. After all, you can’t hustle a hustler. Being eager to learn more, Jess wants Nicky to take her under his wing and teach her the art of his craft. What ensues is a steamy relationship and a partnership in deception.
Jess proves to be a natural in the con game, quickly earning the respect and admiration of Nicky, who allows her to join his thirty-strong crew. This team of crooks racks up millions through swindling, hustling, and pickpocketing. It’s fun to watch the action unfold, but a little disconcerting that it glorifies these criminals while they’re plainly stealing from innocent strangers. Make no mistake about it, Focus portrays them as the good guys, and offers little to no consequence for their devious actions. Still, it’s hard to root against this cast of con-artists, and you’ll want to see how they manage to get away with it all.
Instead, Focus tries to make you believe there isn’t any con in play at all, only to later pull out the rug to reveal a highly ludicrous scenario. It feels dishonest and cheap, like it’s essentially cheating its way to the desired outcome without doing the work to get there. It’s selling its own capers short and taking the fun out of them. Thus even the climax of the film feels disjointed because we can’t believe what we’re seeing and just have to watch incredulously as we wait for the inevitable far-fetched explanation.
Despite the shortcomings of the cons, I would like to express that the film still does plenty of things right. First and foremost, Will Smith shines in his performance, adding enough perplexity to his character to keep you on your toes. He makes it hard to tell whether or not his character Nicky is bluffing, which helps add to the tension of scenes. Even when Nicky appears to break character and let his guard down, I still found myself guessing about his true intentions. While the movie is overall somewhat of a letdown, I can safely say that Will Smith absolutely nails it.
The only issue I had with Will Smith is his character’s obsession with Margot Robbie’s Jess. I’m sure many guys could attest to a Margot Robbie obsession, but I’m not one of those guys. While the chemistry between Smith and Robbie was fairly good, it did seem more than a tad blown out of proportion. The romance between them felt rushed and more lustful than loving. Still, Robbie gives a respectable performance of deception and allure.
I would like to particularly applaud the work of B.D. Wong, who plays a high-stakes roller that gambles with Nicky during the Super Bowl, in what is my personal favorite scene of the movie. The tension between Wong and Smith is absolutely electrifying, and they play off of each other extraordinarily well. I was on the edge of my seat throughout their whole encounter, only to have the moment spoiled by an absurd and unlikely final outcome.
The other performances are all adequate, though most of the characters are given little screen time, aside from Nicky’s perverted, overweight associate Farhad (Adrian Martinez) who musters up a few laughs. The dialogue can be pretty hit-or-miss, and the plot is rather thin, but the production values are outstanding. This is a film that is unmistakably beautiful to look at, with gorgeous sets and superb camera work. One particularly admirable scene has the camera placed in the passenger seat focused on a man who is gearing himself up before he deliberately crashes his car head-on into another. It’s a moment that feels like a strange detour, and yet it’s so bizarre and memorable that it just works.
Focus has the makings of an excellent film, but it regrettably drops the ball by fumbling the con game. If only the cons themselves weren’t so far-fetched and sloppy, the whole movie would have been a whole lot more effective. Despite the film’s insistence that you look closely, its most pivotal moments don’t hold up to any sort of analysis or scrutiny. In other words, this is a film that would be best enjoyed out of focus.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 1.31.16.)
Unfortunately, therein lies the film’s biggest problem. While I do think there is some merit in its depiction of the con game, Focus for the most part is unconvincing. Not only did I feel like I was being conned by the characters, but I felt like I was being conned by the legitimacy of the cons themselves. Most of them are quite a stretch, to say the least, but more troublesome is that their successful outcomes don’t ever feel truly earned. Everything just cleans up too neatly, due to some inane level of planning that relies on far too many improbable factors and additionally treats every mistake as if it was part of the plan all along. Therefore, trying to take Focus seriously is something of a brain-numbing exercise. While the film itself is fairly entertaining, it’s not nearly as smart as it thinks it is.
As a viewer, it feels like there’s not much of a pay-off in watching them pull off their successful schemes, and that’s largely because we’re left out of the loop. We the audience are being played the whole time. We’re not given any room for our own participation and guesswork because the movie gives us no clues to help us solve the puzzle. Yet it’s inviting us to look for answers by emphasizing the importance of being focused and aware, while withholding any and all necessary clues to help us make sense of what is happening along the way.
In Focus, Will Smith plays con-man Nicky, who meets a beautiful woman named Jess (Margot Robbie) while dining alone one night. After inviting Nicky to her hotel room, Jess attempts to con him with the help of a friend, but ultimately fails. After all, you can’t hustle a hustler. Being eager to learn more, Jess wants Nicky to take her under his wing and teach her the art of his craft. What ensues is a steamy relationship and a partnership in deception.
Jess proves to be a natural in the con game, quickly earning the respect and admiration of Nicky, who allows her to join his thirty-strong crew. This team of crooks racks up millions through swindling, hustling, and pickpocketing. It’s fun to watch the action unfold, but a little disconcerting that it glorifies these criminals while they’re plainly stealing from innocent strangers. Make no mistake about it, Focus portrays them as the good guys, and offers little to no consequence for their devious actions. Still, it’s hard to root against this cast of con-artists, and you’ll want to see how they manage to get away with it all.
Instead, Focus tries to make you believe there isn’t any con in play at all, only to later pull out the rug to reveal a highly ludicrous scenario. It feels dishonest and cheap, like it’s essentially cheating its way to the desired outcome without doing the work to get there. It’s selling its own capers short and taking the fun out of them. Thus even the climax of the film feels disjointed because we can’t believe what we’re seeing and just have to watch incredulously as we wait for the inevitable far-fetched explanation.
Despite the shortcomings of the cons, I would like to express that the film still does plenty of things right. First and foremost, Will Smith shines in his performance, adding enough perplexity to his character to keep you on your toes. He makes it hard to tell whether or not his character Nicky is bluffing, which helps add to the tension of scenes. Even when Nicky appears to break character and let his guard down, I still found myself guessing about his true intentions. While the movie is overall somewhat of a letdown, I can safely say that Will Smith absolutely nails it.
The only issue I had with Will Smith is his character’s obsession with Margot Robbie’s Jess. I’m sure many guys could attest to a Margot Robbie obsession, but I’m not one of those guys. While the chemistry between Smith and Robbie was fairly good, it did seem more than a tad blown out of proportion. The romance between them felt rushed and more lustful than loving. Still, Robbie gives a respectable performance of deception and allure.
I would like to particularly applaud the work of B.D. Wong, who plays a high-stakes roller that gambles with Nicky during the Super Bowl, in what is my personal favorite scene of the movie. The tension between Wong and Smith is absolutely electrifying, and they play off of each other extraordinarily well. I was on the edge of my seat throughout their whole encounter, only to have the moment spoiled by an absurd and unlikely final outcome.
The other performances are all adequate, though most of the characters are given little screen time, aside from Nicky’s perverted, overweight associate Farhad (Adrian Martinez) who musters up a few laughs. The dialogue can be pretty hit-or-miss, and the plot is rather thin, but the production values are outstanding. This is a film that is unmistakably beautiful to look at, with gorgeous sets and superb camera work. One particularly admirable scene has the camera placed in the passenger seat focused on a man who is gearing himself up before he deliberately crashes his car head-on into another. It’s a moment that feels like a strange detour, and yet it’s so bizarre and memorable that it just works.
Focus has the makings of an excellent film, but it regrettably drops the ball by fumbling the con game. If only the cons themselves weren’t so far-fetched and sloppy, the whole movie would have been a whole lot more effective. Despite the film’s insistence that you look closely, its most pivotal moments don’t hold up to any sort of analysis or scrutiny. In other words, this is a film that would be best enjoyed out of focus.
(This review was originally posted at 5mmg.com on 1.31.16.)
Kirk Bage (1775 KP) rated Ford v Ferrari (aka Le Mans '66) (2019) in Movies
Jan 22, 2021 (Updated Jan 22, 2021)
Matt Damon asked Christian Bale how he had managed to lose almost 70lbs for his role as Ken Miles, following his chubbing up to play Dick Cheney in Vice the previous year. Bale just smiled, shrugged and said, “I didn’t eat”. Such is his reputation for playing real people with 100% commitment, apocryphal or not, I totally believe that is true.
Sports films, and especially racing films, hang on three things: the quality and believability of the sports/racing scenes, the dynamic tension between the lead characters, and the degree we are hooked by the underdog makes a comeback element. Le Mans ’66, also known as Ford V Ferrari for American audiences, who obviously can’t make sense of French or numbers, has all three of those boxes ticked, and several others besides.
It will make it easier for me to explain why I liked this film so much if I confess up front to how much I liked it, so without hesitation I confidently state… more than Rush (2013) and Grand Prix (1966), making it probably the best racing film ever, but less than Warrior (2011) or Rocky (1976), making it a contender for top 5 but not the best sports movie ever. So, that is pretty high praise from the flag-fall.
Let’s examine the 3 key elements in order. Firstly, the racing scenes: This film is based on real people in real races driving real cars, with very little altered or tweaked for dramatic purposes (save one key detail of the final race). It didn’t need anything adding, because the real story is incredible enough. Part of that is the very real rivalry that existed between the undisputed champions of the world’s most beautiful cars, Ferrari, representing everything essentially European, and the empire of mass production efficiency that was the Ford dynasty, representing everything American.
The reproductions of the cars themselves and the personalities behind them is vivid and believable from minute one, so when the cars hit the track you can almost smell the fuel and feel the heat and grime, not to mention the speed. Every shot on every straight and turn feels like it should, and would, if you yourself were driving: intense, terrifying, exhilarating and addictive!
At no point did I see anything unrealistic, or a piece of footage copied and pasted. No trick angles or overuse of time stretching techniques, what you see is mostly what you get, and if you understand car racing in even the most amateur way then that is impressive. Add to that a complete understanding of tension building during a race from a direction and acting point of view and you just have to tip your helmet visor to James Mangold and Christian Bale, who seem in complete synthesis about what is required from a racing scene.
Next, look at the chemistry between Damon’s laconic yet stubborn pragmatist, Carroll Shelby, and Bale’s idiosyncratic, twitchy adrenaline junky, Ken Miles. They couldn’t be more different, personality wise, or actually performance wise. Bale chews up the screen with another in a long line now of big bold characterisations that you can’t take your eyes off, and Damon gives off solid, dependable, trust-worthy movie-star vibes in return. Their scenes together are spiky, fun, compelling and feel authetic, in a Hollywood movie way that we recognise and love. It feels almost like Paul Newman and Jack Lemon – the handsome straight guy and the quirky foil.
I love both these actors when they bring their A game. And they do here. It is consummate film acting, completely in control of what kind of film they are making. Not a naturalistic drama hoping to sweep the Oscars and hit hard in the emotional solar plexus, but a fun sports film driven by the conventions and tropes of the genre. Both manage to keep it just the right side of fun and exciting, whilst holding the reigns on believability also. Mangold, who knows how both action (Logan) and Bio-pics (Walk the Line) work to a very high level, brings experience of both genres to the fore here, and the blend is sublime.
Finally, there is the underdog element. Both of these guys were unconventional mavericks, and well known as being so. Both respected, but never treated as champions as they deserved in their lifetime, perhaps because they were not yes men or company men, who toed the line and played by the rules of the big bosses of the sport. Both of them absolutely driven by compulsion and passion to win, yet both flawed on the ways they could achieve that.
Then there is the consideration how much the car is a character, or at least Ford as a concept. What makes this story so great is the David and Goliath element, that makes you sure there is no possible way this could be true. As with all great sports films, even if you know the history and result of a real event, the little guy sticking it to the invincible and arrogant behemoth, win, lose or draw, is what makes us invest and then cheer, or cry, when all the effort is finally spent.
Effort, sacrifice, overcoming obstacles, facing defeat, bouncing back from setbacks, gaining respect of friends and rivals alike – all these elements make a sports film great. Le Mans ’66 has it all, with the added bonus of enough budget to make it fly, which isn’t usually the case in this genre. It looks spectacular, feels exciting and is ultimately completely satisfying, as both a character study of real men, and a document of a game changing moment in sporting history.
It also doesn’t entirely ignore the female influence on such a masculine world; the little known Irish actress Catriona Balfe as Mollie Miles really caught my eye in some really tender scenes. This film won’t be passing the Bechdal test any time soon, however, as she is pretty much the only female member of the cast with an actual name! But it isn’t something to get too hung up about, in my opinion.
I’d be bold enough to recommend this to anyone. No need to love cars, or racing or even sport at all. If you love good movies that keep you hooked till the checkered flag of the credits, then look no further. High art? No. A proper movie with huge mass appeal? 100%
Sports films, and especially racing films, hang on three things: the quality and believability of the sports/racing scenes, the dynamic tension between the lead characters, and the degree we are hooked by the underdog makes a comeback element. Le Mans ’66, also known as Ford V Ferrari for American audiences, who obviously can’t make sense of French or numbers, has all three of those boxes ticked, and several others besides.
It will make it easier for me to explain why I liked this film so much if I confess up front to how much I liked it, so without hesitation I confidently state… more than Rush (2013) and Grand Prix (1966), making it probably the best racing film ever, but less than Warrior (2011) or Rocky (1976), making it a contender for top 5 but not the best sports movie ever. So, that is pretty high praise from the flag-fall.
Let’s examine the 3 key elements in order. Firstly, the racing scenes: This film is based on real people in real races driving real cars, with very little altered or tweaked for dramatic purposes (save one key detail of the final race). It didn’t need anything adding, because the real story is incredible enough. Part of that is the very real rivalry that existed between the undisputed champions of the world’s most beautiful cars, Ferrari, representing everything essentially European, and the empire of mass production efficiency that was the Ford dynasty, representing everything American.
The reproductions of the cars themselves and the personalities behind them is vivid and believable from minute one, so when the cars hit the track you can almost smell the fuel and feel the heat and grime, not to mention the speed. Every shot on every straight and turn feels like it should, and would, if you yourself were driving: intense, terrifying, exhilarating and addictive!
At no point did I see anything unrealistic, or a piece of footage copied and pasted. No trick angles or overuse of time stretching techniques, what you see is mostly what you get, and if you understand car racing in even the most amateur way then that is impressive. Add to that a complete understanding of tension building during a race from a direction and acting point of view and you just have to tip your helmet visor to James Mangold and Christian Bale, who seem in complete synthesis about what is required from a racing scene.
Next, look at the chemistry between Damon’s laconic yet stubborn pragmatist, Carroll Shelby, and Bale’s idiosyncratic, twitchy adrenaline junky, Ken Miles. They couldn’t be more different, personality wise, or actually performance wise. Bale chews up the screen with another in a long line now of big bold characterisations that you can’t take your eyes off, and Damon gives off solid, dependable, trust-worthy movie-star vibes in return. Their scenes together are spiky, fun, compelling and feel authetic, in a Hollywood movie way that we recognise and love. It feels almost like Paul Newman and Jack Lemon – the handsome straight guy and the quirky foil.
I love both these actors when they bring their A game. And they do here. It is consummate film acting, completely in control of what kind of film they are making. Not a naturalistic drama hoping to sweep the Oscars and hit hard in the emotional solar plexus, but a fun sports film driven by the conventions and tropes of the genre. Both manage to keep it just the right side of fun and exciting, whilst holding the reigns on believability also. Mangold, who knows how both action (Logan) and Bio-pics (Walk the Line) work to a very high level, brings experience of both genres to the fore here, and the blend is sublime.
Finally, there is the underdog element. Both of these guys were unconventional mavericks, and well known as being so. Both respected, but never treated as champions as they deserved in their lifetime, perhaps because they were not yes men or company men, who toed the line and played by the rules of the big bosses of the sport. Both of them absolutely driven by compulsion and passion to win, yet both flawed on the ways they could achieve that.
Then there is the consideration how much the car is a character, or at least Ford as a concept. What makes this story so great is the David and Goliath element, that makes you sure there is no possible way this could be true. As with all great sports films, even if you know the history and result of a real event, the little guy sticking it to the invincible and arrogant behemoth, win, lose or draw, is what makes us invest and then cheer, or cry, when all the effort is finally spent.
Effort, sacrifice, overcoming obstacles, facing defeat, bouncing back from setbacks, gaining respect of friends and rivals alike – all these elements make a sports film great. Le Mans ’66 has it all, with the added bonus of enough budget to make it fly, which isn’t usually the case in this genre. It looks spectacular, feels exciting and is ultimately completely satisfying, as both a character study of real men, and a document of a game changing moment in sporting history.
It also doesn’t entirely ignore the female influence on such a masculine world; the little known Irish actress Catriona Balfe as Mollie Miles really caught my eye in some really tender scenes. This film won’t be passing the Bechdal test any time soon, however, as she is pretty much the only female member of the cast with an actual name! But it isn’t something to get too hung up about, in my opinion.
I’d be bold enough to recommend this to anyone. No need to love cars, or racing or even sport at all. If you love good movies that keep you hooked till the checkered flag of the credits, then look no further. High art? No. A proper movie with huge mass appeal? 100%
TB
T Bone Burnett: A Life in Pursuit
Book
T Bone Burnett is a unique, astonishingly prolific music producer, singer-songwriter, guitarist, and...
DT
Digital Tradition
Book
Istanbul is home to a multimillion dollar transnational music industry, which every year produces...