Previous Joints

Showing posts with label Joseph Gordon-Levitt. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Joseph Gordon-Levitt. Show all posts

Friday, 16 August 2013

500 Days (of brutal Summer)


When the film finished, my missus couldn’t wait to tell me how much she hated it. “It was sad. Why did you make me watch that for?”


That was the second time I watched Marc Webb’s film in a 24 hour period. I was so excited about what I had just experienced that I forced the film on my uber-romantic woman. I felt, and I still feel, that 500 Days of Summer is special. Not since Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind have I seen a film that portrays heartbreak in a way that I can relate to. 500 Days doesn’t tell the story of the sanitised, Hollywood heartbreak where there is a silver lining – it tells the tale of a woman who rips a man’s heart out and gangster leans her way out of his life. This is that real life, kick you in the nuts heartbreak – the sort of heartbreak that stays with you and will probably linger in your soul until your last breathe escapes you.

...

500 Days tells two stories – one about the relationship of Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s Tom and Zooey Deschanel’s Summer – and the second one about how Tom handles their break up.

I’ll be honest, this dynamic, the man in pieces over a relationship falling apart interested me the most because you rarely see it in mainstream cinema. There is nothing stereotypically masculine about Tom, he’s a mess from the start and my every being wanted to mock him, I wanted to tell him to man up. I wanted to recite a number of offensive Snoop Dogg and Dr Dre lyrics (“You can’t make a hoe a housewife” seemed appropriate) but the problem is I saw a lot of real world examples in his character. I’ve had to nurse my best friend out of a heartbreak and that wasn’t pretty – we laugh about it now but at that time it was bleak. Shit, I’ve had to recover from such a situation myself.

You come out of those situations hardened and unwilling to open up and admit that you're weak and fallible  You see that in Tom near the end of the film. This fucked me up because it not only reminded me of how dangerous women are (you’re all lethal ladies) but it also reminded me of how vulnerable men can be – it reminded me of a time when I was at my weakest.

...

Importantly, there is a strong 
willed, beautiful and intelligent woman at the heart of this film. Annoyingly, Deschanel’s Summer does nothing wrong in this movie. I spent the majority of my first viewing trying to find the hoe in Summer but there was none to be found.  Summer tells Tom exactly what she wants from a relationship and Tom ignores her.

The park bench scene near the end of the film is one of the most brutal things I have ever seen on screen in my life - as violent and as merciless as a gory thriller. After getting his life back in order, Tom sees the person that bombed it pieces in the first place and when he tells her that she was right not to believe in true love, what does Summer say? To paraphrase: “When I first saw my husband I knew (he was the one) what I wasn’t sure of with you”. Brutal. It hurt me deep.

...

So the question I kept asking after watching 500 Days was: do I consider Tom to be a man? Not biologically speaking, of course, but do I consider him to be representative of how a man should behave in such a situation? This may sound like a stupid, offensive and un-PC question, but you have to remember I am a product of a Christian African background with a dollop of Dr Dre’s Hip-Hop splashing somewhere in the melting pot.

I think Tom is a man. We expect women to carry the majority of the emotional baggage in depictions of relationship turmoil but what this film has reminded me is that times have changed. I could say that this film is important for how it presents women, but I think it is equally as important for how it portrays men. It is stunning in the way it shows our kind as completely weak and emotionally crippled beings - it's actually refreshing to see. Tom is what he is – a shattered man – and that’s ok.


                    Down and Out Chocolate




Thursday, 7 March 2013

500 Days of Romance





I've known Kayleigh for a deceptively long time and with all due respect, she is the most unashamedly "girly girl" person I've ever met. As well as being a pretty awesome person, she's also a wonderful photographer who runs her own business. Go and check out Kayleighpope.co.uk or follow her on twitter

Here is her cool little piece on romance movies. 

...

So I have a degree in Media Production, but if you asked whether I’d seen a certain film, chances are, I haven’t. I’ve seen films you’ve probably never heard of, or films that are, well let’s say, crap. 


Right now, I feel like Carrie Bradshaw, typing away on a Mac laptop - talking rubbish. That’s a joke - Carrie never talks rubbish - I love her. Sex and The City is my bible.

Why? Because girls love a bit of romance. In fact boys do too but it’s not cool is it?


One film I love for romance is 500 Days of Summer. If you haven’t seen it then you should. If I have seen a film, then you should of too!

This film flips the traditional love story on its head and has one of the coolest split screens in a film. And here it is… 




Why I like this film is because it’s not traditional. We see a guy, played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt, deal with heartbreak, instead of the other way round. We almost feel angry at Summer (played by Zooey Deschannel) for what she does, but why? Technically, she did nothing wrong. I like how this film keeps you on your toes; you expect a happy ending, because that’s what the history of films have taught us should happen (Unless its horror, that never ends well).

I love this film because it makes you feel sad, but happy. It makes you feel what each character is feeling and that’s what I love most about films. I want to empathise with a character. In a way, that why I hold up my hands and say I’m not a massive fan of sci-fi – I want to a film I can relate to – and that’s why I love romance.



                                     @ChocoTeddyFilms

Wednesday, 27 February 2013

The Case Against Inception





Christopher Nolan – there isn’t a director out there that I'd single out for over hyped fan-boy praise more than this guy.

I genuinely love him.

He’s made films that I attribute to my raging love of cinema. The very first time I watched Memento, I was so shocked and inspired by what I had just seen that I instantly replayed the film. The Prestige, a criminally underrated film, is one of my favourites of all time. And if anyone was to say that the Batman films had to be part of the conversation about the greatest trilogy of all time, next to the Toy Story and Godfather films, I wouldn’t laugh at them. He’s a hell of a director.

But for me, he has two black marks on his record. One is Insomnia; I don’t necessary think it’s a bad film, I just didn’t understand it and unlike most Nolan films, it left no impression on me.

The other black mark is the main subject of this post – Inception


I should really love Inception; In fact, the first time I watched it at the cinema, I really did. I remember telling my Mrs that it was the best film I’ve ever seen in my life. I went back the very next day to the cinema and my mind hadn’t changed.

What blew me away was the concept of hacking into other people’s dreams and how it was realised in the film. I can’t think of many introductory sequences that can top Inception's.

I also think Leonardo DiCaprio’s performance in this film is outstanding. He, above all else, sells the concept of the film and that is no small feat.


The very best films stand well against the test of time. The Godfather is my favourite film of all time because every time I watch it, it feels like the first time. The problem with Inception is that the more I watch it, the worse it gets.

BBC’s Mark Kermode drove this idea that Inception is an intelligent film that treats the audience with respect. I really dispute this. Watching Inception feels like I’m being lectured to, being told how to think and babied through the rules of this world. Why the hell can’t I work it out for myself? Ellen Page, who I think is an extraordinarily gifted actress, is only in this film for the purpose of being lectured to. I feel sorry for her, because it gets tiresome real quick.


Speaking of Ellen Page, the other thing that disappoints about the film is the assemble cast, with the exception of Leo. There are a lot of ‘meh’ performances in this film. In fact, some performances boarder between ‘meh’ and just plain bad. This was the first film I'd ever seen Tom Hardy in and I really wasn’t impressed. Marion Cotillard, who I absolutely love as an actress, makes me cringe in this movie; she leaves all the hard work of selling their characters' experience in Limbo to Leo. If the hotel fight scene didn’t exist I would have found Joseph Gordon-Levitt forgettable in this film. Ken Watanabe is just bad.

All of this surprised me because Nolan’s track record suggests that there aren’t many better directors out there who can handle ensemble casts of this stature. What went wrong?




What I find most depressing about this film is the pace. I am not an impatient man; Once Upon A Time in America is close to 4 hours and I love it to bits.

The pacing in Inception is all wrong and, I’m afraid, that was Nolan’s job. Huge chunks of this film feel lethargic, especially when the dream concept is being explained.

Again, apart from the opening scenes and part of the hotel scene, the action sequences haven’t aged well at all. I particularly find the snow covered final sequence to be boring and predictable. Again, Nolan is at fault here.


I don’t feel great writing this post because I hold Nolan in such high regard. I’m still fuming that Warner Brothers were not brave enough to employ Nolan as the director of the next Superman film. I also think Sony should abandon their adventure with Sam Mendes and hire Nolan to direct the next lot of Bond films.

But Inception doesn’t deserve the praise it gets. People talk about this film like it's a modern classic and to my mind, its not. Nolan over-indulged in this film and might have let his ego run away from him because he can and has done so much better than Inception.     




                                                             @ChocoTeddyFilms

Thursday, 7 February 2013

All Hail The King: Looper





This is the film that inspired this blog.


It seems like the older I get, the more I love sci-fi movies. The only explanation I can find for this is that I find it easier to get lost in these films. Also, the quality of recent sci-fi movies has been extraordinary. For example: Duncan Jones’ Moon blew me away and he had the nerve to follow it up with Source Code; the much lauded Chronicles was still underrated; Attack The Block (yes, I’m going there) showed that British cinema had a dog in the sci-fi fight; District 9 is just one of the best films I have ever seen – period.

But no sci-fi film has made as much impact on me as Looper.







Rian Johnson’s Looper is a simple yet complicated film. My one advice for anyone thinking about watching this film is to ignore the flawed science logic. Follow old Joe’s (Bruce Willis) advice:


“I don't want to talk about time travel because if we start talking about it then we're going to be here all day talking about it, making diagrams with straws.”


Or Abe’s advice (Jeff Daniels):

“This time travel crap, just fries your brain like an egg.”


Basically, to pay attention to the time travelling logic in this time travel film is pointless.



Looper is essentially a gangster film set in 2044 about hired guns (Loopers) who kill and dispose of bodies sent back from 2074 which have a silver payday strapped to their back. Before signing up, every Looper is told that one day a body will appear with a gold payday – this body will be their own future self. This is called “closing the loop”. Failing to kill your future self is called “letting your loop run”.


This film is all about Joe (Joseph Gordon-Levitt) letting his loop (Bruce Willis) run.








The first thing that struck me about this film is the world. Set in Kansas, USA, it is immediately recognisable with pinches of fantastical elements spread throughout – rusting hoverbikes, clunky Blunderbuss (a cross between a laser-gun and a shotgun) and people with mild telekinesis (known as TK in the film).

This is clearly a post-2008 financial meltdown movie. Children are running around malnourished, people are stealing from one another and getting shot for their troubles, and to top it off, China is the new superpower. This is a grungy, dirty and depressing vision of the not too distant future. It doesn’t take much to figure out how this world could inspire young people to sign up to a deal of short term reward – life as a Looper is an escape.

With that said, Loopers are idiots. They are self obsessed, only caring about the next high, their clothes, gadgets, cars etc. Joe and co are the YOLO (google it and cringe) generation on film.

In fact, everyone in this film is horrible. Sid (the excellent Pierce Gagnon) is a psychopath of Damien proportions; Sid’s mother, Sara (Emily Blunt), left him to live it up in the city; GL’s Joe is literally hunting down himself to preserve his self obsessed drug filled life; Willis’ Joe is... well, we’ll get to him later.

If you’re cheering for anyone in this film then know that you’re cheering for a vile character.








Bruce Willis’ character is the reason why I love this film. Firstly, can I just say that this guy's CV in sci-fi is extraordinarily legendary: 12 Monkeys, Sixth Sense, Unbreakable, The Fifth Element and (the underrated) Surrogate. All Hail the King of Sci-Fi.


It’s the questions his character asks of the audience (well, me anyway) that makes this film special: What would you do?

What would you do if you saw a loved one shot and killed? How far would you go to ensure that no harm comes to the people you love?

Bruce Willis’ character transforms into a mad man, terminator-lite, stopping at nothing to change the future. I mean, the bloke kills an innocent kid to save his future wife and unborn baby - a woman that he (young Joe) hasn't met, or fallen in love with yet. He (young Joe) doesn't care that he himself (old Joe) is suffering. He (young Joe) is so self obsessed that he sees himself (old Joe) as a totally different person.

Simply put, I think old Joe is one of the most terrifying characters of recent cinema, simply because he is so relatable. Yes, he is a horrible person, he does unspeakable things, but damn it (cliché alert), he does it for love.







Mrs Teddybear says that the older I get, the more depressing the films I like. I can see her point, but I truly believe that best films reflect the times in which they are made - and times are not sunshine and unicorns.

The characters in this film and recent sci-fi films are not black and white, they are grey, and some times the shades of grey are indistinguishable. They ask audiences tough questions and they don’t end with the hero walking toward the sunset. More and more of these films have no heroes and offer dim hope.

The most Looper and modern day sci-fi offers are flawed characters looking for redemption: The party girl finally accepts her responsibility as a mother, the killer finds love and the killer finds love (no typo).



A chance at redemption. That is all the hope I need.