So, I'm not dead but theme week didn't really work out that well. I blame Independence Day. I might try theme week again in a few weeks but for now I want to round out my Tom Hardy movies with Lawless. "Have you met Howard?" This has easily become one of my top ten favorite movies. I love the story, the filming, and most of the characters. If I could change one thing about this film, it would be to edit out all the parts with Shia LeBeouf. I know the story is pretty much told from his point of view and he's important or whatever but, he really annoys me and I hate his character's storyline. Guy Pierce plays the main asshole but I still like him better than Shia LaBeouf in this movie. Anyway, back to the main stuff.

Characters and storyline. This movie is based on a true story written by one of the brother's sons, I believe. The period this takes place in is accurately shown. I love Tom Hardy in this movie and his character. He doesn't say much and just mostly grunts but he is also a total badass. Jessica Chastain also does a very good job at her character. I've only seen her in a couple of movies but I think she is great and should be more popular than she is. Those two make the movie for me. Who doesn't love a good Prohibition-era moonshine movie? Being from the south, I can appreciate the history more. The director does a good job of bringing the audience in to the story with feeling the emotions with the characters. I'm not going to lie. I shed a tear during what happened to Cricket Pete. That is always a good sign to me. I also really hated Guy Pierce's character which wasn't hard to do as he plays a complete asshole. No worries, he gets what is coming to him.

Cinematography. This story is beautifully filmed. I really captures the feel and look of the south during the Prohibition-era. There are, of course, some really well done shots. It is also subtlety colorized with a sandy feel. Everything always looks kind of dirty which really does add to the film. You don't really notice it at the time but that is important for the audience to really believe and immerse themselves into the story.

If you need a reason to watch this movie, then do it for Tom Hardy. The storyline will support itself and show you what a truly great film it is. I think it is underrated and often overlooked but, not by me! I love it.

Tom Hardy movie number two for this week is Bronson. It's a weird little movie based on the real criminal Charles Bronson. His birth name is actually Michel Peterson. He is Britain's most notorious prisoner and has spent most of his life in prison and mostly in solitary confinement. This movie is very disconnected and doesn't do a lot of explanation because it's a story mostly through Bronson's eyes. I feel that the directed did a good job of it definitely being in Bronson's point of view and very biased towards him. Tom Hardy does a great job at portraying him and his madness.
He imagines himself as an actor of sorts and says that he always wanted to be famous. Well, he gets that. Famous as a really bad criminal. What started as a 7 year sentence for a small bank robbery extended for 14 years before he was finally released and he was arrested again 70 days later. Reading the true story of Bronson helps in understanding the movie. He was very violent and attacked a lot of prisoners and guards. He was moved over 100 times in Britain's prison system and spent a lot of time in solitary confinement. He was released a couple of times but was arrested again soon afterwards. I'm surprised they let him out at all. He was horrible. They briefly put him with the criminally insane but, like everywhere else, that didn't last long. The real Charles Bronson is still in prison and serving a life sentence. He decided in 2014 to change his name to Charles Salvadore (after the artist) and renounced violence. For the movie, the overall coloring is very yellow-orange-greenish and gives you this sickly, dirty feeling. Hardy absolutely shined as Bronson and even got to meet with him while filming. The real Bronson was so impressed with Hardy's impersonation of him that he shaved off his famous mustache so that a loose mustache could be made for Hardy. Bronson just loved to fight and it showed in the movie with how it seemed he never did anything really for a specific reason. He just kind of did it. He took people hostage and tried to strangle people. The audience really sides with Bronson after seeing him and having the movie narrated by the main character. You should be horrified with all the violence he has caused but it's more of a meh attitude. He did it. Whatever, it's his life. He narrated and explained himself so well that you're just like yeah, you should fight that guard for no reason. If only he could have channeled that in to like boxing and become famous that way. Anyway, good movie. Not great but good. I probably won't watch it again for a long time or maybe never. I've seen it twice now and I'm good. Tom Hardy's acting is amazing though. It's good to see him in a slightly different role than the ones he is used to playing. He does well with broody, angry sort of characters or ones with good one-liners but in this role he was sort of just odd. Very weird and exaggerated. That's great acting. Stay tuned for another review coming later (I promised 2 today). I'm thinking another movie made in the same year with Hardy playing a fighter. I should tally how many movies he has played some sort of boxer or fighter. I know of at least four. Interesting.
 The Real Charles Bronson ^

This week I'm going to try something new and do an entire week of reviews with one thing in common. This week the theme is TOM HARDY. Because nobody can stop me and I heart him. I did Mad Max Fury Road the other week and that doesn't count. This entry is going to be Monday's entry because I didn't get around to writing it last night. So, we're going to talk about Inception. Yeah, I'm going there. Not only does this movie have Hardy, it was made by my favorite director Chris Nolan. Hm, that gives me an idea for another theme week. Anyway, back to Inception. I really doubt that anybody completely comprehended this movie the first time they saw it. When I first saw Inception it completely blew mind in the best possible way. My head hurt when I walked out of that theater and I completely loved it. Nolan has this way of bending minds so that you don't completely understand what's going on but you can kind of keep up. You just kind of pretend you know what's going on to get through the movie. With repeated viewings, you understand more and more. It's the type of movie where you can find something new you never saw before with each viewing. Chris Nolan always manages to mix the real science with slightly less real science that makes a damn good story. So, DREAMS! Who doesn't love a good movie about dreams? Bonus, Joseph Gordon Levitt is in it. JGL and Tom Hardy?! Madness. Hardy's role isn't the biggest but it's probably the funniest. He has some good one-liners.

Leo: That bounty on my head, was it dead or alive?
Tom: Can't remember. See if they start shooting.

Ah, love him. Anyway, back to Inception. Let's talk science. It's a neat concept that you could go in to other people's subconscious. Scary, but neat. We have all had that feeling of being jerked awake by a falling sensation and that is a key part of this movie. Also mentioned is how we never know how we get to a place in a dream. We just sort of come into it in the middle. These things that we all experience are what sucks us into this movie without automatically discrediting crazy science. See what I mean? Chris Nolan is brilliant. I know the internet has examined the crap out of this movie and there are so many theories out there that could all be right because there isn't a clear answer to this whole movie. I have a question about the totems. You are the only one that should know the exact weight and feel of your totem. I get that. Cobb's totem bothers me though. For one, it's not his, it's his dead wife's. Which opens up a whole can of worms about if this is his dream or limbo or yada yada. I won't get in to that. The biggest thing that bothers me is he has to spin his totem and if he's in "real life" then the totem will wobble and fall over and eventually stop spinning. He says that in a dream the top will just keep spinning and spinning. But, why? Why would a top just keep spinning in a dream if we all know that eventually they stop? This just bothers me. And then the ending. We see the top spinning and this is surely where the audience finds out the answer to the whole movie right? Wrong. The top wobbles. Or does it? It is seen going and going so you think dream and then it wobbles slightly and cuts to black. Does that mean it would have stopped? Damn you Chris Nolan! Of course it's going to be one of those "make up your own mind about what happens" types of movies. Another thing that bothers me is the architect. I don't completely understand that whole thing. Cobb says the architect just has to put basic places together and the dreamer fills in the rest themselves. I can kind of get on that train. But a person building a complete city? That shouldn't look like some place in real life? I just think there is a big flaw in that. And what is with Cobb's wife Mal coming in to ruin these dream journeys? How? Why?

Characters. The main man Cobb is just not a character I like very much. He's crazy and puts his whole team in danger. His dead wife keeps popping up and ruining things. Ok and they named her Mal. Come on. You literally just named the character "bad." That's what Mal means. Could they make it any more obvious? Then there's Arthur played by JGL. He's got the most sense and is totally badass. Then comes Eames. Ah, Eames. The lovely Tom Hardy. Even more badass than JGL and funny. Ariadne comes in as the new architect and is played by Ellen Page. Cool ass name Ariadne but her character is kind of whiny and annoying. She pushes her way in to situations that are none of her business and spends most of her time like "oh Cobb, you're putting everyone in danger and Mal is ruining everything and we need to tell everybody" blah blah blah. Just tell them then. And there's of course a few more main players but I don't want to talk about them. Everybody did their parts well and I don't think any body was mis-cast.

Cinematography. Nolan is very pro at getting great shots and angles and knows exactly how to film scenes. He even managed to add a couple moments that made you jump which is interesting in a movie that isn't supposed to be scary. I know Nolan likes to use CGI as little as possible and try to do everything in the actual environment so there aren't any scenes that just overly look computer generated. Even the scene where Ariadne turns half a city to a 90 degree angle looks pretty legit. The scene of slow motion exploding buildings and such was even actually done around the actors. He really blew things up. The coolest part is when Arthur is fighting in zero gravity. Nolan actually simulated zero g with a tube like structure that could rotate. JGL was hooked on wires of course but by putting the camera in one place and spinning them you create the scene more accurately. It's all very technological but so cool.

Closing remarks. Lessons learned: inception is bad, pain is in the mind so it can hurt if you get shot in a dream and don't die and go back to reality, stay out of other people's dreams, and most importantly what is reality? It's like the Matrix all over again. This movie is a classic and will be referenced for a long time to come. It will be studied and examined scholastically too. It's just that good and has that much depth. Reading all of the theories stemming from Inception is also very fascinating. Spend a day doing that. Your brain will hurt. Inception isn't one of those movies, however, that I will just put on any ole time and watch it frequently. It's definitely and endeavor going into it. I also find myself getting bored about 4/5 of the way through because I know the whole ending and it just gets tiresome and drags on. I do regret that I will never get to see this movie for the first time ever again (unless I end up with amnesia but I'm not gonna talk about that). There are few movies on that list of movies I get sad that I will never see for the first time again. I do love being there with other people who are seeing it for the first time though. That's fun. In fact, the majority of said list are Nolan's movies. Imagine that. I won't even go into Interstellar. I still haven't recovered from that one. Anyway, all in all, stay out of my dreams and subconscious ok?

Stay tuned for more Tom Hardy tomorrow. I will do 2 (gasp) reviews to make up for today (Tuesday) and then get to Wednesday's.

Pride and Prejudice was on tv recently so of course I stopped to watch it. I've seen this movie many times and consider it on my list of favorite movies. Although it deviates very much from Austen's book, I still love it just for the movie itself without any preconceived notions. Joe Wright is the man that directed this 2005 film with Keira Knightly and Matthew Macfadyen. I'm just going to jump right in.
First up are plot and characters. The intentions of the movie are different from the book. That is undeniable. But, for the way this movie went, Knightly and Macfadyen were perfectly cast as Elizabeth and Darcy respectfully. Their chemistry and sexual tension is tangible. Rosamund Pike as Jane was also well cast and acted. As for plot, the audience is taken on this rollercoaster of a ride with Elizabeth. It is told from her point of view and the audience discovers things as she does. It is a really beautiful story about, well, pride and prejudice. A girl that stands up for herself in a time when that usually didn't happen captures everybody's attention. The actors give subtle nuances to their characters that can go unlooked but really bring the piece together. I should mention that I am also in love with Macfadyen's Darcy. He's just dreamy. Anyway, moving on. My favorite thing about this movie happens to be more of the technical aspects.
Pride and Prejudice is just a beautiful movie. The cinematography is just amazing. There are beautiful landscapes and rich colors. There is a scene almost at the end of the film that has Elizabeth and Darcy meeting in a field and finally confessing their love among the sunrise. While this may be a bit cliche, it is done in such a beautiful way that it doesn't feel that way. Also in that part is a really good long shot of Darcy walking across the field to Elizabeth. It doesn't just cut to when he gets there. It actually makes you wait, like Elizabeth, for Darcy to reach her. There are several other good examples of the beautiful landscape. There's a scene in which Elizabeth travels with her Aunt and Uncle, I believe, across the countryside and it is just breathtaking. Wright also used clever techniques to show the passage of time. In one, Elizabeth is swinging and as she swings around the seasons change. There is a good use of a wall there to break that up. Another time is when she is standing in front of a window and the sun rises and falls as she is just standing there, staring off in to space. One of Wright's signatures is the use of close up shots of hands. It sounds hokey but it is actually very effective. One of my favorite parts of this movie is when Darcy helps Elizabeth into a carriage and there a close up of their hands and then Darcy walks away and there's a close up of his hand stretching. No words were spoken yet is says so much. Wright uses shots of hands in his other movies like Atonement. The music and lighting in this movie are also on pointe. He made candle light look very real and believable.The costumes are also amazing. I want every dress Elizabeth wears. My sister would know more about accuracy of the costumes in relation to the time period but I just really like them. There are too many things good with this film to mention everything but I've jumped around enough. It's just an all around beautiful film.
Let me know what you think. What do you like most about Mr. Darcy? Favorite part?

10 points if you have ever heard of this movie. 20 if you've actually seen it. I found this movie hidden in Netflix and decided to check it out. I was just mostly interested in Brittany Snow because I love her in different roles. I think she is an underrated versatile actress. So, this movie is about a girl (Snow) who agrees to a dinner party where a game is to take place with other guests. If she wins the game then she gets the money and bone marrow that her brother is in desperate need of. You can guess from the title that the game is would you rather and players are
eliminated each round. And by eliminated I mean killed. It's a very intense game. I will say that I read the synopsis of the movie on wikipedia before I watched it. I do this a lot when I find a movie that has potential and want to decide if it's worth watching or not. Because I read the synopsis, I knew exactly what happened and how it ended. That was okay for me. I ended up watching it anyway and I liked it. As always, there are spoilers ahead.
Let's start with plot and characters. As I said before, Brittany Snow was really good. Throughout the movie she has to be upset and she held it the whole time. She wasn't too annoying with it either which is rarely done. There are only a couple cringe worthy moments. The best one was a guy that sliced his eye with a razor blade. Don't worry, you don't actually see this. Even though, showing an eye sliced by a razor was done in an early 1929 silent film but that's a different conversation. It's not necessarily gory but I would consider it to have a fair amount of violence. I actually think there was room for more blood and guts but it was tastefully done and I respect that. I actually expected more blood but it was really glossed over. Brittany Snow's character wins the deadly game (surprise!). What was a surprise was the ending. I wouldn't necessarily call it a twist but it was definitely interesting. It was part of what made this seemingly corny movie an actual good movie. I'm not going to reveal what it was because you should just take some time to watch it but damn, it was good. Of course the normal topics with these kind of movies comes up. Like, how far would you go for the people you love and how should you treat other people. The acting overall wasn't the best ever but it worked.
Now to technicals. The best subtle thing about the movie was the coloring. It had a slight yellow, sickly feel to it which really went well with the action of the movie. It wasn't very noticeable though. Like I said, subtle. There were also some good camera angles and shots that I appreciated. Overall, this was a better movie than what I expected it to be and it has its merits. I love finding little gems on Netflix. Not all "horror" movies are the same and play to certain stereotypes. Some times they surprise you. Go watch it.
So now comment below and let me know your thoughts. Any thoughts. I'm not particular.

Let's take a minute to talk about the gloriousness that is Mad Max: Fury Road. I recently went to see this with a friend about a week ago and I haven't stopped thinking about it since. Once the movie ended and the credits started to roll the whole audience just sat there in silence for like three minutes. It was that good. I love when films can do that to me and just make me really like it. Most movies I can see where it's going and they're pretty predictable but this one wasn't that.
I will start by saying that I have not seen the original Mad Max films and knew nothing about this movie going in. I had seen like one trailer and I didn't really get anything from it besides Tom Hardy was in it. Sometimes it's fun to go into a movie with no expectations. I had heard from Facebook that it was a good movie so I was curious as to how. I was not disappointed. I'm a fan of action movies and I really enjoyed that this movie had action with a purpose. It wasn't just useless action with a weak storyline.
I will admit that for the first half hour of the movie I was thinking, "what the fuck am I watching?" Once I got past that, it turned in to a really good story. What I found most interesting is that the director, George Miller, chose to just give the audience all the pieces they needed to put the story together without actually telling them. There is very little dialogue throughout the film but I really didn't think about that until after the movie. It just didn't feel that way watching it. Probably because I was anxious the whole movie. That's the sign of a good movie. If the director can get the audience to completely lose themselves in a story that has little dialogue then he has won. It just made sense in the film. There was a lot of action and blowing up things but, there were a couple times that I actually gasped and put my hands over my mouth. I don't normally do that at movies but I got really into Mad Max.
Alright, on to technicals. My one complaint is obvious green screen at one part when Tom Hardy's character, Max (duh), is coming out of a cave on a cliffside. It pulled me out of the moment noticing that and especially because it should have been super easy to just put him in front of a rock face and edit it that way. Maybe the budget was spent and it was at the end of the shoot. The fire was okay but not great. I can look over that because it didn't bother me and was about as good as CGI fire can get. The best part of the film was the color grading. It just totally blew me away. I recently watched a youtube video on how the colorists did the color grading and it's just beautiful. The rich, saturated colors were impressive and really added to the film. The night scenes were cast very blue and, again, beautiful. I noticed a common color trick of contrasting blue cast with usually orange light. There was one scene at night that had a kerosene lamp that really used that contrast. Another scene had the characters drive in to a sort of sand storm and it seemed to flash black and white with the lightening strikes. It was so brief that I couldn't tell if it was black and white or just blue. Either way it was visually stunning and creative.
Now to plot/characters. My number one reason for going to see Fury Road was Tom Hardy and I have no shame in that. Total fangirl right here and I loved him in his role. He has this way of grunting that says more than any line of dialogue and the little actual dialogue he had in the film was, to me, funny or touching. He does a really good job of getting into the character he is supposed to be portraying. Charlize Theron was also very good and this was probably the best role i have ever seen Nicholas Hoult in. Second tier actors were also good. At first it seems like Max is going to be the big hero saving some females but really they end up saving themselves. There are definitely some female empowerment under tones in Mad Max and it's great. Like I mentioned before, the director actively engaged the audience. Little exposition was given and the audience is just forced to go with it and figure things out by themselves. Miller does this in a way that isn't confusing, except at the beginning, and it treats the audience like they aren't stupid. This is something more movies should do. He gives the audience everything they need in a way that doesn't compromise the action. The director could have done more voice over or shown more flashbacks but the movie does not need it. The clues are in there. They just aren't handed to you on a silver platter. I have to say, on a scale from 1-10, I would give this movie an 8.5. Just go see the movie already. I'm anxious for the next time I get to enjoy it again.

Today's adventure is the Disney classic Ella Enchanted. It was between this and Sin City. We'll save that one for another day. So, back to Ella. Having to literally do everything she is told is definitely an interesting concept. I think everybody can relate to that feeling at least once in their lives. Of course there are plenty of one-liners and funny quips to keep the movie moving. Anne Hathaway does some really good acting here as Ella. She's a take charge and empowered woman who can save herself and, that is refreshing for a Disney movie. Some parts get a little sappy for my taste but that's alright.
So, now on to technical notes. The color palette of rich, warm colors adds to the fairy tale world the movie is set in. Basically all of the scenes with the giants are pretty CGI showing. I understand where the technical difficulties come in but, those problems could probably be better solved with the new technology we have. It could have also been movie budget. Which is a factor often overlooked. Clever angles and cuts do make those scenes better. That silly talking snake needs to go though. Overall, Ella Enchanted is a solid movie that is easily enjoyed when watched occasionally. This has been a pretty short review but that happens sometimes. Stay tuned for commentary on the hilarious Pitch Perfect 2 that is out in theaters now.

Get ready for some amazing insights from me about movies (sarcasm). I'm just a girl with a thing for anything but reality. I have seen hundreds, if not thousands, or movies in my life by now and it's time to start sharing my thoughts with the world whether you like it or not. I do have a degree in digital cinema and am currently pursuing a masters in cinema studies so I know a little more than the average bear. I like a lot of weird movies and have managed to find some bizarre films through Netflix and other movie sources. So, if you come keep coming back periodically then you'll get a good smattering of movies you have heard of or seen and movies you haven't.
To start off, I'm going to talk a little about The Matrix. Because why not? Of course this is a great movie to start with. It also happens to be the movie I watched earlier today. I have seen this movie many times before, mostly in bits and pieces. Clips have even been shown in some of my film classes. The biggest visual aspects of The Matrix are the color and the special effects. Color plays a big part in the audience's feeling during a movie and with this movie the drab life Neo is living in the beginning of the film is shown with green, almost sickly, tones that are muted. You don't need to notice this to understand that he thinks his life sucks. That's the beauty of the understated color manipulation. The defining feature of The Matrix are it's effects. They are still considered pretty amazing about 15 years after it was filmed. Technology has changed a lot but the way they used it is timeless. I think the coolest part is the slow motion, badass scenes where the actors were harnessed in front of a green screen that had numerous cameras in a semi-circle around them to get that frozen, 180 degree look. That is amazing. Movies nowadays can take the audience out of a moment if they become aware of the CGI used. Yes, most films use CGI however, the goal is to make it look like something could reasonably be real with a little 'willing suspension of disbelief.' The only moment in The Matrix that did that was at the beginning when the agents make it so that Neo can't speak by basically melting his mouth, if you will. The technology, not to mention prosthetics, just weren't quite ready for that. For being a computer simulated type movie, it's great that that was the only real time I specifically noticed CGI. Oh, wait, there was one tiny moment of some flames later in the movie that looked bad but I'll overlook that one.
Let's talk about plot and acting. I would have liked to see more action and a little less of the talkity talk, but that's probably just me. The budget probably only allowed for so much ass kicking which, was awesome when it did happen. Best actor? Agent Smith. Duh. Worst actor? Trinity, maybe. I like Keanu Reeves and think he can do certain things and certain emotions well. He had his moments as Neo in this movie. Trinity, on the other hand, had me cringing a couple times with sappiness and predictable lines that just made me roll my eyes. That could be more on the fault of the writing I will say. Lawrence Fishbourne as Morpheus was pretty good. His character kind of agitated me with his inability to say anything useful in the film. Morpheus is supposed to be the leader of this group and the one basically in charge but I just don't feel like he earned it. He didn't do anything particularly great that any of the others couldn't do. I  would have liked to see more bad assery from him.
Overall The Matrix is a good movie. I can't say the same for the sequels but that's for another day. It will still be referred to and used as a cultural reference for years to come. I also see it still being a case study in many film classes for it's advances in the year it was filmed. So, go watch it. Or don't. Just watch out for glitches in the matrix and don't trust anybody named Agent Smith.