I admit that I had big expectations for this movie based on the cast and the well executed trailer. Honestly I was not prepared for an "Adaptation" or "Slipstream" type of narrative. So actually throughout the first 40 minutes I was like "Is that it? This is the movie I was waiting for so impatiently?". And than after the initial disappointment I started to realize that actually the film is much greater fun than the plot suggests if you are a truly cinema apasionado. Of course Seven Psychopaths shares some common features with the aforementioned movies as it follows the creative process of creating a movie story line by intertwining the "real" event in the movie with the ideas about events in the screenwriter mind.

But here the Easter egg lies elsewhere – it is in the casting. Lets see why any of the main characters, described as psychopaths are so important for the success of the message of this hidden treasure, again not by the chain of events, but by what lies behind them.

Who are the 7 psychopaths:

1. Angela – the "Jack killer" (Olga Kurylenko) who has at least one psychopathic role in cinema (the mad witch-warrior in Centurion)

2. Hans – the mad quacker (Christopher Walken). Lets see his psychopathic history at least the ones I am aware of:

- Nick in The Deer Hunter

- Hessian Horseman in Sleepy Hollow

3. Marty – the alcoholic screenwriter (Colin Farrell), worthy for the following previous roles

- Ray in In Bruges

- Valka in The Way Back

- Mitchel in London Boulevard

- Bobby Pellitt in Horrible Bosses

- Jerry in Fright Night

4. Billy – the dog kidnapper (Sam Rockwell) who is worthy of the role for at least 2 previous roles – Zaphod Beeblebrox in The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy and Charley Ford in The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

- Sweet Pea in Sucker Punch

6. And of course the killer of serial killers Zachariah (Tom Waits) with his respective contribution to the subject as

- R.M. Renfield in Dracula

- Mr. Nick in The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus

- Engineer in The Book of Eli

7. Charlie – the crazy tug guy (Woody Harrelson). Roles:

- Billy Hoyle in White Men Can't Jump

- Mickey Knox in Natural Born Killers

- Roy Munson in Kingpin

- Larry Flynt in The People vs. Larry Flynt

- Ernie Luckman in A Scanner Darkly

- David Douglas Brown in Rampart

And at the end I would like to mention a quote by Christopher Walken, which for me is obviously a movie industry joke about dream sequences in movies and gay movies directors which I didn't understand quite, but sounds like fun. Watch it again

Dream sequences – 7 psychopaths from ratingshark on Vimeo.

ratingshark - Rate the world around

Killer Elite is an interesting action flick which can easily address several of the classics in the genre without being accused of copycating them. The movie is a standalone authentic protagonist-antagonist battle, with interesting enough twist and turns and characters which can make you care about what happens to them before the final credits.
The plot is around Oman petrol sheiks and British SAS dirty operations, but this is not the main reason why the film is happening at all, these are only devices to develop better the 2 main characters.

The protagonist is Jason Statham,who once again carries out a steady performance as in the rest of his action movies. A professional hitman who is tired and wants to get out of the business. His involvement in this movie is actually a little wink to the remake of “The Mechanic” where he performed a similar role not so long ago. It is a bit funny that the creators of “Killer Elite” took it even further by involving a rookie who messes up one of the assignments. The assignment of killing criminals and making it look like accidents is the first reference to a genre classic such as The Mechanic (1972). In “Killer Elite” though the killer of killers is not one man, but there are three of them in a rescue mission for the 4th of the team.

Apart from having De Niro on board somehow the film reminds me of Heath, especially with the prolonged game of cat and mouse between Clive Owen (the antagonist) and Statham. This time the duel is not so classy and intellectual as in the case of DeNiro vs Pacino, but has other values. The scenes where the characters get physical with each other are skilfully choreographed and shot, also carrying a sense of a real fight. Even with the fast editing and some shakes of the camera it is very clear who is hitting whom and which body parts are involved and you can even somehow catch the logic of blows and blocks they exchange. My personal favorite from this scene is the part with the scissors at 01:04 in the video below.

fights scene from ratingshark on Vimeo.

You have of course the obligatory for the genre car chases  – all of it with legends of the British car industry, The movie is set in the 80s, so all the vehicles, the clothes, sun glasses and hair styles and even the camera in one of episodes are from that period – a job well done by the scenography crew, although a list of anachronisms can be found on imdb dedicated page for the moviegoers who like to go into the details.

There is an espionage subplot, so the movie cannot do without a roof chase between the two rivals. Here again we learn that Statham’s character has become too soft for the job, and he pays for it all the time. During the movie the viewer is lead to think that Statham is still the alpha dog, but actually none of the killings are executed directly by him and this repeating motive works very subtle and therefore quite efficient for the main theme of the movie.

The bad boy needs a nice lady, so in the role enters Yvone Strahovski, a young Australian actress. I don’t know if they picked her up for the roles because they needed a genuine aussie accent, but she works quite fine for her part in the movie.

I was pleasantly surprised by Dominic Purcell performance, who after the successful Prison break was rather disappointing in Blade (Trinity), but here blends pretty well with the British crew.

Some moral messages about war, politics, business and whether killers should be punished are touched, but are not in the center of the movie. It is more about choices in life and men who remain themselves till the end.

Director is Gary McKendry and this is his first big entry in feature film, so I will watch out for his next movies.

The script is based on a real story events, described in the book of Ranulph Fiennes, who is a co-writer.

If you have watched the movie, you can vote which of them is cooler in his role – Jason Statham or Clive Owen.

ratingshark - Rate the world around

I may respect Japan for a lot of things – their traditions and culture, their courage after the WWII, their workacholism, mountain Fuji and a lot more things. But all these things cannot erase the images of slaughtered dolphins which the movie “The Cove” left in my mind. It is totally non human and savage and brutal to kill marine mammals, which are believed and proven to be self aware and intelligent.

The film is very touching, tries to cover a lot of different points of view, including the POV of Japanese authorities, locals, even hostile fishermen.Alas, Japanese obviously are in a state of denial when it comes to their marine traditions and old fashioned nutritional habits. Even the fact that dolphins meat is poisonous to humans because of the high levels of Pb in it doesn’t seem to touch even slightly the reason of these people.

There are several scenes which can literally make you cry – for example when a baby dolphin is brutally slaughtered and when one of the main activists in the movie, a former  dolphin trainer, explains how one of his trainee dolphins committed suicide in his hands by deliberately drowning in her tank.

This savagery MUST be stopped ASAP, so if you feel that such things are important, please watch the movie and give your support here

ratingshark - Rate the world around

In our modern society the ritual offering of food to the child of our acquaintances, friends or even that of a stranger has become obligatory gesture of civility and good manners. How many times you were in the situation to kindly decline the offers of other benevolent strangers in the park, who are insisting on pushing a treat (usually some candies) in the hands of your child, although you have already explained that she does not eat sweets .. . And each of us has fallen in this situation – when our child eats and is approached by another child we instinctively offer the other child the same food, regardless of the context of the event or whether we knew that the other child or not.

On the other hand, any conscientious parent with the same perseverance, by which offers treats to other children, instructs his own child to NEVER take food from strangers – an advice inherently controversial to his own behavior to other children.

Interestingly where are the roots in what these conflicting behaviors. Here’s my paleo-anthropological theory on the subject:

During the Paleolithic, when food was generally scarce, and especially carbohydrates (this is when our brain has begun to perceive sweet things like supreme delight) it was probably a gesture of extreme kindness to offer to others the few carbohydrates which you  have succeeded to collect in the form of blueberries or other berries. Supply and exchange of food are established models which demonstrate peaceful intentions among primitive tribes today and probably have remained since these ancient inhospitable conditions from the Ice Age. The youngest members of the tribal group has always been the most open-minded and trusting of strangers, so it is probably normal to be the first to approach the foreign group and to accept the offered food. Probably this childish feature has built in us the habit to offer food to every approaching child as subconscious sign of non aggressive behavior and attitude.
At the same time we should not forget that times were tough. Vulnerable children who have strayed from the group were probably victims of hostile foreign nations and served as food or were adopted by other tribes against their will. And is it not the easiest way to lure one trusting child with a treat. Hence the behavior to constantly advice children not to take food from strangers.

Design brief – Activia Site

ratingshark - Rate the world around

Would I  have been watching this movie with different mindset if since the beginning I knew that one of the executive producers was Francis Ford Coppola? Probably yes,since before watching it, I assumed that the film was a low budget horror. But actually, other factors, apart from the involvement of Coppola changed my attitude.

The movie was filmed in the good old tradition of horror masterpieces of the ’80s: a gradual entry into the history and build up of horror elements, full disclosure of the monster only at the end of the movie and not quite a happy ending for the main characters (or at least one of them) . Although released in 2001, the film is carrying the mood of 80s monster classics like Pumpkinhead, Predator and Nightmares on Elm Street.

Cinematographically the movie attracts even the more discerning viewers already in the beginning. It is clear that the filmmaker didn’t make savings on lighting – all the scenes with the main protagonists are shot with a slight halo effect, according to the tenets of classical Hollywood “beautyfication” of the main characters, and even without too much “Barbie and Ken”, the brother and sister, who are the main characters, gain viewers sympathy from the outset.
The protagonists’ characters are given enough time to become sympathetic enough to the viewer that at the end of the movie one is emotionally involved to such an extent so to fear for their fate. As with other movies of the genre, the barriers set by the script to prevent a sex scene between the protagonists (whether because of a sibling relationship that makes this unacceptable, or because of the direction of the story) rather help unleash the story, rather than hinder.
Ravens are an interesting pattern. In the first scene in which they appear, they seem rather random, but at the end of the film are becoming a pattern that contributes to strengthening the status of the monster as a typical urban legend.

The monster itself has definitely compiled the highlights from other creatures before him – humanoid form and cloths, great physical strength, close to invulnerability, the ability for a rapid travel and physical regeneration, the tracking of victims at long distances, the running on vertical surfaces and finally the flying, thanks to the dragon / vampire wings which fold close to its body  - it is impossible for the formula not to work properly.

• The story that explains the existence of the monster is also an interesting and innovative one – awakening at specified intervals, regeneration after consuming of certain organs or body parts of victims, strange tendency to conserve them and use their bodies as  decoration for walls and ceilings of its den and no less strange connection with popular retro pop hit, called “Jeepers Creepers”.Throughout the first 50 minutes it is difficult to determine whether the film is not a slasher, driven by the image of a psychopath and only in the last third of the movie it becomes clear that it is a monster movie, which further contributes to and reinforces the surprising outcome and non-happy end, violating the genre conventions in similar scenarios in other similar movies.With the exception of the first 10 minutes the film is developed entirely at night or in darkened rooms, which also contributes to the complete atmosphere – enough scenes with silhouettes, backlight, fog, mist and classic Louisiana bog trees, with moss hanging from the branches.At 2 occasions the cinematographer’s decision for POV (point of view) is one, pointing through a hole in the body of a victim, which also works successfully as a motive and gives distinctive cinematographic technique.The clichés of the genre are used appropriate and measured -
  •    an abandoned church
  •    car chase involving a monster (including attempts of overrunning it)
  •     psychic, who foretells / knows the end of the movie
  •     attack on a police station with inadequate police officers who fail in any way to protect the protagonists
  •     creepy abandoned house, full of cats
  •    A scarecrow
  •     aforementioned Louisiana trees with hanging moss loops
  •     a long coat and hat dressed villain
  •     illogical, bordering on mental retardation, risky behavior on the part of the protagonists when entering abandoned buildings, in which it is clear that at least hang out serial killer

In conclusion – a movie with professional camera work and perfect lighting, an interesting plot, cleverly following mandatory clichés, but with slight bends and innovation, where appropriate, with a surprising twist from slasher to monster movie, non happy end and established producer as a bonus. This isn’t a movie, which will keep you long awake after you have watched it, but definitely leaves a pleasant feeling of nostalgia for a good horror movie from the 80s.

ratingshark - Rate the world around

I have recently finished watching the 2 part TV miniseries Moby Dick from 2011. Maybe I have committed a sin by not watching the older versions or even reading the book, before I allow myself to comment, but maybe this is an advantage and I had the rare opportunity of a fresh and unbiased look at he movie. However – here is my rating

ratingshark - Rate the world around

When I watched the remake of “The Mechanic” I thought “Well, Jason Stathem and Ben Foster are quite good, but I would really like to see the original movie, featuring Charles Bronson. And, oh boy, it deserved seeing it.

See below my usual rating kind of a review.

 He is like a depression-prone James Bond – Roger Ebert

ratingshark - Rate the world around

I will give my rating for this one a little bit later. For the moment I want to share a brilliant analysis by David_M in IMDB – http://imdb.to/LkVibG.

Enjoy!

Weeks ago, when I saw Battleship, I dismissed it as a poorly written ID4 rip-off, like so many people have. But yesterday, as I dined with my cousin, he suggested that maybe everyone got the movie wrong and that it was possible that the aliens were actually the good guys. So I went to see the movie again and this is what I found:

The aliens ARE the good guys. All the plot-holes pertaining to the aliens actions, reactions, and plans make sense once you understand that they are not fighters and have not come to invade or destroy our planet.

Let’s go into more details. When Hopper first approaches the alien ship, he gets stunned by some sort of electrical field. For all we know, he may have stuck his fingers in an alien power outlet. In fact, try this at home in your bathroom, you’re likely to suffer much worse than he did. Then the ships sound their horns to signal the aliens. And the aliens respond in a similar manner. Unfortunately, their horn is pitched too high, shattering windows and deafening humans. But they do try to answer a sound with a sound, just like the aliens in Close Encounters. At this point the humans, feeling threatened, fire at the aliens. Only then do the aliens return fire. And even then, they show considerable restraint, only slightly damaging one of the ships. It is only after the humans start behaving more aggressively that the aliens do likewise.

In fact, consistently and throughout the movie, the aliens are shown trying to avoid unnecessary violence, going out of their way to spare innocents.

Next, they find an alien on board. The alien, in a brief flash, tries to communicate telepathically with Hopper. What do we see there? Sure, explosions and war. But clearly, the alien is showing how the world he comes from has been devastated by war and how they try to escape it. The look on the alien’s face in this moment is revealing. Just after that, an alien is still on the ship. What is he trying to do? To sabotage the engine. We know that the aliens can blast the ship right out of the water if they want to, they’ve already done it twice. Yet, again, they go out of their way to cripple their opponent while inflicting minimum casualties. During this sequence the alien deliberately ignores a sailor because he is unarmed, focusing on his task.

Speaking of which, what kind of weapons do these aliens have? They have their peg launchers which, while efficient, are not even guided and actually less advanced than what we earthlings use today. The aliens themselves have no personal weapon whatsoever. The only thing that comes close is the shape shifting apparatus the chrome armoured aliens have at the end of their arm. (The other, thinner aliens in orange suits have nothing at all.) The only time we see it is in the above mentioned sequence in the ship’s engine room where it appears to be some sort of acetylene torch. In other forms, it appears the shift into some kind of tool. Whatever it is, they never use it in combat at any time during the movie.

Which brings us to the ball-drone things and probably one of the more controversial moments of the movie: the highway scene. Yes, it is probable that innocent people are killed in this sequence. However, if you look closely at the shot of the attack’s aftermath, the damage is not that extensive. It is a possibility that because the aliens need to cripple the road, they are forced to cause some collateral damage in the process. But are those the actions of aliens hell-bent on conquering and destroying a planet? If it was so, couldn’t the ball-drone go on a rampage, destroying buildings all over Hawaii? And of course, the ball-drone is shown sparing an innocent child a moment before wrecking the highway.

Later again, when the humans attack the aliens during the iconic battleship battle, what were the aliens doing? Apparently, minding their own business.

We then arrive to the most important sequence of the movie and the one which many people point to when they want to prove that the aliens are the bad guys. When the aliens try to send a signal back home to ask for reinforcements. But the truth is that we don’t know that. The characters in the movie assume that the aliens are asking for reinforcements but they have no evidence of what the aliens’ message will be and neither do we. In fact, the most likely message the aliens could send is “Don’t come. It’s a trap. The locals are hostile.”

Let’s take a look at the human characters now. The hero, Alex Hopper, is repeatedly portrayed as reckless, irresponsible, and making bad choices.
His Japanese counterpart, Captain Nagata is a psychopath: by his own assertion, he was trained to be a military grade sniper at the age of twelve.
Cal Zapata who is in charge of the radar station,: is a scientist. We could expect him to be clear headed, someone who bases his actions on solid facts. His very first line is “When they come, it will be like Columbus and the Indians, except we’ll be the Indians.” Even before the aliens show up, he expects them to be hostile.
Ordy is a simple headed redneck. His first lines? Racial slurs during the admiral’s speech.
Rihanna’s only contribution to the movie? How her dad warned her that someday we’d meet aliens and it won’t be pretty.
All the humans characters are depicted as trigger happy prejudiced idiots. Consistently.

Now, let’s see it from the aliens point of view. They receive a message from another planet. They decide to go there, conveniently landing near the signal’s source but in the ocean so as not to scare anyone or damage anything. Unfortunately, the communication module hits a satellite and crashes. They now have no way to call back home not to mention the fact the many of their friends and comrades are dead. Having landed, they find themselves facing the assembled armed forces of the entire planet. After no credible attempt at communication (how long does Hopper wait before attempting to board the alien after hailing them? Fifteen seconds?), the humans start attacking them. And even though they show restraint and go out of their way not to harm any people, the humans repeatedly attack them with everything they have.

Yes, once you realize that the aliens are not bloodthirsty invaders bent on destruction, but stranded peaceful explorers with no ill intent, the movie makes so much more sense.

But what then is the movie about? (Here; it is worthwhile to mention that the song over the end credits is Fortunate Son by Creedence Clearwater Revival, one of the first anti-war protest songs of the Vietnam era.) It is this: when America meets an alien culture it doesn’t understand, its standard course of action is to send its army blast the aliens into oblivion and award them medals for saving the world.

To cleverly insert that subtext into a movie that looks so much like a Navy recruitment clip sponsored by the DoD, that is brilliant scriptwriting.

ratingshark - Rate the world around

Is there empathy for schizophrenia and can it get you insane?

Find out in Take Shelter.

“Thinking again over what he does in “Take Shelter,” I think an Oscar nomination for best actor would be well-deserved.” – Roger Ebert

Feel free to rate mine and add your own criteria.

ratingshark - Rate the world around

Christian Bale – leading role and producer in Harsh Times, quite successful combination. Really interesting perspective at men friendship. People above 30 and married will really appreciate it

harsh times

Overall score 66%. Thumbs up!

ratingshark - Rate the world around