Well, he is one of the most talented actors working today and probably hardly anyone knows his name. Although that is sure to change after the release of Quentin Tarantino’s western, The Hateful Eight.
When you look up Walton Goggins on IMDB the film that first comes up next to his name is Django Unchained. I find that extremely funny because he has quite a small part in that film and he has done much more substantial work. He is one of those character actors that you have probably seen in many works, but you just don’t know his name. His best work is mostly on TV; The Shield, Sons of Anarchy, Justified. But now Walton is (arguably) the star of The Hateful Eight.
In The Hateful Eight, Walton Goggins plays Chris Mannix. Chris has the most lines of any character in the film (and that’s A LOT of lines since it’s a Tarantino movie). Quentin specifically wrote the part for Walton. That’s pretty amazing, especially since Walton isn’t a very high profile actor.
But he deserves to be, and hopefully now he will get the attention he deserves. I recently started watching Justified not too long ago (I’m only on the fourth season still, so no spoilers!). Justified is a very good show that really hits its stride in its third and fourth seasons. The show hinges on the relationship between Raylan Givens (played by the wonderful Timothy Olyphant) and Boyd Crowder (Walton Goggins). It is so interesting to watch these two amazing characters/actors face off against each other. Raylan is a Deputy Marshall and Boyd is a hillbilly criminal mastermind. Often times the two are struggling against each other, but they also have moments when they are allies. Their interactions always feel organic and it is hard to know which character to root for. Walton has this great cadence as he plays Boyd. When Boyd speaks it feels as though the audience is being treated to a piece of poetry. Hard to believe when faced with Boyd’s appearance of wild hair and swastika tattoos. Walton creates so many layers to this character; Boyd is someone to be feared, but he also has a sympathetic heart at times. And he is also very funny. Boyd does terrible things at times, but when he proposes to Eva, his brother’s widow over a stack of drug money, you can’t help but feel your eyes tear up and hope that everything turns out the way Boyd wants it to. There are a million reasons to dislike Boyd, but Walton’s acting instead makes you love him.
When I was watching The Hateful Eight I was so excited when Walton came on the screen. I was so looking forward to hearing his lovely voice a la Boyd Crowder. After all, both Boyd and Chris Mannix are southern boys, so I figured Walton would play them in a similar way. But I was dead wrong. I was disappointed at first because Chris’s voice isn’t as poetic as Boyd’s. But Chris still has some of that same charm. I am amazed actually by how different Boyd and Chris are. The two characters are completely distinct from each other and both are quite amazing. The Hateful Eight is a very good film (not Tarantino’s best, but still good). I found the film lacks energy at times, but whenever the attention shifts to Walton suddenly everything becomes lively again. Chris seems to always be playing everyone else in the room and it makes me wonder whether he actually really was the sheriff.
Walton imbues Chris with all these little nuances and effectively steals every scene he is in. If you didn’t know who Walton Goggins was before, you’ll never forget him after The Hateful Eight.
Even though I haven’t been blogging lately that doesn’t mean that I haven’t been watching anything. I saw Sicario, The Martian, and finally started watching Game of Thrones. But nothing has really intrigued me enough to write about it. Until last night when I saw Legend, a film about London’s infamous Kray twins.
Legend itself isn’t a very good a film. It’s okay. The main problem is that it can’t decide what it wants to be. A gangster film or a romance? It really fails at the romantic elements, but the gangster bits are good. I think that if they had cut out almost everything to do with Frances (Emily Browning) the movie would have been a lot better (and shorter, it’s a tad too long). I had no sympathy for Frances and just found her annoying. Oh, woe is me, I married a gangster and he does gangster stuff and leaves me alone at night. Didn’t see that coming! Everything about Frances has been done before and it was just plain boring. I understand that the writer wanted to create this struggle between Frances and Ronald over Reggie, but it just doesn’t work.
But the Kray twins, Ron and Reggie (both played by Tom Hardy) are quite a bit of fun. In this film, Tom Hardy proves yet again that he is one of the best actors of his generation. I had some doubts back when I watched the trailer in May. I thought maybe Tom was overacting, especially as Ronald. But it turns out that I was very wrong. Tom is able to create these two very distinct and different characters. They are both fully formed and interesting. Reggie is suave, smooth, the brains of the operation. Ronald is chaotic, awkward, and all over the place. They are both oddly charming in their own ways. The thing that amazed me the most was I completely forgot that it was Tom Hardy playing both parts, I was just so absorbed in these characters. There is only one moment where Tom sort of wavered for me as Ron since I felt like his voice was going into Bane territory. But other than that he is superb as Ron, I loved all the little mannerisms. And Tom was also surprisingly funny in both roles. Legend gets 7/10, but Tom Hardy gets 10/10.
Back in April I gave my initial thoughts on Black Mass and Johnny Depp after seeing the first trailer for the film. Well, the time has finally come to pass down my judgement on Johnny. Does Johnny electrify the screen as real life gangster Whitey Bulger? Will he restore his reputation as one of the all-time greats?
The answer is… Johnny and his film fall somewhere in the middle: neither amazing nor bad. Overall I really enjoyed Black Mass and Johnny Depp, but neither wowed me. Johnny gives a very good performance; menacing, charming, funny. The makeup and costuming seem to enhance his performance instead of distracting from it. It’s the closest Johnny has come to playing a genuine human being in a long time.
The fault with the film, which also hurts Depp, is that it is told neither from Whitey’s POV nor from John Connolly’s (played by the delicious Joel Edgerton). Whitey, of course, did not participate in the making of the film and has basically shit all over it and Depp (without having seen it). And since Connolly wouldn’t even testify against Whitey in real life, I highly doubt he contributed anything. This has a great effect on the film as neither Whitey nor Connolly is the main character, instead switching between the two constantly and relying constantly on the accounts of other characters. Because of this the film seems to have nothing to say. It is a great collection of some neat scenes and performances, but there is no direction to it. Is Whitey good, bad, a bit of both? Is Connolly? Yes, Connolly has a strong attachment to Whitey because of their childhood, but there must be a little more to it than that. The film does not explore any of this, instead just skimming the surface of the two men’s lives.
This lack of depth is what keeps the film from becoming anything other than pretty good. Joel Edgerton was the highlight for me as at least his character evolves and changes, unlike Whitey who remains static. Although the film acts as though he changes after two significant deaths in his life, but that change never comes across very well. The cast is all stellar except for Benedict Cumberbatch (he’s okay, but pretty much just a glorified cameo). I liked Black Mass, but it is just a Scorsese wannabe. 7 Joel Edgerton pouts out of 10.
And yes, Johnny did kind of win my love back. Just a little. (It’s so hard not to like the guy and he still has those killer cheekbones).
Sorry I’ve been absent from blogging lately, but as we all know, life happens. I haven’t been watching too much lately (other than speeding through some Sopranos which is for a future post), but I did manage to see Guy Ritchie’s film adaptation of The Man from Uncle.
The premise of the film is right up my alley: two cold war spies, one American and one Russian, team up to take on some generic bad guys. The film ended up being fairly average overall. The plot was okay and the film was never boring. But it was also never exciting. I really enjoyed the chemistry between the three leads and that’s why I hope there will be a sequel. Armie Hammer is brilliant even if his Russian accent isn’t always perfect. Henry Cavill looks beautiful and he displays a lot of charisma, something that he wasn’t able to show in Man of Steel. The two men bounce off each other quite well and carry the film. Alicia Vikander is good as per usual, but she is nowhere near as good as she was in Ex Machina. She is serviceable, but other than some scenes with Armie she doesn’t elevate the film at all. The worst part of the movie: the editing. At times it was very bizarre and the flashbacks to five seconds before hand seemed unnecessary. The Man from Uncle gets 6.5/10.
Ray Donovan: Season 3 So Far…
I haven’t been posting about Ray Donovan because it’s been so…dull. Things have picked up a little with the last few episodes. But I recently re-watched season 2. It was a great season because by about the third or fourth episode the stakes felt very high. So everything that happened was exciting and felt vital. Season 3 got to about episode 7 or 8 before it became mildly exciting. The characters all seem to be spinning their wheels. Other than Bunchy and his new bride, Teresa. Bunchy has evolved into a stronger character that I really wasn’t expecting. And I love the way Teresa talks to Ray and stands up for Bunchy. The last episode, “The Octopus,” was touching as Ray gave Bunchy away to Teresa (figuratively, not literally). The episode was also good because there were no Finneys. Katie Holmes, and yes, even the wonderful Ian McShane, have been very disappointing.
Over the last couple of weeks I’ve managed to get not one, but TWO blogging awards! I’m always amazed to get just one, but two?! Holy guacamole.
The first award, The Creative Blogger award, comes from mlbradford. I love Brad’s site so it’s an honor to get an award from him.
The second award is The Blogger Recognition award courtesy of Elena. Elena has a great site filled with great insight into films and books. Please go check it out.
I’m going to cheat a little and nominate just five bloggers for the Creative Blogger award. The nominees are…
• Reel Red Reviews
• Back to the Viewer
• Assholes Watching Movies
• The Movie Review Dude
The (well, my) rules:
List 5 facts about yourself
Nominate 5 blogs
Mission Impossible: Rouge Nation Praise Xenu! Tom Cruise has made another incredibly fun action movie. It’s a blast from start to finish. Is it believable? Hell no, but who cares? I loved Tom as always and his crazy stunts. It really does add something vital to the film knowing that he is actually doing them. But my favorite thing was Rebecca Ferguson. I watched her on The White Queen (I should really finish that show) a few months ago and fell in love with her then. She’s a great, very talented actress. And she’s a surprisingly good action star. It’s great to see more good, well rounded female characters in action films these days (this movie, Fury Road). I really like Ilsa because while she is sexy and beautiful those qualities don’t define her character. And while she and Ethan Hunt have chemistry, the movie never resorts to contriving a romance between them. They seem more like two highly skilled spies that can admire and respect each other. Rogue Nation gets 9 BMWs out of 10.
As a child I was a huge dinosaur fanatic. I watched The Land Before Time over and over again and I had a whole herd of dinosaur toys. Speaking of Littlefoot, I think I’ll be revisiting him soon for the Childhood Films Blogathon put on by Let’s Go to the Movies. I watched Jurassic Park, of course, but I was only 2 years old when it originally came out. So it was never a big favorite of mine, I think it was just too scary for me. But anyways, while that particular movie wasn’t huge to me, dinosaurs were and it has carried over a bit into adulthood (my favorite animals are alligators, the modern dinosaur).
So going into Jurassic World I wasn’t actually all that excited. I was really surprised by its huge opening weekend. I wanted to see some dinosaurs and the Pratt, I didn’t have huge expectations. Which was probably a good thing because I was able to enjoy the movie while watching it. But afterward, when I wasn’t looking at the gorgeous dinosaurs anymore, I found the movie to be underwhelming.
My biggest problem with the movie is its characters. You know there’s a problem with a movie when the velociraptor, Blue, is the most dynamic character with the best story arc. Seriously. He is the only one who has to make an interesting choice (mlbradford’s post helped me come to this conclusion). Everyone else is so predictable. The two boys are funny, but otherwise bland, but that’s kind of to be expected. The Pratt is pretty interesting, but we don’t learn all that much about him. Like, how the heck do you become a raptor whisperer and where can I sign up? And of course, as is typical with blockbuster films, the weakest, most disappointing character is Claire as played by Bryce Dallas Howard. I didn’t mind her being a shrew character to start with it’s just that… the film goes nowhere with it. She’s a total bitch who doesn’t care about her nephews until the Indominus Rex is on the loose. Then suddenly she cares (probably only because she doesn’t want to take the blame if they get killed) and she’s also weeping over a dead brontosaur. She goes from point A to C with no in between. And same goes for her relationship with Owen (The Pratt). They’re complete opposites who suddenly make out at the end. WTF?!?!?! But shout out to BD Wong for being awesome as always! Seriously, the guy hardly does anything, but he’s still one of my favorite parts.
The plot of Jurassic World is quite predictable, the characters are relatively boring. But the action sequences are genuinely exciting. The final fight was great, definitely my favorite moment of the film. I loved seeing the gorgeously rendered dinosaurs, even if the CGI seems to take away some of their magic. Jurassic World is a fun movie, it’s just not as intelligent as it wants to be. I like some of the themes it explores (what constitutes a weapon, ownership, playing God, animals and their capacity for feeling, etc), but it doesn’t explore any of them at great depth. I give Jurassic World7/10 6/10(-1 point for the RIDICULOUS AMOUNT of product placements. SERIOUSLY. ENOUGH. I GET IT.) velociraptors simply because I love a good dinosaur fight and I wish I could look as cool as Chris Pratt riding a motorcycle in a herd of raptors. And the answer is yes, I would still go to Jurassic Park in real life, a little Indominus Rex doesn’t scare me!
If you’re a follower of my blog (which evidently you are) you’ve noticed my header image is from one of the best moments in David Fincher’s American adaptation/remake of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. I chose this image because it is one of my favorite, powerful moments in cinema, it is one of my favorite films, and because I kind of look like Rooney Mara. So my love and admiration for this film is obvious right from the start. So today’s post is going to be a little different. I don’t need to review the film and tell you it’s good, that’s already obvious. I want to examine the film in terms of its place within cinema as both an adaptation of a novel and a remake of a foreign film.
I recently came across Smartling, a translation software company, and since I’m obsessed with movies, I immediately started thinking about movies and their relationship with language, particularly in foreign remakes. David Fincher had a very difficult task when it came to remaking The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. First, he had to adapt the Swedish novel written by Stieg Larsson. This necessitated the challenge of translating the novel into an American screenplay, preserving the themes and Swedish setting of the story, all while making it more appealing and understandable to Western audiences. But then Fincher also had the challenge of remaking a film that had already been very recently made in Sweden. The three Swedish Millenium films were all released in 2009, just two years before Fincher’s. So Fincher had to remain faithful to the novel, make it more cinematic, and differentiate his film from the already successful (even to American audiences) Swedish version.
Language is an extremely important tool human beings have for communicating. In today’s internet driven culture different cultures can now communicate with one another seamlessly and more easily than ever before. It is integral to get the best, most accurate translation in order to not misconstrue what someone is saying. The makers of the English Girl with the Dragon Tattoo would have had to rely heavily on translators of the Swedish novel. One key difference of the English and Swedish versions of the novel and films is in its title. In Sweden, Larrson’s Millennium trilogy is known as Män Som Hatar Kvinnor (Men Who Hate Women). This title coveys a strong feminist message and perceives society (particularly Sweden’s) as misogynistic. English publishers decided to discard this title and instead went with The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo. This title is much blander, free of any social commentary and in no way attempts to convey the message of the novel. This was a conscious choice made by translators and the publishers. It is a good example of how translation can have such a huge impact on a work of art.
The biggest and most obvious choice Fincher and the American producers made when remaking TGWTDT film was to have the characters speak in English. This is essential to adapting a foreign film for American audiences. There are three key actors to Fincher’s film and the relationship each of them has with language is noteworthy. First, there is Rooney Mara, an American actress, playing the heroine Lisbeth Salander. Rooney is a native American speaker, but in the film she speaks English with a Swedish accent. This helps to reaffirm her character’s nationality and the setting of the film while making sure English audiences can easily understand her. Then we have Daniel Craig as Mikael Blomkvist. Daniel is an English actor (helloooo James Bond) speaking in his natural, English voice. He chooses to not affect any kind of accent. Finally we have Stellan Skarsgård, a very famous Swedish actor. Here he speaks English (his second language) with a Swedish accent (his native language). An interesting little soup isn’t it? Why did Fincher allow his actors to make these choices? In order to imbue the film with a hybridity. It successfully straddles both the American and Swedish worlds. It isn’t realistic, but it is effective in communicating the story to English audiences while staying true to the story’s setting.
The setting of the film and its place in Swedish history is integral to its plot. This isn’t a story that you can adapt to an American setting, it would lose much of its commentary, particularly that on present day Nazism. So Fincher keeps the film in Sweden and mixes the two languages together. None of the actors speak any Swedish in the film (apart from the odd Herr Blomkvist), they only speak in English. But the texts that they read are both English and Swedish, enhancing the hybridity of the film. Television news crawls are in English as are store signs and Millennium magazine. But everything Salander reads on her computer is in English, as are most of the newspaper clippings she reads, and the bible. It’s a great way of submerging the viewer in Sweden while still making sure that they understand the integral elements of the story. The things that Lizbeth reads are extremely important to her investigation, thus they are in English while cans of cat food are not so important. This hybridity is one of my favorite elements of the film.
Another example of hybridity is evident in the opening sequence of the American film. This opening is stunning both visually and musically, I remember seeing it in theaters and thinking that it was nearly orgasmic. It is just such a rush, especially on the big screen. The images conveyed are symbols that can be understood no matter what language you speak. But with his choice of music Fincher again emphasizes his films hybridity. “Immigrant Song” is an infamous song, originally done by Led Zeppelin. It is a song about Swedish immigration sung by an English band from their perspective. Fincher twists the song for his opening sequence by making it a cover sung by Karen O, a South Korean/American artist. So Fincher is appropriating the song by giving it a female voice/perspective as well as imitating his own remake with the song cover. It’s a powerful sequence that mirrors the entire film perfectly both visually and musically.
As you can see when you examine David Fincher’s The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo a little more closely, language, translation, and intention are extremely important to how a remake of a foreign film will be perceived by American audiences. Fincher may tweak the story here and there, but it only serves to strengthen the thematic messages of the novel. He also combats the language challenge by employing a hybridity of language, creating a time and place that is both Swedish and English. This is strengthened by the choices his actors make with their Swedish accents or lack thereof as well as his use of the “Immigrant Song.” The audience and the film itself are both aware of the film’s status as both a translation and a remake. The ways Fincher faces this challenge make this film an incredible cinematic work.
Big shout out to the following video which helped inspire this post: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNAGsOw8e0M
This is a mostly spoiler free review. I love Tom Hardy, so my boyfriend feels the need to hate him. How can anyone hate Tom Hardy? Look at him!
Ok, enough of that. Fury Road has quite a simple plot. In a post-apocalyptic world Max (Tom Hardy) and Furiosa (Charlize Theron) team up to escape the wrath of the grotesque Immortan Joe. Mad Max: Fury Road is a film unlike any other. Well, except for maybe the other Mad Max films (which I have not seen). It manages to be extremely heavy on the action without ever losing the audience’s attention or the focus of its plot. This film is lean and mean in the best sense. There are no confusing subplots and every detail and action feels necessary. The screen play and the direction of this film is outstanding, all thanks to the vision of George Miller. Fury Road is an example of a director totally unleashing his creative talent with no impediments. And it pays off big time. Warner Brothers gave Miller all the money and time he needed and it resulted in one of the best action films ever made. The visuals are stunning, this is the best film I’ve seen in 3D.
I really enjoyed the simplicity of Fury Road. Furiosa has a goal, get the wives away from Immortan Joe, and Max is just kind of along for the ride. The film handles gender politics very skillfully. Miller doesn’t hit you over the head with feminism or really any philosophy. He just lets the world and its characters exist and the audience can infer from there what the movie’s message is. It’s a subtlety that I really appreciated. Furiosa is a great creation of Miller’s that is made even more amazing by Charlize’s performance. Furiosa feels like a real woman, something that Hollywood often has a difficult time representing. Furiosa is tough, capable, but she is also extremely vulnerable and maintains a sense of femininity despite her buzz cut.
The plot is completely owned by Furiosa as are the more emotional aspects of the film. But Tom Hardy still does a great job as the titular character, even if he is more of a supporting character. Tom shines with the physicality of the character (a defining trait for the actor in all his films). He excels in the action sequences. But the most enjoyable aspect is his somewhat surprising comedic abilities. Another reviewer likened Tom to Buster Keaton. And I have to agree. His mannerisms, facial expressions, and grunts were often hilarious. Tom brings some much needed levity to a film that otherwise would have been very heavy and too serious. Tom has a great gift for comedy, it would be great to see him show it off more. Mad Max: Fury Road has everything I personally want in a film. Key word being ‘personally.’ This will not be a film for everyone, it may be too overwhelming for some and not have enough dialogue. But it completes my checklist. There is gasp inducing action sequences that dominate the film. There is a simple plot with a powerful message of redemption as well as an examination of our society. There is a strong, well rounded, realistic woman. And there is Tom Hardy with his gorgeous face and joyful sense of humor. This film has to be experienced on the big screen and preferably in 3D. Mad Max: Fury Road is one of the best, most enjoyable and thoughtful action films I have ever seen 9/10
I have been looking forward to this movie for quite some time and it finally came to my city. And it did not disappoint. The film is about a computer programmer (Domhnall Gleeson) who is selected to participate in an experiment evaluating the human qualities of an A.I (Alicia Vikander).
I’m not normally a big fan of sci-fi films (aside from Blade Runner) so I haven’t seen a lot of films about Artificial Intelligence. But luckily no prior knowledge is needed to enjoy this film, one of the great things about it is that it explains some of the science behind A.I. in an interesting way. I came into this film wanting an intellectual experience mixed in with some horror elements. And that’s exactly what I got along with some great, dark humor. The film looks great, the cinematography and the sets are excellent. The CGI on Ava (the A.I.) is quite convincing. The score is one of my favorite aspects of the film. There is a lot of dialogue in this movie, so the score really livens the scenes and adds a lot of tension.
The best part of Ex Machina is the actors. Domhnall Gleeson is perfect as the sweet, intelligent programmer Caleb. Alicia Vikander is wonderful as Ava. She has a really tough job, but she pulls it off quite well. Everything from the way she moves to the way she talks is spot on. But of the three actors Oscar Isaac is my favorite, he steals each scene he is in. He’s hilarious, scary, intelligent and charismatic. He has quickly become one of my favorite actors. After the film I told my boyfriend that Oscar is an actor I would see in anything. My boyfriend was a little perplexed because I’ve only seen Oscar in two films. But he has really impressed me lately.
I highly recommend Ex Machina. It’s a great film, especially if you like your movies more on the talky, intellectual side. It kind of reminds me in a way of a modern Roman Polanski movie, something along the lines of Rosemary’s Baby (one of my favorite films). Ex Machina gets 9/10
I’ve received my second blogging award, this time the Liebster award! Break out the canned…pears! Thank you very much to The Movie Review Dude for nominating me, go check out his wonderful blog if you haven’t already. Also thank you to all the people that read my blog, I never thought anyone would care what I have to say. Doing this blog has been very rewarding (literally apparently). The Movie Review Dude came up with some great questions and here are my inadequate answers: 1) Name something that inspires you. It can be anything, not necessarily human. Great actors and great characters are what inspire me. They inspire my writing (both reviews as well as some creative writing) as well as my life (Angelina Jolie and her humanitarian missions for example). 2) I’m willing to pay you to blog, so sell yourself: what is the best aspect of your blog? The best aspect of my blog… my readers have a much better idea of that than I do. I would say my attention to detail, I try to give the best reviews that I possibly can. 3) What do you love most? Book, film, TV or other? Very hard to choose here. In general I love movies the most, BUT sometimes there is nothing as amazing as a great TV series. 4) Going by your answer to question three: what was either A the last book you read, B) TV show you binge-watched on Netflix (or illegally downloaded, just don’t say you did) or C) the last film you saw in cinema? If it’s D) other, name the last thing you did with that. I think it’s been about two months since I went to the movie theater, which is odd for me. So I think Focus was the last one I saw. 5) Of that last book / TV show binge / film watched / other thing you did: briefly tell us about it and give the experience a score out of ten. You can just go read my review. 6) Sky-diving, bungee-jumping or para-sailing? Maybe para-sailing. 7) Your house is on fire; your all-time favourite book / TV series / film / other are in the building, along with your treasured family heirlooms, several family members (who have left you a vast fortune in their wills), several cute, baby animals and a phone number belonging to a famous celebrity you so badly want to spend the rest of your life with. You may only choose one; how do you explain leaving the rest behind? This question is really tough! I would scoop up as many baby animals as possible, my Rocket Raccoon pillow, my copy of Anna Karenina (I have written so many notes in it so to me it’s irreplaceable), and then just before dashing out of the house I would grab Liev Schreiber’s phone number. 8) If you could change history and put your name to anything in existence, what would it be and why? Batman. Who wouldn’t want to be like, “Yeah, I created the coolest super hero ever!” 9) What musical act can you just not get enough of right now? Or, what musical act have you just had enough of right now? I don’t listen to pretty much any recent music, I only listen to old stuff. Although I’m kind of excited for Muse’s new album. I’ve been listening to their new song Dead Inside a lot. 10) You are in hospital and terminally ill. You will receive a visit from a person of your choosing. Who is that person and what do you talk about? Assuming that my family are already visiting me I would say Angelina Jolie. Because she’s a saint and she would heal me. And we would talk about life, humanitarian stuff, movies, and Brad Pitt. 11) You’re enjoying a nice, sunny Sunday afternoon at home when there’s a knock at the door. It’s me (don’t ask how you know, you just do) and I’m up for whatever. What are we doing today? Calling the police is not an option. I’m pretty boring so we would hit up a comic book shop then go play pool.
Ok now I have to nominate eight (I cheated, I was supposed to do eleven but that seems like a lot) bloggers so here you go, congrats. No need to do a post if you’ve been nominated recently:
What is your most unique quality? What can you do or what do you have that no one else does? (Does that make sense?)
Choose one of these actors to marry, one to fuck, one to kill and one to just ignore: Chris Hemsworth, Chris Pratt, Chris Evans, and Chris Pine.
What was the last television show you binge watched?
Where would you like to travel to the most?
Goodfellas or The Godfather?
Robert Deniro or Al Pacino?
What is the one movie that makes you feel great every time you watch it?
All I really have to say about this is what the fuck. Repeatedly. I love Trainspotting (both the book and the movie) and I love James McAvoy, so I thought I would love Filth as well. But I was very wrong. Filth has it’s good moments. It is very funny at times. And James gives an incredible performance, like nothing else he has ever done. But there was just too much weird shit for me, too many characters, and too many subplots that go nowhere. The screenplay could have benefited greatly from more focus. 4/10 (Sorry for the half-assed review)