Tag: Vincent Cassel

To start this review, let’s talk about Underwater as a concept.

What does it mean to be underwater? Usually, someone who says that they are underwater means they have water above them. And they are rarely actually under water while speaking, because that is hard to do when surrounded by water.

But if you have water over you, there is a good chance you still have more water under you too. Right? To be under something you really just need to be under a little bit of it apparently. You can be completely surrounded by water, so why would you be so weirdly specific in order to just say you are under it?

Seems ridiculous. Speaking of being ridiculous and not super specific, let’s get on to the review.

Not much water surrounding these folks!

As you will try to read very quickly at the start of the film, as newspaper headlines/taglines/regular lines flash across the screen with the occasional strobe, there are big underwater research/drilling sites. Super big, bottom of the ocean, with drills going far down. Why? Energy or something. And I guess some earthquakes are happening and weird things. But we don’t have time for that.

We only have time for Norah (Kristen Stewart), who is contemplating what it means to exist and sleep and work, when the explosions immediately start rocking the ship. Panic, running, and immediately she helps save the day by blocking the water from blowing up the whole place. Norah, along with some stranglers she meets (Mamoudou Athie, T.J. Miller) make it up to the escape pods, and darn it, they are already gone.

She does meet the captain (Vincent Cassel) and some more crew members (Jessica Henwick, John Gallagher Jr.) and realize they don’t have much time to get out. The top is collapsing. The bottom is flooded. They make a quick plan to descend to the sea floor, get int these sweet underwater suits, and walk a long distance to an older station that should still have some escape pods. It is their only chance.

But what caused the explosions down there? What made the horrible sounds in the last drill recording, what is banging on their walls, and what is out for their blood?

Not great for speed swimming, but good for not blowing up purposes.

I expected Underwater to be much worse than it actually ended up being.

I saw a giant standee for it a few months ago and sent it to my wife that it would be bad. It had T.J. Miller on the standee, third name! What? The Bomb threat guy? The one who beat his girlfriend? The drunk and wants to fight man? Why is he in a movie right now?

Oh, turns out this was made in 2017, before a lot of that, and took forever to come out.

Now surprinsgly, it wasn’t completely terrible. Miller was terrible yes. And the film early on had an issue where it refused to let the audience fully react to scenes or let us see how characters got out of a jam. Quick jumps in time, that gets us through potentially boring struggles I guess? One quite annoying one had them crashing to the sea floor on a ride, hurrying to get the door open to jump, and then the next instant they were all on the sea floor running. What the hell? Where’s my jump?

A lot of the film uses the dark depths and hard to distinguish up/down to its advantage to confuse the viewer. But honestly, the monsters were really a cool design. I love what they did with them. Reminded me of underwater ghost vampires in a way, and sure, Cthulhu in another.

This film gets straight to the point at the beginning, and isn’t a long run time. It is relatively predictable, but it has some sweet visuals that can produce some scares and some relatively fun moments.

2 out of 4.

The Bourne series of films are not my overall cup of tea. The original trilogy got worse with each additional movie for me, with less realism, and overall just less interest. They got really close to Luc Besson Euro-Trash level of films.

But The Bourne Legacy I did enjoy, most since Identity, because it at least gave me something different. I was mostly alone with these thoughts and people were angry at Jeremy Renner and wanted their Matt Damon on. In fact, they never even considered having Renner involved. Pretty crazy.

So now we have Jason Bourne. A return to Jason Bourne the character. Apparently we know his name. Apparently this is what we want and need. And yes, I hate the title of this, the fifth film. Makes it feel like a reboot.

I honestly can’t hype up shirtless Matt Damon like I can other actors.

In this time line, Jason (Damon) is minding his own business, kicking ass in gambling fighting rings and keeping to himself. But you know who isn’t keeping to herself? Nicky Parsons (Julia Stiles), a member of their same program who also has gone rogue. But she is a hacker or something, so she goes to Reykjavík to access the CIA database and steal a lot of files. The CIA of course finds out and tries to tack her. But not before Nicky can contact Jason to let him know that he NEEDS to know more.

Like that Jason’s dad (Gregg Henry) is involved in all of this, or was, back in the day. That he may have been considered for the program before he volunteered to sign up. That he could have been watched for a long time. Oh no! Time to get some classic Bourne revenge. Once he can get out of Athens and the political riots existing for reasons. Probably the economy. Dunno.

His revenge is going to be against CIA Director Robert Dewey (Tommy Lee Jones), who has been there for awhile even though this is the first time you have heard about him. He has a new head of technology or something, Heather Lee (Alicia Vikander), who is going to use her sweet computer skills to find Bourne and Parsons. There is also a CIA agent who we only know as Asset (Vincent Cassel) who would love to get some Bourne revenge and Riz Ahmed playing the creator of some sort of website/social networking thing that people really love for not spying on its users.

Also starring Ato Essandoh, Scott Shepherd, and Bill Camp.

There has to be a way for this still to not make everyone look like uncomfortable mannequins.

Bourne Bourne Bourne. I might be doing some revisionist history here, but I feel like what I remember about The Bourne Identity is that it helped kill James Bond and also introduced us to shaky-cam for action movies. It added some realism to the fights making them more chaotic. I don’t remember them being that bad, but it has also been many years since I saw that film.

Jason Bourne goes to some EXTREMES with the shaky cam aspect. It goes to more extremes than Billy Joel. And it isn’t just shaky cams. We get quick cuts all over the place, and the camera zooming in quickly into peoples faces. Zooming in, cut, cut, shake, zoom. The hacking scenes early on felt EXTREMELY HECTIC and it just never stopped. We had shaky cam for people just walking into hotels and restaurants, completely chill situations, but there is no time to relax.

About a third of the way through the movie, I had a headache, and yes, it stuck with me for the rest of the film. At least with Hardcore Henry I barely got a headache and it offered something original. In this movie, it is Bourne finds out new secret information about the government program some how and gets revenge. Like every Bourne film before that (I think, I forget).

The ending has an extremely long and disaster filled car chase, but it is so over the top, any level of previous realism the franchise had is just thrown out of the window. It wasn’t enjoyable, it just dragged. Not to mention understanding just what is happening during it is a battle in itself. You know why. The constant cuts and shakes. It wasn’t Getaway bad, but it was damn near close.

For Jason Bourne, the stakes just aren’t there. The Asset is an interesting character at least, someone who Bourne did screw over. So I could not find myself cheering his eventual demise because of other plot reasons. This film wants to launch more Bourne films, it leaves it way too open with more secrets to find out. And they will be made but I will not be happy to see them if they keep up this repetitive plot line and refuse to change it up for once. Or maybe, just maybe, make the damn thing watchable.

1 out of 4.

Fairy tales have been getting a bad rap for the last…I dunno, 60 years? Basically once Disney started to get their paws on them, everything became tamer and lamer. (Hey! That rhymes!)

But we all know that fairy tales used to have a darker past. Not everything was happily ever after. Fuck, some of the most famous ones were done by the Grimm brothers. It is in their name!

Now some of the darkness is coming back. We got the very strange Hansel & Gretel: Witch Hunters, and Into The Woods is now gaining national exposure with a (dumbed down) film version.

They are still dealing with fairy tales we have heard over and over again. What about the less famous ones? They have to be out there, and I want to be surprised. Tale of Tales is an Italian made film, but in English, that decides to showcase three stories you haven’t heard before.

And calling them dark doesn’t even begin to scratch the surface.

Three nearby kingdoms live in harmony, all with their own issues. But first, a queen (Salma Hayek) needs a son. Her King (John C. Reilly) cannot help her with her desires, but a necromancer (Franco Pistoni) knows what to do. A water dragon must be slayed, his heart prepared by a virgin, and once the queen eats it, she will instantly have a child.

Complications occur, sacrifices might be made, but damn it, she finally has a kid (Christian Lees). Except he has a virtual twin, as the virgin also finds herself pregnant with child (Jonah Lees), and the brotherly bonds end up being a bit greater than the mother son bonds.

Nearby, a king (Toby Jones) ends up becoming interested in a flea that he finds on his body. The flea becomes a pet to him, growing larger and larger, taking up more of his time. He has a wonderful daughter (Bebe Cave), but she is ignored for his other passions. And even though he tries to protect her from leaving the kingdom and getting married, his own distractions will lead to peril.

And finally, another king (Vincent Cassel) is unmarried and a sex fiend, bedding everyone in the kingdom. But there is one woman he is not able to see, just heard her voice. He must have her, not knowing it is an old lady (Hayley Carmichael), living with another old lady (Shirley Henderson), who decide to play with his emotions.

Dragon hearts?! I didn’t know Dennis Quaid was in this movie!

At first, Tale of Tales seemed to be a story that took a lot of work, but failed to maintain high levels of interest. That was only about 5-10 minutes of the film though. After that, I found it hard to look away. Despite its 130 minute run time, I almost wanted it to go on forever.

The director of this picture had an amazing level of detail. From costumes, to music, to lighting, to cinematography. The only celebrities in this picture play the Kings and Queens, but even Toby Jones is questionable in terms of his celebrity status. Despite being recognizable, they don’t distract from the wonderful story that is told.

And like fairy tales, they have their common themes, they have their morals, except the film doesn’t spell it out for you like you are a child. You are expected to pay attention, figure out who is wrong and if anyone is actually right in any of the stories. If there is one thing I was disappointed in with the film, it is that the three stories weren’t more connected to each other. The stories all play out slowly throughout the film, it isn’t one complete story then the next. But I was hoping characters in each would appear throughout, but they are only connected at the very beginning and end.

Tale of Tales is also brutal. I listed Horror as one of the tags, because of the sense of dread several pats of the story induce. People will die. Graphic things occur and there is nothing we can do to stop them.

It is also a film that is so wonderfully put together, I hope the director is later inspired to give me even more tales in the future. I would watch this movie again and again. But maybe not four times. That’d be too many.

4 out of 4.

Trance came out in theaters in late March, but apparently never came close to my area, so I had to wait until the DVD Release.

You’d think a college town would be able to justify more indie and lesser known releases. But then again, you’d think a college town would also have trivia nights at their bars.

More importantly, Trance was directed by Danny Boyle. Surely the man who did 28 Days Later…, 127 Hours, and Slumdog Millionaire has earned post-indie status by now.

When he rubs his temple that way, my mind feels raped. According to this movie, stealing art used to be easy. You kind of just pranced into a museum, took it and ran, then went home and hid. Shit gets stolen, and a museum gets fucked. Nowadays, it is way high tech and almost impossible without a huge plan to do it. Okay, that isn’t true. Just read the beginning of this Cracked article which states basically the opposite with facts.

But let’s say for this movie art is hard to steal. Simon (James McAvoy) works as a dude who protects art in case someone tries to steam them when they are getting stolen. Guess what. Some people try to steal a famous painting, Witches In The Air, valued at over $25 million.

Franck (Vincent Cassel) and his crew (including Danny Sapani) steal the shit out of that painting, while also knocking out Simon for trying to be a hero. But when they look at their new score, they find that the painting is gone. Shit. What did Simon do!?

Too bad Simon doesn’t remember what he did with the painting. The men who tried to steal it are pretty pissed off, and have tortured him and tore up all of his things. But still, he just does not remember.

So they get a hypnotist, Elizabeth (Rosario Dawson). However, when she begins to work her mind magic, she discovers secrets that none of the individuals thought possible.

Rosario Dawson shows a lot of her…acting talents in this movie. First things first, for you fucking perverts out there. Rosario Dawson for the first time is completely nude in this movie. Like full frontal, lower and upper, multiple times, no body double nude. She is also shaved. Which is relevant to the plot of the movie. I feel dirty saying all of that, but not really.

There are only three main characters in this movie, but Danny Boyle makes sure you have to work to earn the story. There are twists, there are turns, there are mind fucks. If you stop paying attention, you might not be able to keep up, so it really rewards those people who don’t have short attention spans. It assumes the watcher is intelligent, and will take you on an (often really loud) journey.

I think by the end the story might have gotten a bit too ahead of itself, making too many leaps and bounds. Despite that, it was still a great story, another fantastic movie from Danny Boyle, and another reason why I hate the local theaters.

3 out of 4.

If you have no idea who Mesrine is, then you should probably read the review of part one, of this two part movie series. That way you knowledge can increase by about 3% on the subject!

Knowledge, it makes you happy.

After the events of the first film, Mesrine (Vincent Cassel) found himself alone, on the run, and mad. How does Mesrine: Public Enemy #1 begin? Shit, with Mesrine dying. Spoilers? Not really. Hopefully you would guess a nationwide gangster ended his career in prison or in death. Why they started with his body, not sure.

Last time we got to see kidnapping, killing, some extortion and breaking away from the police twice.

Well this movie is really no different. Some more escapes, some more kidnapping. He has different lovers in this film (Ludivine Sagnier). Some notable police workers (Oliver Gourmet and Christophe Vandevelde). And of course new accomplices and criminals (Gerard Lanvin, Mathieu Amalric, and Samuel Le Bihan).

Why be vague? I explained that last time. Because its all about the experience, damn it.

There must be some kind of way out of here, said the gangster to the thief. In prison.

But is it ust as good? To me, it didn’t feel as good. It is a bit longer, but I think a lot could have been cut out. Overall, it just felt like more of the same.

Maybe my problem is considering it two movies (you know, because it was released that way…) and not as one super really long movie. But in that case, overall it might have been better to just make it like a long three hour movie instead of a little bit over four hours overall. I guess it is because it became more of a biography and really did want to talk about all of his exploits. Not just the cool shit. I respect that, but I didn’t care about most of it.

I will say his death was kind of bad ass, as were his escapes. I also loved that everytime he got caught he was generally happy. Posing for the press, making great courtroom stands and what not. Then you know, escaping. Well done Mesrine.

2 out of 4.

Gangsters have had a place pretty much in all first world countries. Because if they weren’t first world countries, they’d probably just be called Warlords or something similar. Apparently France is not an exception.

Of course, like every good gangster, he needs to have rockin’ facial hair.

Mesrine: Killer Instinct is the biographical film of France’s most famous gangster, Jacques Mesrine (Vincent Cassel). However it only goes over his beginnings, his rise to power, and escape from prison.

There is more to the story than that. There is even worse crimes, and public enemy number 1 status, which is told in the second half (appropriately named), Mesrine: Public Enemy #1. Hmm, I wonder what will be reviewed tomorrow.

We get at least two loves of his life, in Sofia (Elena Anaya) and Jeanne (Cecile De France). The former his first love who didn’t want him involved in crime after his first prison stint, and the latter, a nice partner in crime who wouldn’t let him break her out of prison to save his own life.

We have some bank robberies, kidnapping, you know, the normal gangster stuff. Maybe some extortion. Lots of money. Lots of danger. He was more than a French criminal too, going to both Quebec and the US at least in his crime pursuits. One of his “bosses” is Guido (Gerard Depardieu), aka the only name I’ve heard before actor wise. He also gets an accomplice Jean-Paul Mercier (Roy Dupuis) who helps him out, and helps him break out of prison.

The film ends, with Mesrine out of jail, now on the run with no real plans for his future. He has now killed some more innocent people, and the latest love of his life has left him. Shit, that guy is about to snap. It played out like a “You think you’re bad? You haven’t seen nothing yet!” type moment, and then went straight to credits.

You know the jizz in your face motion? It works a lot better with a gun and lots of money.

Think that review was disjointed and random? Well that was on purpose. Since this is a true story with a bit of artistic license, arguably the events in the movie and the next are some form of public knowledge (somewhere). You know he is a gangster, and thus will do gangster things. I just really wanted to show some characters and explain the situation. Because there is a second half to be reviewed later, spoilers don’t really feel like an option in terms of how it ends, so instead the spoilers will be most of the actual details and plot. Hooray!

I thought Vincent Cassel did a kick ass job as a gangster, and I am excited to see where the character goes in the second half of his life.

Some parts were a bit confusing, I am sure the filmmakers didn’t feel the need to explain everything to the French audience, but since I knew nothing I had to figure it out on my own. But it wasn’t that much of a nuisance.

3 out of 4.