Year: 2012
Genre: Crime drama
Director: John Hillcoat
Plot: Based on the true story of the Bondurant brothers, who ran an illegal moonshine business during the Prohibition era in the 1930s.
The gist: This is one of those stories where the outlaws are the good guys and the lawmen are the villains. In this case, we follow the lives of the Bondurant brothers: Jack, Forrest and Howard, who make and sell illegal moonshine during the Prohibition era. They face a threat in the form of a corrupt lawman named Charlie Rakes, who wants a cut of their profits.
The story is solid but the way the story is told is rather weak. In the middle portion of the film, attention is diverted to the brothers' personal lives, where Jack courts the local priest's daughter while Forrest gets involved with their bar assistant, Maggie. Then we're suddenly shoved into the third act when Rakes steps back into the picture and a messy shootout becomes the film's climax. A bit more time spent on the story in the second half would really help.
The good: Tom Hardy, Jessica Chastain and Guy Pearce all put in great work here. Hardy is a man of few words as Forrest, but he's intense as heck. Pearce is suitably slimy as Rakes while Chastain is magnetic and vulnerable as Maggie. Kudos also to Hillcoat and the crew for the authentic sets and music score.
The bad: Shia Labeouf tries his best but he can't shake off the Sam Witwicky persona. He's much better as Jack here than in Transformers though. Also the above mentioned weak storytelling, and Gary Oldman is totally wasted in the role of a mobster, he barely got five minutes of screen time.
Verdict: It's a decent historical crime drama, but there's plenty of room for improvement here. (3/5)
Year: 2008
Genre: Biography
Director: Nicolas Winding Refn
Plot: Loosely based on a true story about Michael Peterson, the most dangerous prisoner in Britain, who takes on the name Charles Bronson while being in solitary confinement.
The gist: Halfway through this film, I didn't understand what the heck I was watching, and even now I don't fully understand it. Perhaps I felt that there's a wide gaping hole in it that needs to be filled, even though most critics are happy enough to leave the film as it is.
The film focuses on one Michael Peterson, who although had a good upbringing, gets into fights and violent scraps and then sentenced to prison. In prison, he continues this behavior and earns a reputation for being so dangerous, he gets transferred again and again, and gets sent back to jail not long after his release.
Thing is, the filmmakers never explained his motivations for getting into fights. We see Peterson, who renames himself Charles Bronson (after the actor) attack other people, inmates and guards alike, without provocation. But why? Is he crazy or does he love fighting? Who knows? Nicolas Winding Refn didn't bother to say so, perhaps because that's not the kind of film he's going for. I get that, but still, a bit of substance would be nice. Instead, we get Bronson presenting his story to an audience on stage, in a satiric manner, which is a unique touch, but for me it's not enough.
The good: At least Tom Hardy is excellent in the role. Now, I don't know how the real Bronson was like, but Hardy obviously worked hard to get into the shape required for the role (i.e. bulky) and he is intimidating even when he smiles. He owns the role, that is for certain.
The bad: A lack of substance on the man's motivations make the film hard to comprehend at times. There were several attempts by Refn to humanise the guy, but it's not enough to help me understand the man.
Verdict: If you want a thorough story on Bronson, go to Wikipedia. This film doesn't quite answer the question on him, preferring to make a satire out of his character. Hardy's the best reason to see this, but it's frustrating to watch this film on a whole. (2.5/5)
Year: 1996
Genre: Drama thriller
Director: Tony Scott
Plot: A down on his luck knife salesman becomes obsessed with an all star baseball player who is struggling to live up to his expensive price tag.
The gist: I almost had no idea that the late Tony Scott directed this thriller. It's not as famous as his other works like Top Gun, Man On Fire and Enemy Of the State, but it's quite good on its own actually.
So here we have Gil Renard, a knife salesman who is having a hard time getting his life together. He's having trouble meeting his sales numbers, he's not being a good enough father to his young son and his ex-wife keeps trying to stop him from seeing his kid. Baseball is the only thing he loves that he can fall back on, and in that regard, he continues to support the Giants' all star player Bobby Rayburn, despite the guy having a hard time living up to his reputation.
Bobby himself isn't the most likable of people, thinking that he is as good as his agent says he is. That is until he finally gets back on track, which may or may not have something to do with Gil's actions. As a fan, Gil is willing to do anything to see Bobby succeed, but how far will he go?
The script is solid for the most part, allowing both Robert DeNiro and Wesley Snipes to shine equally. The best part is you don't have to be a fan of baseball to understand this movie.
Special mention must be made to the film's opening and ending sequences; the former being a poem about one's love for baseball voiced by DeNiro, the latter a glimpse of old photos while a song by Terence Trent D'arby hauntingly plays.
The good: DeNiro and Snipes are great in their roles as Gil and Bobby. DeNiro gains the audience's sympathy despite being the antagonist here, playing a tragic character who goes off the deep end. Snipes is pretty good in a non-action role for once, showing some good acting chops. Ellen Barkin and John Leguizamo provide some nice support as well.
The bad: The film drags from time to time, so some tighter editing would have been nice.
Verdict: It's an underrated thriller that deserves at least one watch. (3.5/5)
