Da Couch Tomato

An attempt at a new layout, with horrible glitches, and very minimal knowledge of HTML.
Showing posts with label denzel washington. Show all posts
Vincent D'Onofrio should count as two persons.

Before anything else, let me just say that this movie isn't an original. It's a remake. The original film of the same title was released in 1960, directed by John Sturges, and starred Hollywood powerhouse actors Yul Brynner, Steve McQueen, Charles Bronson, and James Coburn, among others. But that film was also a remake (a more precise term would be a "transposition") of the great Akira Kurosawa's Seven Samurai. So you could say this film is a remake of a remake.

Anyway, whether or not you're iffy about remakes, or if you lament the lack of original screenplays in Hollywood, here are seven magnificent reasons to go see this film.

1. It's a Western
Yes, Westerns are a western genre (See what I did there?). Well, not just the West in general, but America in particular, because it was only their country that had the westward expansion. But apart from cowboys and Indians, Westerns embody something much more than its geographical setting. Westerns take us back to the grit of the past, when social relationships were wilder, when death was an everyday occurrence, and when the line between banditry and chivalry was blurred at best.

See? Western.

2. Peter Sarsgaard is despicable
I first saw Peter Sarsgaard in An Education alongside Carey Mulligan. He comes off as a nice guy, with a sort of Paul Rudd vibe, so seeing him in a villainous role is a huge break from character. And no, he is not related to Stellan Skarsgård.

Great goatees always indicate villains.

3. Chris Pratt is funny
Chris Pratt never really broke away from the comedic mold he was known for in Parks and Recreation. Even after shedding some weight and buffing up for his roles in Guardians of the Galaxy and Jurassic World, his comedy chops still remained a part of his acting arsenal. In this film, he gets the funniest lines, making him the unofficial comic relief.

Chris Pratt, in his best "I'm-no-comic-relief" pose.

4. Denzel Washington is, well, Denzel
Don't get me wrong, Denzel Washington is the manliest of the Magnificent Seven. He is indeed the most alpha-male among the cast. My only problem? He's black. No, I'm not being racist. Hear me out. I just think it's not historically accurate. The movie has no date of reference, so let's peg it at sometime around the real-life Gunfight at the O.K. Corral, which was in 1881. Slavery officially ended in the United States after the Emancipation Proclamation in 22 September 1862. Chisolm, Denzel's character, wouldn't have been out of place then as a free man in the Wild West. But for him to lead five white men and a Native American? Highly unlikely. The African-American Civil Rights Movement went full swing in the 1960s, and before that, black people were segregated to the back of buses. What I'm saying is, if this film were historically accurate, Chisolm would've been lynched within the first fifteen minutes.

"I'm still pissed about his Oscar win for Training Day."

5. Antoine Fuqua is brilliant
Aside from directing both Ethan Hawke and Denzel Washington in Training Day, Antoine Fuqua also directed King Arthur, the period film which launched Clive Owen's Hollywood career. Like King Arthur, The Magnificent Seven is an ensemble film starring multiple cast members, and Fuqua seems to have action films like these covered. It's a wonder Disney hasn't asked him to direct a Marvel flick. He'd be great at it. Or maybe they already did, and he declined. Whatever.

"You know why Chisolm's black? That's right, motherfucker."

6. Haley Bennett is pretty... good
Yes, Haley Bennett is a good actress. But what I really want to say is, damn, she is really pretty. In the film, it's not that noticeable, because of the grit and grime from the dust of the wild west. But once I saw the real Haley Bennett, I was like, "Damn, what a beauty".

I mean, come on. Look at her.

7. Some characters died (Spoilers ahead)
So this is the story of seven men who risked their lives to thwart evil and save innocent lives. With such a noble premise as this, one should already expect that there will indeed be deaths, innocent or otherwise. Not all of the Magnificent Seven made it alive; that would be too implausible, too Hollywood. But not all of them died, either, which made it more realistic. Jack Horne (Vincent D'Onofrio) died like Boromir in The Fellowship of the Ring, shot with arrows. Goodnight Robicheaux (Ethan Hawke) and the Chinaman Billy Rocks (Byung-hun Lee) died in the sniper's nest up in the church steeple. And Josh Faraday (Chris Pratt) had the most magnificent death of them all: sacrificing himself to take out the big guns with a stick of dynamite. Among the seven, the last ones standing were Chisolm the negroe (Washington), Vasquez the Mexican (Manuel Garcia-Rulfo), and Red Harvest the Indian (Martin Sensmeier), which is probably a statement about how the ethnic minorities will be the last ones standing after a gunfight.

The boys doing the mandatory "Armageddon walk".



The Magnificent Seven. USA. 2016.



Original rating: 7/10
No Haley Bennett nudity: -0.1
Gunfights: +0.1
Vincent D'Onofrio's horse-bump: +0.1
Final rating: 7/10
Have you seen any Wesley Snipes flicks lately?
Oops! Sorry! That ain't the promotional movie poster. Here it is.
我去过中国两次 为什么
Not the Asian version, dammit!
That's more like it!
Any film by Tony Scott is an instant winner. Now this film is from Tony my man. If you base everything on logic alone, then it means that Unstoppable is a winner because it was directed by Tony! The first shots of the film (where the trains suddenly go all blurry) are all pure Tony Scott!

Denzel is also bein' his usual self here in this flick. You know, with the Training Day-like statements and stuff. The only difference is that instead of taking on the action roles, he's now slowly bein' eased into the "old-man/daddy/pre-grampa" roles, as evidenced by him having full-grown daughters who are working themselves through college, and by him working at the train station since 1981 (shit, even older than me).
Working since 1981 will make you look a li'l somethin' like this.
Chris Pine is Chris Pine. Same dude from Star Trek.
Star Trek! Not Star Wars!
Same acting chops. Same everything! I guess that's why he missed out on the lead role for Tron. It's because he's always the same. the only thing that looked different is his face in the movie poster. He looks like Paul Walker!
Not a gay-looking version like this of course.
Lew Temple (that dude that played Ned) is really one of the versatile actors around Hollywood. He's described as a chameleon when it comes to acting, which says a lot. And if you notice, Lew was actually the same dude that played the county sheriff in the movie 21 Grams.

Rosario Dawson doesn't really deviate much from her roles, because I guess that's her comfort zone. You know, bein' a professional woman who works for the government or some kinda' agency. That's about it.

This should've been titled "Stoppable" because the train could be stopped easily anyway. A chopper just has to drop a man on the train to stop it. But they only thought of that in the end?!? Don't tell me Pennsylvanians are that stupid.
They could've been doin' this to begin with.
And lastly, whatever happened to the train full of kids? I was waiting for the train to slam into their car, causing chaos. But they were suddenly... gone.

Overall rating is 6.5. But since it's a Tony Scott film with Denzel in it, it suddenly becomes an 8 out of 10. Good stuff!



*images from regrettablesincerity.com, www.clamack.hpg.ig.com.br, popstarsplus.com, blog.80millionmoviesfree.com, onlinemovieshut.com, mymoviecinema.com

Okay, if this is a screwed-up, post-apocalyptic scenario, why do they have really cool shades? Gary Oldman made me a fan of wayfarers. Well, also Bradley Cooper from The A-Team. But I don't know if they were the real deal Ray-Ban Wayfarers or just sunglasses of similar design. But this is not a review of sunglasses.

Denzel can do his own stunts. Hooray. And a scruffy-looking Denzel looks cooler.

Gary Oldman is in my Acting Hall of Fame. So I don't even have to explain anything.

Ray Stevenson is actually a great actor. Although he makes a really good sidekick, I'm sure that he would make a really great lead.

And that's it. Not really a fast-paced flick, but it'll keep you entertained nonetheless.


*some info from IMDb
pic from filmofilia.com


The Book of Eli. 2010. USA.


Rating: Six and half out of ten.
Everyone's sunglasses: Nine out of ten.

There are very few directors I'd watch without even knowing what their movie's about. And Tony Scott is one of them.

First of all, this was actually a remake of a 1974 film, which starred Walter Matthau. That version I haven't seen. But in this version, the screenplay wasn't that bad. But it wasn't that good either. It was just...plain. But a plain script in the hands of Tony Scott turns into something more beautiful. I just love Tony Scott's directing style, which at times makes his movies look like music videos. This is a far cry from the more serious filmmaking style of his brother Sir Ridley.

The performances, however, were terrific. John Travolta is always a treat to watch, as is my main man Denzel, who knows how to deliver an intense performance without overacting. Actually, both of them can. John Turturro is such a versatile actor that he works well both in comedic and serious roles. But I'm sorry, James Gandolfini...you will always be Tony Soprano to me.

I also couldn't help but notice that two stars from Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen are here, namely John Turturro and Ramon Rodriguez. (Told you this guy would go places. He has now starred in two summer movies.) And we also have James Gandolfini and Michael Rispoli, who both appeared in The Sopranos. And John Turturro and Luis Guzmán, who appeared together in Anger Management. Talk about reunions.

And finally, I'd just like to say that those who don't stay for a movie's end credits should start doing so. I stayed for the end credits of this film, and I found it interesting that there were not that many people who worked on this movie. Maybe Tony Scott just likes small production groups. Compare this to the end credits of Revenge of the Fallen, which was probably ten times as long. So shorter credits means less people, which means less special effects, which means more drama. And the dramatic showdown between Travolta and Denzel is the entire essence of this movie.


*some info from IMDb
pic from aceshowbiz.com


The Taking of Pelham 123. USA. 2009.


Rating: Seven out of ten.

Are we not tired of titles that begin with "American-this" and "American-that"?

We had American Pie, American Beauty, American History X...they've probably come up with all the possible titles. So how does this film differ from the rest?

First things first: it's directed by Ridley Scott. That's Sir Ridley Scott to you. That should be enough for those film buffs out there.

Second, it has Russell Crowe in it. Any movie with Russell Crowe in it is definitely worth watching. Not because it's Russell Crowe, but because Mr. Crowe is a bit finicky about the scripts he accepts. He only accepts the good roles, and so if he's in it, there's a huge chance that the movie doesn't suck.

Third, Denzel is in it. I don't even have to say his last name. Just "Denzel". Now that's two Oscar winners in front of the camera, and a three-time Oscar nominee at the helm.

Now speaking of Oscars, Ridley Scott has yet to win one, like his brother Tony, but undoubtedly the brothers are one of the best directors on the planet. They don't do movies together like the Wachowskis or the Coens, which is actually a good thing, because you get two distinct yet similar styles of filmmaking.

Sir Ridley is an excellent storyteller, and he can make a complicated gangster narrative as simple as a bedtime story told by your grandfather. His shots are well-framed, the actions well-executed and delivered perfectly, and the cinematography is just beautiful. The photography actually tries to mimic the look of the old seventies films, and coupled with great costumes and brilliant production design, this film just takes you right back.

However, a word of caution: do not watch this film if you want to see an acting showdown between two Hollywood giants. Denzel Washington and Russell Crowe share screen time only toward the end of the movie (the last twenty minutes of an almost three-hour picture). Also, the real-life characters portrayed in the movie have complained of gross inaccuracies in the film, calling it one percent reality and ninety-nine percent Hollywood. But once you get past that, it's a cinematic work of art.


Rating: Five stars.


Click on this link to read the New York magazine article which was the basis for this film: http://nymag.com/nymag/features/3649/
Premium Blogspot Templates
Copyright © 2012 Da Couch Tomato