|
 'Gangster Squad' is director Ruben Fleischer's followup to 'Zombieland', even though the action here takes place in 1940s LA, the same deadpan humour fills this film. I went to a preview last week, expecting something along the lines of 'LA Confidential', but what I got was far more along the lines of 'Sin City' or even 'Dick Tracy'. The film is ridiculously violent nearly from start to finish, opening with a statement of intent with a man being pulled apart by cars. But it's more Itchy and Scratchy than anything else, and throughout the audience giggling at the sheer audacity at what this film gets away with. Through some seriously comic-booky prosthetics, Sean Penn chews up the scenery as demented gangster Mickey Cohen, one of the most morally straightforward characters in cinema in a long time. He's pure evil, a greedy monster trying to swallow LA whole. The perfect enemy for a rough and ready team of antisocial hotheads lead by Dick Tracy lookalike Josh Brolin. It's a killer cast, you get character actor after character actor popping up - Robert Patrick! Jon Polito! Nick Nolte! I had zero expectations going into this, and the only thing I'd heard of it was that it was the film that had to be reshot and delayed after the Aurora cinema shootings. It's a shame that it's a little bit tainted, but the film more than stands up on its own as a gloriously deadpan piece of genre film-making. Here's a full review I posted: http://londoncitynights.blogspot.co...d-by-ruben.html Here's a trailer: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bRVvEHk7xOs Here's a picture of Ryan Gosling looking dreamy:  Film's out January 11th. Mr. Flunchy fucked around with this message at Jan 5, 2013 around 16:35 |
| # ? Jan 5, 2013 16:24 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2013 19:56 |
|
|
Did they completely cut the movie theater shooting scene from the trailer?
|
| # ? Jan 5, 2013 16:40 |
|
|
Pet Rock Band posted:Did they completely cut the movie theater shooting scene from the trailer? It's completely gone, which is a shame because it sounded pretty interesting in a 4th wall breaky kind of way. It's been replaced by another effective scene though. I didn't notice any discontinuity in the film though, it doesn't feel like anything's been changed.
|
| # ? Jan 5, 2013 16:46 |
|
|
Been on my radar for a while, since before the tragic Colorado shooting. Glad the studio was behind a necessary reshoot, because this film looks to deserve better than a tainted association. Absolutely stellar cast, and though I love LA Confidential real hard, all we see of Mickey Cohen is in the opening montage with a couple mentions of him throughout the rest of the film. Read only the last paragraph of your review to avoid spoilers, and I'm pleased to see you enjoyed it. Should be fun watching the Driver's grandpa do his thing.
|
| # ? Jan 5, 2013 20:11 |
|
|
I'm really unsure about this film. I get that it's an ode to the pre-noir gangster film, but I wonder at how well it pulls it off. You need more than a 90 minute remake of the shootout from Heat. Presenting Mickey Cohen as some mustache twirler is an interesting take and sets the propaganda tone properly, but who could possibly think that makeup isn't anything but unfortunate in a world of HD digital cinema? It's going to take a lot of balls for this to have a chance at competing with Django in the genre game.
|
| # ? Jan 5, 2013 23:20 |
|
|
Wolfgang Pauli posted:Who could possibly think that makeup isn't anything but unfortunate in a world of HD digital cinema? It looks ridiculous in the trailers but somehow the makeup works in the film - and, importantly, at no point do they expect you to take the way he looks seriously. It's probably going to be a bit divisive though, I'd guess at least some people won't be able to get past it. But whatever you think of the makeup, Penn acts the gently caress out of the role.
|
| # ? Jan 5, 2013 23:40 |
|
|
I hope they pull it off, but I don't know. The benchmark is whether or not Sean Penn could have delivered the same performance to the same effect if he wasn't wearing that makeup. I guess it fits the world of the film, though. Makeup is supposed to reveal what the world thinks of the character (as opposed to costuming, which reflects what a character thinks of him/herself), so if you're going to take a gangster who actually had a pretty good public image and turn him into some horrible bogeyman monster, you might as well give him horrible bogeyman makeup. vvvv It's Looper-level jarring, if not moreso. At least it is outside of the context of the film. It looks anatomically incorrect to me. The cheeks look wrong. Wolfgang Pauli fucked around with this message at Jan 6, 2013 around 07:10 |
| # ? Jan 6, 2013 01:57 |
|
|
Mr. Flunchy posted:It's probably going to be a bit divisive though, I'd guess at least some people won't be able to get past it. I've been avoiding the trailers for this film, so on a scale of 0 to Looper, how jarring is it? Regardless, I've been excited to see this movie ever since I heard about it after the shooting. The cast sounds fantastic.
|
| # ? Jan 6, 2013 05:55 |
|
|
Wolfgang Pauli posted:Presenting Mickey Cohen as some mustache twirler is an interesting take and sets the propaganda tone properly, but who could possibly think that makeup isn't anything but unfortunate in a world of HD digital cinema? Gotta agree with this, it looks awful.
|
| # ? Jan 6, 2013 11:53 |
|
|
Just got back from this. If you are expecting Mad Men With Guns stay home. I would say it's more on the level of The Expendables with very very loose history at play. A lot of unintentional humor if you are into that sort of thing. My serious critique is that it's a little too quickly paced for a story of its scope and setting so a lot of the "emotional" scenes tend to fall flat because they never linger on anything. If you want to see a tommygun action movie this is it. Taken from my facebook status: If you wanna form a Gangster Squad you're gonna need the following: Josh Brolin = Goonie with a gun Ryan Gosling = Console gamer kid T-1000 = fastest gun in the west Black guy = ninja Mexican = comic relief intern Giovanni = tech wizard Emma Stone = The Kiss Kiss to your Bang Bang. Doesn't actually ice any mfers but with a name like Grace Faraday she should shoot lightning bolts or something
|
| # ? Jan 10, 2013 10:53 |
|
|
This movie sucks poo poo. Will Beall wrote probably the worst screenplay I've seen produced in a very long time, and anybody that's excited about the Justice League should be panicking their rear end off.
Wayne Gretzky fucked around with this message at Jan 10, 2013 around 15:45 |
| # ? Jan 10, 2013 15:43 |
|
|
It has a Rotten Tomatoes score of 35%, and nobody on Criticker so far has given it a really, distinctly positive rating. I adored Dick Tracy and really liked The Untouchables (distractingly-obvious historical inaccuracies aside), so I hoped for better, but the film doesn't sound worth watching. 
|
| # ? Jan 11, 2013 04:56 |
|
|
If there's any silver lining to this movie it's that I wound up reading about Mickey Cohen and Johnny Stompanato. They really do deserve a better movie than this unfortunately. Not a huge fan of Sean Penn's dramaface either way but they painted him pretty cartoonishly. Then again the whole movie really is kinda cartoonish. Johnny Stompanato, now there's a guy who has a hell of a story, as a big fan of Sunset Boulevard there's a movie in the events leading up to his death by Lana Turner's daughter that's comparable. In this movie he's just a goon henchman
|
| # ? Jan 11, 2013 06:10 |
|
|
Alan Smithee posted:Johnny Stompanato, now there's a guy who has a hell of a story, as a big fan of Sunset Boulevard there's a movie in the events leading up to his death by Lana Turner's daughter that's comparable. Movie is getting poo poo ratings but I'll probably see it anyway. Apparently my theater rewards card has about $95 dollars on it, and they need too be spent in the next 10 days.
|
| # ? Jan 11, 2013 19:05 |
|
|
That's too bad, the trailers make this look like a lot of fun. Does the trailer capture the tone of the movie, or is this another case of the trailer being better than the actual film?
|
| # ? Jan 11, 2013 19:21 |
|
|
Yeah, having just got back from this, those ratings are accurate. The actors do well with what they have, Sean Penn especially chewing it up real good, but overall it feels fast and incomplete with the writing getting awful towards the end. We're not given enough time to care about the characters, or to feel tension or suspense or revelation. It just all happens. Wonder how the cut of the theater bit impacted the pacing. On the plus side, I loved the costumes and set design. I'm a sucker for post-war America, and it's nailed pretty well here. And as said before, none of the actors are phoning it in - if anything, they get even more praise for gutting through a basic, by-the-numbers plot. As it stands, LA Confidential's superior. Smarter, funnier, more thrilling.
|
| # ? Jan 11, 2013 23:22 |
|
|
Gah. The film was so mediocre. Fleischer was just borowing elements and characters wholesale form other films. I'm really disapointed, since I was looking foward to this film since last year when is was pushed back in light of the Aurora tragedy. They should've just called this film "The Untouchables 2: Electric Boogaloo"
|
| # ? Jan 11, 2013 23:38 |
|
|
BulletRiddled posted:That's too bad, the trailers make this look like a lot of fun. Does the trailer capture the tone of the movie, or is this another case of the trailer being better than the actual film? I'd say the movie is like a long trailer. As I mentioned, it's cut so fast it never leaves time for any of the supposedly emotional stuff to make an impact. Someone important dies? Move along Just remember that it's an action movie first, a period piece second
|
| # ? Jan 12, 2013 01:03 |
|
|
Given the reactions in this thread and the reviews I've read this movie looks pretty bad? So from this and other threads I've learned that Mr. Flunchy's reviews are awful. If he likes a movie, it's really bad, and if he hates a movie, it's actually a good movie.
|
| # ? Jan 12, 2013 03:03 |
|
|
My advice is if you're looking for a snappy, shooty flick right now, go see Jack Reacher instead of this. It's just smart enough, the action's way better, and the length and pacing are appropriate.
|
| # ? Jan 12, 2013 07:09 |
|
|
isk posted:My advice is if you're looking for a snappy, shooty flick right now, go see Jack Reacher instead of this. It's just smart enough, the action's way better, and the length and pacing are appropriate. Go Django Unchained instead. It was an even better action film and was smarter and funnier than Reacher.
|
| # ? Jan 12, 2013 07:54 |
|
|
I'm a fan of films set in 30's and 40's America, however, I'm debating to go see this in theatre. From the trailer I didn't buy Gosling's role and at this point based on reviews I'd rather go watch Django Unchained again before its no longer played in theatres. Did anyone else 'feel' that the movie has some sort of glossing over on the film visuals? Everything appears too clean, polished and smoothed over. I can't put my finger on it but from both trailers it seems to be missing a grit and edgy film quality I can't quite explain. Everything just appears surreal.
|
| # ? Jan 12, 2013 09:26 |
|
|
nekzii posted:Did anyone else 'feel' that the movie has some sort of glossing over on the film visuals? Everything appears too clean, polished and smoothed over. I can't put my finger on it but from both trailers it seems to be missing a grit and edgy film quality I can't quite explain. Everything just appears surreal. It's shot digitally.
|
| # ? Jan 12, 2013 09:45 |
|
|
This was pretty disappointing. Not that my hopes were high anyways. The violence is all pretty cartoonish, and not in the amusing Tarantino way. Sean Penn was pretty game, but everyone else sleepwalked through their parts. The script felt like it came out of a workshop or from someone that read a book from some hack.
|
| # ? Jan 12, 2013 14:42 |
|
|
It didn't seem to know what it wanted to do in regards to the theme - the whole 'everyone wears a badge' thing was I thought setting up the fact that O'Mara was pretty much just Mickey Cohen but that never really went anywhere apart from a ham-fisted attempt at the end. The overall tone seemed to jump from The Untouchables style grit (I suppose) to Inglourious Basterds kind of hyped up violence and imagery. Like someone said earlier it seemed to lack a lot of pacing as well - managing to be too fast paced while at the same time having nothing really progress. Emma Stone was wasted, Gosling was pretty solid and the same with Penn, Josh Brolin was forgettable, although I think his character was meant to be that bland. There were also a bunch of tongue in cheek moments which could have really been exploited better to give the film a more equal tone - generally I felt like it could have done with maybe another 30-40min and a couple of rewrites.
|
| # ? Jan 12, 2013 21:02 |
|
|
Saw it tonight and it didn't blow me away but I can say I was adequately entertained. I've always thought action movies were boring as poo poo and never understood the thrill people get out of even classic stuff like Rambo and Commando. Turns out it just needs 40s ambiance and dual wielded tommy guns for me to enjoy it. Also Gosling sleeping through his role was hilarious. I want him to play more roles as a deadpan smartass. I'd pay good money to see a noir movie with him as an alcoholic private eye. Ultimately there wasn't anything really memorable or amazing in it, but it was a good way to kill an hour and a half and I left satisfied. I'm not sure what people were expecting of the movie that it's getting slammed so hard. It sure casts a lot of really talented actors for a brainless script, but I enjoyed normal looking guys getting to be the action hero badasses, and even the lovely one-liners were delivered with some subtle competence.
|
| # ? Jan 17, 2013 07:40 |
|
|
Really mediocre. Cliche-ridden, the script was crap, but the actors largely did a good job with what they had. Some of the stuff was just mind-bogglingly rote and predictable though. The death of Robert Patrick's character and how it played out especially.
|
| # ? Jan 17, 2013 11:05 |
|
|
mr. mephistopheles posted:normal looking guys getting to be the action hero badasses, Everyone in this movie is probably in the top 1% of attractiveness.
|
| # ? Jan 17, 2013 14:11 |
|
|
This movie was a combination of schlock and overwritten garbage that treats the audience like idiots at almost ever possible turn. Couple that with an absolutely revolting (in its technical choices, not content) climax that looks like it was shot with a Handycam and you have an early contender for biggest disappointment of the year. [edited for clarity] zenintrude fucked around with this message at Jan 17, 2013 around 14:50 |
| # ? Jan 17, 2013 14:43 |
|
|
zenintrude posted:...absolutely revolting climax that looks like it was shot with a Handycam... Care to spoiler this? It sounds interesting, and I'm probably not going to watch the movie any time soon anyway, since I hated the director's previous effort.
|
| # ? Jan 17, 2013 14:46 |
|
|
A smug sociopath posted:Care to spoiler this? It sounds interesting, and I'm probably not going to watch the movie any time soon anyway, since I hated the director's previous effort. My apologies for not being clear: it's not revolting in content (so not a spoiler), it's revolting in its choice of photography/lighting/video.
|
| # ? Jan 17, 2013 14:49 |
|
|
zenintrude posted:My apologies for not being clear: it's not revolting in content (so not a spoiler), it's revolting in its choice of photography/lighting/video. Oh, okay. I guess they had to go with a minuscule budget on the reshoots or something.
|
| # ? Jan 17, 2013 15:06 |
|
|
Pet Rock Band posted:Everyone in this movie is probably in the top 1% of attractiveness. You know what I meant, stop being a pedant. Also aside from Gosling and Stone and maybe Brolin the cast is pretty average looking with the benefit of thousands of dollars in custom wardrobes, make-up, and hair to make them look as attractive as possible.
|
| # ? Jan 17, 2013 23:15 |
|
|
The Time Dissolver posted:It's shot digitally. This has absolutely nothing to do with that
|
| # ? Jan 18, 2013 02:31 |
|
|
AccountSupervisor posted:This has absolutely nothing to do with that Forgive me, you're right. It's unthinkable that someone watching a digital treatment of a period genre traditionally shot on film might detect something about it they didn't notice about Skyfall or Drive. And no one would ever use words like "film quality" to remark on a conspicuous lack of film quality! If only there was another digital gangster movie about which similar comments were made, I might have a leg to stand on! But what are the chances of that?
|
| # ? Jan 18, 2013 12:35 |
|
|
The aesthetic hes speaking of is more of an exaggerated attempt to recreate the soft, smooth texture of old films of that genre but with a really saturated color pallette and those two combine give it an odd gloss. The film stocks used back then werent sensitive at all and didnt have very much "grit" to them. It could have been shot on film and the production design, lighting and DI could have still given it that look hes speaking of. Film doesnt just magically add grit to the cinematography. But yeah if you want to discuss this issue with aesthetic thatd be nice, or you could just be a sarcastic prick which seems to what you are more interested in.
|
| # ? Jan 18, 2013 13:28 |
|
|
isk posted:Yeah, having just got back from this, those ratings are accurate. The actors do well with what they have, Sean Penn especially chewing it up real good, but overall it feels fast and incomplete with the writing getting awful towards the end. We're not given enough time to care about the characters, or to feel tension or suspense or revelation. It just all happens. Wonder how the cut of the theater bit impacted the pacing. And the more slightly prods the idea of what happens when the lawmen start to become just as over the top voilent as their targets but intentionally doesn't explore the idea. It's the classic case of star talent getting stuck in a bland script/screenplay and unsatisfying predictable overall story.
|
| # ? Jan 18, 2013 15:56 |
|
|
I quite enjoyed the movie, yet feel like I shouldn't. I loved the 40s LA look of everything and Sean Penn as kind of a comic book villain, but the script is embarassingly clichéd. There's at least three instances of a character being moved to action by the death of someone close and its ends with a friggin fistfight. In a modern setting I probably would've fallen asleep.
|
| # ? Jan 18, 2013 18:36 |
|
|
This movie had absolutely no idea what it wanted to be. I mean it made for a good date night but I probably won't go see it again
|
| # ? Jan 19, 2013 23:05 |
|
|
|
| # ? May 21, 2013 19:56 |
|
|
Zomodok posted:This movie had absolutely no idea what it wanted to be. A good date night movie just because you point out to your better half that it has Ryan Gosling in it?
|
| # ? Jan 20, 2013 04:25 |
|
