This baby DEFINITELY keeps you on the edge of your seat! Tons of thrills. And, if you see the Unrated Edition (extra seven minutes) more intensity and gore that heightens the horror aspect of the film.
Director Marc Forster came into the action realm with the James Bond film, "Quantum of Solace." Here, he brings his game to a higher level, with a more refined sense of story and character. I do have to say, though, "Quantum" is my second favorite modern-day Bond after "Casino Royale."
Brad Pitt and the rest of the cast do very well here. Brad's in his straggly-looking mode, which still seems odd for a W.H.O. higher up. But, he's certainly invested in his character, which certainly helps the film.
The movie is based on the novel by Max Brooks, son of Mel Brooks. Like the recent "Robopocalypse," which I will review, the "Z" novel is a series of accounts of the zombie war from a variety of eyewitness accounts. Translating that into a linear movie has been well done by a team of screen story and screenplay writers.
(SPOILERS)
The ending sequence in the W.H.O. Hospital is excellent, but is different than the "Siege on Moscow" idea originally thought of for the ending. What is in the movie works beautifully as great thriller. The zombies, with their chattering teeth is an excellent touch!
(END SPOILERS)
Great movie, especially if you haven't seen it. Recommended!
Dustin Hoffman gives one of his all-time greatest performances in this film! He was started as director on it, but found it to be too much to do acting, producing and directing.
Ulu Grosbard takes over beautifully, knowing exactly the right tone and the right pace for the film. Cinematography by Owen Roizman has that great balance of beautifully shot footage combined with a documentary quality, like Roizman accomplished in "The French Connection."
The script went through a number of writers, but you would never know. It still feels unified and organic. The one downside is the film score by David Shire. Like others he has done, if feels 100% completely out of place here. I don't know why directors use him.
(SPOILERS)
Please see this film! It is one of the great character studies! If you have seen it, I want to talk about Hoffman's character. It truly is tragic what happens to him. But, on the second viewing, I really could tell how impulsive the character was, and that's what condemns him at the film's close. The oft-misheard line at the end is: "I'm gonna get caught." He knows that he is done, and is letting Teresa Russell's character off so that she isn't with him when that happens. It is heartbreaking. I especially have little sympathy for criminals, especially in organized crime movies. So, the fact that I feel for Hoffman's character is rare for me. But, this film makes that happen, and impressively so!
(END SPOILERS)
All in all, a great movie. It doesn't at all matter that it was made in the 1970's. You really won't think about that for more than a few minutes, at most.
I'm reviewing the first episode, which I saw during HBO's free preview weekend. I guess I might get to see other episodes at some point. But, I'm certainly not paying for HBO! Almost all of what they have on is attention-grabbing, critic-bait garbage like "Girls." I'm certainly not going to fill their coffers for that stuff!
The opening titles don't help the show too much! It's the usual cable artsy-tartsy affair. If you know Maurice Binder, the famous opening-titles creator who did the James Bond films, the opening titles here are like his work if he had been on heavy barbiturates! By leaps and bounds, the highlight here is Matthew McConaughey. His performance should instantly get an Emmy! What he does in his opening scene earns that alone. Woody Harrelson's performance is the usual steady hand on the wheel.
McConaughey has a character who is your typical troubled serial-killer-profiler type. But, the writer does push it a bit far, since his character not only is a smoker and a drinker, but also a taker of drugs and has a freaky apartment situation, where all he has is a mattress on the floor and a stack of serial-killer books. Definitely laying it on too thick!
Not surprisingly, the women here do not have too much to do but be housewives, hookers or whatever. Disappointing in that having some strong female characters could have provided some good balance for the show.
The killing that is the centerpiece of the show seems to be pretty much a repeat of a key one from the first season of "Hannibal." Probably coincidence, but it gives a sense of something we've seen before.
T. Bone Burnett is the musical darling of Hollywood. For whatever reason, he is considered the great, go-to guy for earthy music, when it's needed. To me, he has done great work in the past, like with the Coen Brothers' "O Brother, Where Art Thou?" But, I don't really get what he's doing these days. His work on "Inside Llewyn Davis" did nothing for me. Just depressing songs, nothing more.
Here, he has this mumbly, what-the-heck opening song starting the show, and fairly indiscriminate music otherwise throughout the show.
The production values are good otherwise, with the cinematography being the best aspect. The program has gotten off to a good start. Viewers will have to see where it goes from here.
The much-hyped TV movie, "Bonnie & Clyde," is a mix of the good and the bad. There is excellent cinematography, sound design, and performance by William Hurt. But, there is also the excessive artistic license and lack of historical accuracy.
The result is a mixed bag that can't be either recommended or asked to be be avoided. The movie takes the view that Bonnie Parker was the instigator of everything that went on. She is portrayed as someone who is desperate for glory and is willing to sacrifice whomever has to be sacrificed to get what she wants. This runs counter to what history says, that Clyde Barrow was a criminal with little regard for human life, and was going to do whatever necessary so that he did not go back to prison.
The movie was shown in two parts. The first centered a lot on Barrow's experiences in prison, including being raped, which is particularly grisly. You used to have to go to a dark, R-rated film like "Deliverance" for that, but now you can see it on TV! There is a fair amount of bloody violence and PG-rated language. This most likely would be a fairly strong PG-13 or lower-level R, if it were in theaters.
The first part is mostly preamble, and not very interesting preamble at that. The second part is where the movie goes into high gear, with all the shootings and graphic violence I am guessing people came for. The highlight, though, is a great performance by William Hurt! When I saw him in the cast, I was very hopeful, since he just gave an excellent performance in the Discovery Channel film, "The Challenger Disaster." Here, he gets down and dirty as a determined crime fighter, who has no problems killing whomever he gets a chance to, or to union bust for greedy corporations. His telling of why he's come out of retirement to hunt down Bonnie and Clyde to a colleague is chilling.
After four hours, including commercials, the ending to the film comes so suddenly, you wonder how they could spend those four hours on all that came before it, and only spend a few minutes on the ending. Very bizarre!
The movie was directed by Bruce Beresford, who most famously directed "Breaker Morant" and "Driving Miss Daisy." Here, he makes the most of the script he has been given. The cinematography is excellent! Some of the best I have seen on TV in recent memory. The sound design is excellent and is striking through a good stereo set up. There are some real irritants here, though. John Debney's film score is pretty bad, only working well in the final 40 minutes of the production. The performance by the lady playing the exploitative newspaper woman is highly irritating. The voice over by Clyde, as with all voice overs, demonstrates laziness by the screenwriters. It usually shows a lack of imagination to use cinematic techniques to show what's happening, and instead just tell us with the voice over. Clyde's "second sight" construct by the screenwriters, in which he sees events before they happen is odd, but ironically provides some of the rare cinematic quality the film needed.
In the end, stylized tellings of history can work, when they are done well. Such was the case with Arthur Penn's classic version of the story from 1967. And, was also the case with the Brian De Palma-directed, David Mamet-scripted "The Untouchables" from 1987. There were definite historic liberties taken in both cases. But, since both films were so masterfully done, it doesn't matter! We know that neither was trying to be a documentary from the get go, so it's okay. We know that there are resources where we can learn the true story. The films are there as art, and great art at that. This TV movie definitely doesn't get there, though. And, that's the difference.
Twitter 
Google+ 
