<?xml version="1.0" encoding="UTF-8"?>
<rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:wfw="http://wellformedweb.org/CommentAPI/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
	xmlns:slash="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/slash/"
	>

<channel>
	<title>Resonance &#187; Michael Caine</title>
	<atom:link href="http://www.fadedrequiem.com/resonance/tag/michael-caine/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://www.fadedrequiem.com/resonance</link>
	<description>Popular Culture Disruptions</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Wed, 25 Jan 2012 18:02:55 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<language>en</language>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	
		<item>
		<title>The Future Is Somewhat Lacking</title>
		<link>http://www.fadedrequiem.com/resonance/2008/01/19/the-future-is-somewhat-lacking/</link>
		<comments>http://www.fadedrequiem.com/resonance/2008/01/19/the-future-is-somewhat-lacking/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Sat, 19 Jan 2008 21:22:28 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Matt</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Film Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Alfonso Cuarón]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Clare-Hope Ashitey]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Clive Owen]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Julianne Moore]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Michael Caine]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fadedrequiem.com/resonance/?p=170</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[I enjoy a film when the fate of man is covered in dirt and grime, or at least some grease. Children of Men is absolutely covered in dirt and grime.]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><a href="http://www.fadedrequiem.com/resonance/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/children_of_men_ver2.jpg" title="Children of Men" rel='lytebox[the-future-is-somewhat-lacking]'><img src="http://www.fadedrequiem.com/resonance/wp-content/uploads/2008/01/children_of_men_ver2.thumbnail.jpg" alt="Children of Men" height="100" width="68" /></a>I came to the realization that I really like post-apocalyptic future films.  I enjoy a film when the fate of man is covered in dirt and grime, or at least some grease.  <em>Children of Men</em> is absolutely covered in dirt and grime.  In fact the cinematography is a major highlight of the film.  Even though this world is in the future, the film retains a realistic sensibility that creates more interest.  It is possible and it could happen.  Yet somewhere along the way I stopped caring.<span id="more-170"></span></p>
<p>The main plot revolves around lack of children.  In one fell swoop, humanity can longer produce offspring (hopefully not for lack of trying because if that&#8217;s the case this film became even more depressing).  This is when we meet Theo Faron (Clive Owen), a normal guy that is obviously done with caring about the world.  That is until he gets kidnapped by his ex-wife Julian (Julianne Moore).  Evidently Theo was once a major activist with Julian, and now she needs a favor.  Cue the disillusioned hero music.  So here&#8217;s the deal, get a girl across a border and to a ship (mythical ship perhaps).  In the process, kill Julian and give the girl,  Kee (Clare-Hope Ashitey), a pregnancy.  Theo becomes the hero he once was because he knows the future of the world depends on getting Kee and her child to a boat supposedly run by the Human Project, an organization that may just save the future.</p>
<p>Let me get the good stuff out of the way first.  The storyline itself is bit predictable but yet captivating.  You discover the plot through the eyes of Theo as he goes on his quest.  We see the reasons for his actions and are able to build the back story.  By the finale, we know Theo.  The acting is a bit stiff and somewhat distracting.  This could be attributed to the fact that personalities come from the future and that Alfonso Cuarón directed the actors to act less like a contemporary character and more like a future character.  I&#8217;d buy that reasoning, especially after seeing Jasper (Michael Caine).  Caine turns his character into an anti-contemporary which sets up a nice dichotomy between the characters of this new future.</p>
<p>Another aspect of the film that was perhaps its best feature was the cinematography.  The camera moves in ways that truly kept me watching.  There was a nice filter that produced a grim look to even the most majestic of scenery.  It had a starkly realistic quality that brought the film closer to realism and moved it away from just science fiction.  I could watch the film again just for the camera work.</p>
<p>I said I could, but I won&#8217;t.  Aside from the good, the film lacks the little things.  At points of the film, specifically the last race to the boat, I became bored.  I actually felt myself thinking about ways it could be different rather than following the film itself.  Not only that, but it just drug on.  My brain was screaming (because I didn&#8217;t want to literally scream), &#8220;Get to the damn boat!&#8221;  When it was finally reaching the end, I was at a point where I just didn&#8217;t care.  Even the future without children was bleak and horrible, I didn&#8217;t care.  The only thing I cared about was getting another drink because I was parched.  Somewhere along the way I stopped caring about the characters or the story.</p>
<p>While the film certainly left me with some doubts about &#8220;caring,&#8221; it certainly was worth watching.  In many ways, it surpassed my expectations which forced me to be more critical of it.  <em>Children of Men</em> may not be the best post-apocalyptic film, but it did bring a new sensibility to the genre.  You do not need to go crazy with the future to make it the future.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.fadedrequiem.com/resonance/2008/01/19/the-future-is-somewhat-lacking/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>2</slash:comments>
		</item>
		<item>
		<title>Now You See It, Now You Review It</title>
		<link>http://www.fadedrequiem.com/resonance/2007/04/04/now-you-see-it-now-you-review-it/</link>
		<comments>http://www.fadedrequiem.com/resonance/2007/04/04/now-you-see-it-now-you-review-it/#comments</comments>
		<pubDate>Wed, 04 Apr 2007 14:16:16 +0000</pubDate>
		<dc:creator>Matt</dc:creator>
				<category><![CDATA[Film Review]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Christian Bale]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[David Bowie]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Hugh Jackman]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Michael Caine]]></category>
		<category><![CDATA[Scarlett Johansson]]></category>

		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://www.fadedrequiem.com/resonance/?p=45</guid>
		<description><![CDATA[Thankfully I have not viewed a horrible film in a long time (The last one was Date Movie). The trend continues. The Prestige was a very fun film to watch, but only once. I have to be honest, after one viewing there really is no need to revisit this film. It is such a fun [...]]]></description>
			<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p><img src="http://www.fadedrequiem.com/resonance/wp-content/uploads/2007/07/prestige-one-sheet-tm.jpg" alt="The Prestige" title="The Prestige" border="1" height="100" hspace="4" vspace="4" width="67" />Thankfully I have not viewed a horrible film in a long time (The last one was <em>Date Movie</em>). The trend continues.  <em>The Prestige</em> was a very fun film to watch, but only once.  I have to be honest, after one viewing there really is no need to revisit this film.  It is such a fun ride discovering the secrets; but like many films with twists, once you know the answers you lose the questions.  From a reviewers standpoint, there were flaws that do put you off.  Such as the final trick of Robert Angier (Hugh Jackman), which really pushes the boundary of believability.  There were brilliant moments, and some bad acting along the way: but not all films need to be great to be enjoyed.  So, let me give you the good and bad; as I review a film just for its entertainment value.  I may throw in some criticism, but it will appear as an all knowing voice in parenthesis.</p>
<p><span id="more-45"></span><br />
I was like so totally enthralled by the cool tricks and magic!  (The special effects were very interesting.  They seemed to play on the old feel of the film itself.  The Tesla machine was a very nifty machine, but the credibility of the film goes out the window when we see the duplicates.)</p>
<p>Scarlett Johansson was hot!  (The acting was a bit daft at times.  Olivia Wenscombe (Scarlett Johansson) was very dry and really lacked the screen time to make me care about her character.  That seems to be the general feel for all of the acting.  The two rival magicians, Alfred Borden (Christian Bale) and Robert Angier (Hugh Jackman), were so involved in their rivalry that no common sense prevailed.  Each actor really pushed that aspect, creating characters that were single minded.  However, that approach left me with two very wooden performances.  By the end of the film, I felt nothing for either character.  I must mention that Tesla (David Bowie&#8230;yes I said David Bowie) was a very interesting figure.  Bowie does pull off the reclusive mad scientist with knowledge well beyond his years.  Perhaps the best performance comes from Cutter (Michael Caine).  It may just be the British hard nosed but lovable character, but Caine raises the acting bar for the rest of the cast.  A bar which many of the actors run over rather than jump.)</p>
<p>What a great twist!  (I was sitting on the edge of my seat waiting for the prestige, but I really was not rewarded in the manner I expected.  I had a real problem with the reality of the film and the dramatic reveal that follows.  Angier&#8217;s machine had a deus ex machina feel.  How are we going to fill the plot holes, let&#8217;s bring in a machine of the gods to wrap up the loose ends.  Because of the twist, I have no real desire to watch this again.)</p>
<p>I really enjoyed watching this film!  (Once.)</p>
<p>They should make all films like this.  (They, meaning Hollywood.  All, meaning films seeking box office payout.)</p>
<p>So there you see the difference in criticism and enjoyability (perhaps not a real word).  It was a fun film, but not all fun films can be elevated to the level of phenomenal filmmaking.  But, the critical side to my brain does like to be turned off every now and then.  Sometimes watching a film is the escape from reality that we all need.  So put your critical mind up and grab a beer (or glass of wine, or whiskey, or coffee, or water, or whatever), <em>The Prestige</em> delivers on fun!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
			<wfw:commentRss>http://www.fadedrequiem.com/resonance/2007/04/04/now-you-see-it-now-you-review-it/feed/</wfw:commentRss>
		<slash:comments>0</slash:comments>
		</item>
	</channel>
</rss>

