Some Velvet Morning movie review

Cast: Alice Eve, Stanley Tucci
Director: Neil LaBute
Running time: 1 hour and 24 minutes

  This movie is what we call a 2-hander, so be prepared. What that means is that there are only 2 actors on screen during the whole movie. And when i say only 2, i literally mean 2. There is noone else. In "Some Velvet Morning" 's case our two leads are Stanley Tucci and Alice Eve. He is a middle-aged lawyer who just left his wife. She is the seductive blond that taunts him. It's just the two of them and  the tension is building...

  This is the second Neil Labute film i've seen. The first being Some Girl(s), which i've reviewed for this blog (review: http://moviereviewsbym94.blogspot.gr/2013/11/some-girls-movie-review.html ) and which i loved. His films are very character-driven (my favourite kind of movies) and have a certain simplicity about them that i like. Some Girl(s) was a character study type of movie and so was Some Velvet Morning. So i had high expectations getting into it. And those expectation were met to a degree. But let's get more in depth into my review of "Some Velvet Morning".

  One of my favourite things about the movie was Alice Eve. both her character and her acting. Velvet is an ethereal, effortlessly beautiful (in a way that doesn't exist in real life) blond. She is the woman men fight over and the woman women wish they could be. It was wonderful watching her putting on a red lip pencil and fixing her hair in two seconds while still talking and charming Stanley Tucci with seemingly no effort. To make this character convinving and so appealing for no apparent reasons it was detrimantal to have a great actress portray her and Alice Eve is as good as it gets. I can't imagine anyone else in that role and i am glad Neil Labute couldn't either.

  In a simiral way that Some Velvet Morning is simple because of its limited cast, it is, also, simple because of its limited location (the movie doesn't move past Velvet's house). I have long loved movies that are confident and assured enough to limit themselves to a certain geografic spot and turn that "limit" into a possitive attribute that enhanses the plot of the film rather than hurts it. Examples of this kind of movies that come to mind are "Phone Booth" (which i love), "Exam" (which has its bad and its good moments) and many many more i'm sure.This kind of limitation makes the characters and their interactions stand out more and it gives the audience the chance to focus and pay attention to them and, even, think more about the intricate human mind and soul.To add a minor point regarding the location of the movie i have to mention that i loved Velvet's house. It's beautiful and SPOILER!! even though it doesn't suit Velvet's personality and character it looks like a house used for something like what the whole thing turns out to be, but i won't spoil it more.

  I am, now, going to go more into what eventually happens, which is a major !!SPOILER ALERT!!, so consider yourselves warned. Throughout the film I would start noticing some inconsistencies in Velvet and Fred's characters. Fred would declare his love for Velvet at one moment and seem like he dismissed her as someone deserving of him the next. And Velvet would be fun and flirtatious in the begging as if she didn't know how dangerous Fred could be (which she would if it was real) and be surprised when he did turn violent towards the end. So after a point I was ready to classify Some Velvet Morning as fake and unrealistic, but then the came the end and it all started making sense. Their behavior was neither real nor created by an expert psychologist. They are just two people improvising the best they could, so the imperfections were, ironically, perfect in this situation.

  And speaking of the end, I didn't see it coming for a second and upon thinking about it I realized that I went with it completely. Not only did it take me entirely by surprise but after the initial astonishment I, totally, bought into it. It wasn't just a shock for shock's shake, it actually made sense, in my opinion.

  However, even though the end was intense and "edge of my seat" kind of stuff, the rest of the film comes very close to boring territory. The fact that the plot is somewhat limited leads to a number of moments being monotonous and repetitive. The task of grabbing the audience's attention for 84 minutes with, only, two leads and many conversations is a difficult one and Neil LaBute, almost, fails to complete it.

  Another observation that came to mind after watching "Some Velvet Morning" was that both Neil LaBute movies I have seen seem to have a similar "character plot that eventually grows into a twist" quality to them. I do love Neil LaBute (and not many do) but I would like to see something different from him next time.

  In conclusion, if you are a Neil LaBute fan, like me, you will probably like Some Velvet Morning and if you are not I, personally, think it is worth a watch. decide accordingly.

Final thought: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9ZEURntrQOg

Score: 74%
Tomatometer: 50%

m.

Courtesy of

Tribeca Film

The Hunger Games: Catching Fire movie review

Cast: Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Liam Hemsworth, Woody Harrelson, Elizabeth Banks, Lenny Kravitz, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Stanley Tucci, Donald Sutherland, Jeffrey Wright
Director: Francis Lawrence
Running time: 2 hour and 26 minutes
  The Hunger Games: Catching Fire is the second installment of The Hunger Games movies. Katniss and Peeta are back after winning the 74th annual Hunger Games and about to leave for their victory tour. During the tour both, Katniss and Peeta, realize that a revolution is starting and Katniss is in the center of it all. But there are more in store for them. After they come back from the tour it is announced that in this year's annual Hunger Games the tributes will be selected from the existing pool of victors. So, once again, they are off to try and win in this deadly game.And this year President Snow has made sure there can only be one winner. 
  I LOVE this movie. I really loved the first one but it doesn't even compare to this one. First of all we get to learn more about the characters,especially Peeta and Gale,from whom we saw almost nothing in the first film.
  Here we see a stronger,more determined but still funny, charming and kind Peeta. There was more personality to him while in the first one i felt he was just a clueless victim. He understands now that everything about the love affair between him and Katniss were for the cameras and he accepts it but he still tries to establish at least a friendship with her. He is now a protagonist of the movie along with Katniss while in the first hunger games that wasn't the case. 
  We, also, get to know a little bit about Gale and get to see his relationship with Katniss. We see that he cares for her and that she cares for him too but we experience him beyond that. We learn more about his thoughts on the Capitol and the revolution, which he mentioned in the first movie but only briefly, and see him taking action against the authorities in order to save others.
  Katniss is tough, caring and a survivor. We got to know quite a bit of her in the first movie but here she shows how much she cares about people and we understand why everyone sees a leader in her since she is caring but has, also, the strength to fight for those who can't. 
  One thing i really enjoyed was how clear it is that Katniss has feelings for Peeta. In the first Hunger Games movie you get the impression that she starts to feel something for him but it is obvious that for the most part she is lying in order to survive. In the second Hunger Games movie there is a bond that forms between them during their time together that is very strong due to fact that they experienced a lot with each other while trying to survive their first time in the games but, also, because they know that they will have to go through that again and this time only one of them will survive.
  Moreover, i really liked watching Woody Harrelson as Haymitch. We got a lot more of him this time around and i really enjoyed it. I am very happy that we will see even more from him in the third movie in a different way because of the information we got from the second movie. The same goes for Effie (Elizabeth Banks) i had fun watching her and she showed us a more sensitive side to her and i can't wait to see how she will be incorporated in the third Hunger Games movie.
  And finally, one of the biggest things that bothered me (i really hate it) was the fact that have the movie was shot in a very-shaky-camera way. But thankfully that was not the case for the second movie. The camera work was pretty steady for the most part and that allowed the audience to really focus on what was happening rather than getting distracted every five minutes.
  There were a couple of things that i didn't like about The Hunger Games. The first one was that even though Peeta was portrayed as a kind but strong person in general during the games he was shown as a very weak competitor. I feel that he would be a stronger contender based on the first movie. In the original Hunger Games we saw that he was very good at lifting heavy weights and camouflaging himself in order to blend into the background but in Catching Fire he doesn't take advantage of his strengths at all.
  Furthermore, SPOILER ALERT!! the big reveal at the end was that Finnick and Johanna and some other tributes where part of a group hoping to start a revolution and they were trying to save Katniss so that she would be the leader. And that would be a great surprise and ending if it wasn't for some unnecessary comments made by Johanna, mostly, that made it obvious what was the plan. I saw the twist coming and it took all the fun out of the ending. I wish it was more unexpected.
  In conclusion, i love The Hunger Games trilogy and this is my favourite so far. Worth more than just one watch. And to give a hint on how much a liked it i will say it was 2 and a half hours and i didn't want it to end.
Score: 95%
And remember, the odds are never in our favor.

m.

Courtesy

Lionsgate