Friday 17 May 2013

"Castle Bingo"

Hi everyone,

We were inspired by the "Game of Thrones" bingo, therefore we wanted to create one based on one of our favourite TV shows..."Castle"

Due to the finale of season 5 wrapping up recently, we wanted to post this in time, so you can play along while watching!

However don't worry as the bingo card can be applied to most seasons of Castle, so if you're not caught up with season 5 yet, then it's okay!


So if you like it, tweet it, pass it around and look out for other ones coming out soon (including other games!)

You can follow us on twitter @bydhifu and we would love to hear what you think!



 Idea, quotes, and pretty much everything else: The Mr, Ferenc!)
Disclaimer: The bingo was obviously created by us, but credit for the show and image rests with ABC/Castle. No infringement intended - just some fans creating a game for a show they love! We hope you all enjoy. We are not associated with Castle/ABC in anyway, nor do they endorse this.

But you didn't hear that from us!

Mr & Misses

"The Great Gatsby" - Review



The Great Gatsby

Directed by: Baz Luhrmann
Starring: 
 Leonardo DiCaprioJoel EdgertonTobey Maguire, Carey Mulligan
Written by: Baz Luhrmann, Craig Pearce

Rating: 7/10


Decandant empty opulence.


Gatsby is a role destined for DiCaprio. Gatsby is a man with a hidden background – mythic stories abound and he is steeped in a fog that slowly dissipates in Fitzgerald’s eponymous novel. Everything bubbles away at the surface, layer by layer, until Gatsby is exposed and laid bare – a persona which DiCaprio’s sublime acting fits to a tee. The film is absolutely stunning, in all senses of the word. It takes the idea of the cautionary tale and Fitzgerald’s take on the American Dream, it’s views on hope, the past and the future and magnifies them by about a thousand. The set design, the use of contemporary music as well the sharp acting and script deliver a meaningful reimagining of the American Classic.
It’s definitely a film that will divide critics; Luhrmann’s always been about as subtle as a sledgehammer with his symbolism, and “The Great Gatsby” is decked out in it. In the original novel, for example, Carraway is meant to partially embody the prototypical unreliable narrator – in the film, he’s recounting the tale to his psychiatrist who is observing him. In essence, the quintessential message of both the novel (and the film) has been people chasing an ideal/dream and change. Gatsby embodies change and fights against the old money – he chases a dream that can never exist and is willing to go to any lengths to get it. Just like the lake that separates them, the symbolism of water being a constantly changing and powerful force (think of erosion or the movement of water), Gatsby and the noveau rich inhabitants of West Egg take on the old money nested in East Egg.


The film is narrated by Nick Carraway (Tobey Maguire), who moves to New York and starts to rent a cottage next to the mysterious Jay Gatsby (DiCaprio), who lives across the water from Nick’s cousin, Daisy (Carey Mulligan). Daisy is married to over exuberant adulterer Tom Buchanan (Joel Edgerton). Nick starts having to keep secrets, like Tom’s affair with Myrtle (Isla Fisher) in the Valley of Ashes or Gatsby’s secret pining for Daisy. Wolfsheim (Amitabh Bachchan) pops in ominously every so often with Gatsby. Gatsby, it appears, can buy everything with his money, except love. Tom clings to the ways of the old and traditions, and Daisy is stuck between the two.
It is not a film for everyone; the film feels empty, it jump cuts frequently, it plays fast and loose with the source material and it blows up characters/scenes to an un-relatable extent. But that’s kind of the point – the old adage in film is “Show, don’t tell”. And this film perfectly embodies the society that Fitzgerald was trying to warn against and to potray; a society where the good times fade in seconds, where everything is too good to seem true, where dreams turn into nightmares, where anyone can make their own destiny and change their past, and where decadent and opulence replace the humanity and personal relationships we forge. A world where everyone ‘knows’ each other, but no-one really knows anyone. The film feels like one big pomp, and that’s alright – it is what the author intended. The world that the ‘mythic’ version of Gatsby (not the real and vulnerable man) inhabits is based on foundations which aren’t there. It’s leading to one of the world’s worst financial crises – a world where things happen too fast and nothing makes sense as everything unravels. The film captures this atmosphere brilliantly and gives it to the audience in spades.
It’s meant to potray an ultimately downward spiral that ends with the inevitable; and that leaves some feeling uneasy. A few critics have made light of the fact that Gershwin’s “Rhapsody in Blue” is used, stereotypically to represent the Jazz Age/Roaring Twenties. Where’s the problem? The film is aiming to recreate the over popular stereotypes that were present in the age and to evoke a sense of unease and discord within it; using music that we instantly associate with a certain period time or emotion is a sure fire way of doing this.
The casting work well as ensemble piece with DiCaprio at the head; Mulligan’s Daisy is just the right amount of indecisive and torn, with a sprinkle of vulnerability. Edgerton’s racist and boorish Tom is spot on, while Isla Fisher and her husband (played by Jason Clarke) show the unintended victims of the pursuit of dreams.
Fitzgerald wanted to remind Americans that the relentless pursuit of a dream might have far reaching and deep consequences- some potentially tragic and life altering. The tale is also a commentary on the relentless march of change and what happens to those who resist it. As we came out of the cinema, I said to my partner; “Either Luhrmann’s a genius or this was one of the worst films that we’ve ever seen”. And it took us awhile to digest that the emptiness, the endless in-your-face metaphors and symbolism, and the ridiculous set design where actually the true vessel for much of the story telling. And it works ridiculously well if you follow it as such; if you can’t engage with it, you’ll be bored out of your wits thought.
Small production details speak volumes; in the Buchanan household, there are only paintings or collections of paintings every so often. In the Gatsby mega-mansion, there is a wall that Gatsby walks past that contain hundreds, if not thousands of paintings (all assumed to be relatively valuable). Gatsby forcing himself into the lives of the old rich – the self made man who didn’t inherit his money is creatively well done. The cluttering of Gatsby’s walls as he desperately tries to fit in and prove himself to the world, and to his inner soul, really weigh down on the audience. Maguire's possibly understated performance as Nick is important; Nick’s distaste towards the rich by the end embodies Fitzgerald’s own views.
The score, especially the use of some of the more current and popular pieces seem at odds with the film; but again, a pervading sense of unease is potentially what Fitzgerald created in the novel.
Yes, it’s hyperbolic. Yes, it’s over the top. But isn’t that what the Twenties were about? Isn’t the shambolic pretense of depth exactly what Fitzgerald described?
The real major criticism is that Baz Luhrmann doesn’t leave much to the imagination; the director is the embodiment of literal realism, which leaves little scope other than to gasp along at the visual spectacle on offer like a circus act that gets revealed towards the end.

What the Mr. Thought:
Luhrmann doesn’t do anything by halves, and it’s not always done well. But he captures the essence, and that’s what matters.
Go see it – but be sure that you’re ready to keep up with a relentless cut. The film may leave you feeling out of breath till the climactic third act. It is all about fleeting moments of innocence that can never be captured.
What the Misses Thought:
As soon as we left the cinema I didn't know what to think. I was torn. Half of me was like "WOW!" and the other half..."What did I just watch?"
I can definitely see people being split on their opinions of this film, but it really is worth a watch!

But you didn't hear it from us,
Mr & Misses

Thursday 16 May 2013

Star Trek Into Darkness - Review

Star Trek Into Darkness

Directed by: J.J Abrams
Starring: 
Chris PineZachary QuintoZoe Saldana, Benedict Cumberbatch, John Cho, Simon Pegg, Karl Urban, Anton Yelchin


Written by: Roberto Orci, Alex Kurtzman, Damon Lindelof

Rating: 6/10



A revenge action thriller.
No, this not the follow-up to the ‘Dead Man Down’ review and I’ve accidently posted it into the wrong area; it’s a concise statement summing up the new Star Trek film. “Into The Darkness” was designed so even neophytes and recent converts could sink their teeth in, but in a bid to attract more of an audience, the film loses out. There’s the throwaway lines and nostalgic hints to older Star Trek films and episodes for the Trekkies and then there’s the tedious overexposition that allows the average movie goer to better understand the plot on top of that. Sadly, while trying to cater to two audiences, it ends up hardly pleasing either. As a regular outing for J.J. Abrams, it’s big, bold and brash. It looks stunning, the action sequences are very well woven together and the set design is next to astounding. But like many films coming out recently, it’s all flash and no spark. It looks great, but it’s certainly going to disappoint – especially after it’s predecessor.


When Abrams first got his hands onto the 2009 “Star Trek”, it was a reboot that breathed life back into the long standing series and allowed it a new lease, with possibly a new following. It was punchy, it had panache and it delivered expertly. It’s safe to say that the successor isn’t on the same level. It’s a visual feast, but at the end of the day – you don’t just want to watch a piece of art. You want it to engage you, battle with you, make you laugh and make you cry – all areas that this film falls short on. Character development pretty much never takes off, and it almost seems like the script is playing it safe.
The plot itself is relatively simple to start out with – John Harrison (Benedict Cumberbatch) attacks Starfleet and sets out to start destroying large chunks of it. Kirk (Chris Pine) sets out to stop him and to return him to justice. He is aided by Commander Spock (Zachary Quinto), Lieutenant Sulu (John Cho), Lieutenant Uhura (Zoe Saldana) and Simon Pegg as Lieutenant Commander Montgomery Scott. Initially, Harrison attacks an archive in London, and the chase begins with a galaxy wide manhunt. Karl Urban as Dr. “Bones” McCoy is criminally underused despite a stellar performance in just a few snappy lines. Harrison looks like he just stepped of a catwalk in London fashion week (Cumberbatch looks simply magnificent) and has many a one-man army moment where his viciousness and ruthlessness shine through. Throughout the entire film is the duality of the relationship between Spock and Kirk – Spock’s humanity is, for lack of a better term, seeping through slowly and Kirk is trying to reign himself in. Despite a touching moment, the emotional ground space needed for the take-off for this development is never given.
It’s a film, in fact, about duality; logic pitted against instinct. Chaos against order, revenge against justice, violence against peace. It’s a film that attempts to grapple with major thematic issues, especially reflecting the idea of terrorism and conspiracy, but it never quite reaches it’s own lofty goals.


The problem with the film, like so many other big blockbusters recently, is a weak script. The visual effects are stunning, if slightly cheesy at times. The acting is sublime; Simon Pegg’s send-up/reimaging of the ‘Scotty’ character is hilarious and widly entertaining. Cumberbatch plays the evil villain with military expert precision (and you will melt in your seat as you listen to his smooth baritone wash over you with every chilling line) and Pine shines again as Kirk. However, not only is the plot full of uncessary twists that literally pile on every five minutes for what appears to be little more than simple shock value to turn it away from a Trekkie plotline and into a major action movie plot, but it’s also full of cheesy one liners as well as overbearing exposition. You know, when an inlaw decides to explain how to do something incredibly simple, like turning on their oven or their T.V. Like that, but much worse. So much worse.
Perhaps the real problem is that he has three very distinct and different writers on board, as well as himself. The film tries to be many things; a lover’s tiff, a revenge thriller, a political statement, a dramatic overture about betrayal, among many others. There’s also far too many Trekkie references that were put in to please the fans of the series – which by the second hour, start to wear thin on the ice. The score, however, is pleasant and iconic, and helps ratchet the tension; it’s the plot that drags this on too far for it to be fun.
The saddening thing about the screenplay is that Roberto Orci worked on scripts like the 2009 “Watchmen”, two outings of the “Transformer” series, the 2009 reboot of “Star Trek”, and “Cowboys and Aliens”. Clearly a writer with a strong history of writing for big budget summer movies – as well as a proven track record in writing for the first film, but with no improvement on the horizon for this outing. Orci’s partner, Alex Kurtzman, also has similar credits, having worked on these films as a co-writer. They also co-created the “Fringe” series with J.J. Abrams, which was a hugely watchable series till the later seasons. The third co-writer, Damon Lindelof, has huge backing having worked with another great J.J. Abrams series, “Lost” – having written over 20 episodes and having worked on “Prometheus” as a writer. With screenplay chops this good, you’d expect something better than the mangling that occurred. This film becomes somewhat of a write-off in the end.
You won’t want your money back, but it will definitely tire you out – plot points and sequences go from “Oh this is cool” to “Oh when will this end?”. Sadly for the old notion that even numbered Trek films are usually great, this film will certainly disappoint.
It’s a film that is just enough to squeak into the summer movie parade, but not enough to stick it’s head out above the parapet.

What The Mr. Thought:
This film definitely does not go where no man has gone before; not even timidly. It retreads familiar territory and generic action movie space, peppered with what appears to be one running in-joke for Trekkies. It’s a film that’s got just enough to keep you entertained, but not enough to blow your socks off.
What The Misses Thought:
Having seen very few Star Trek episodes, and not seeing the previous movie, I went into the cinema with an open mind. The film had me torn into two. The visuals were stunning. The costumes and makeup were perfect. And Benedict Cumberbatch...well...you don't need to say much about him! It was the story that let the film down - disappointing and empty. 
But you didn't hear it from us,
Mr & Misses

Wednesday 8 May 2013

Framing Film – An Interview With Dave Vescio - Part 2


Framing Film – An Interview With Dave Vescio

Part 2

Welcome to the second part of our interview with Dave Vescio. If you have yet to read the first part of the interview just click here to read it before moving onto this part.

We just want to say thank you to, not only Dave, but to everyone who has read our blog so far! Remember if you like it, share it! And we would love your comments as well, on blog posts you would like to see and if you have anyone else you would like us to interview. To keep up to date with what is going on in our world, follow us on twitter!

Now onto the interview!

Heroes, Anti-Heroes and Villains


FI: The villain is obviously a vital role to making a great story; but it's always easy to forget that villains are human people too. Nowadays, a lot of cinema is dealing with characters who are neither clearly good or bad and have varied depth - you don't know whether to love them or to hate them; are these the types of roles that you would want to be playing in the future?

DV: Only if the villain still loses in the end.  That way you’re still teaching the right morals; because if the villain wins in the end, and is seen as the hero, then you’re doing an injustice to the world.  Over 80% of the population who watches movies is young boys between the ages of 12 to 22.  And at this age, they are very impressionable.  They will believe whatever you teach them.  And fiction movies do teach lessons.  They’re not only made for entertainment as most people want you to believe that they are.  And I honestly do believe that this whole concept of Americans killing Americans from the mass shootings to the gangs to soldiers killing themselves to etc. etc. is because of past movies, past video games, and past novels. 

FI: Teaching the right morals is paramount then to a film?

DV: If you don’t teach the right morals in fictional material, how can you honestly expect the younger generations to believe in the right morals that you were taught to believe in and you were told to follow?  And the fictional material that the Baby Boom generation was taught (and the generations before them), always taught them the right morals to follow.  But, it’s slowly moving into a direction of who cares about the child; as long as it’s entertaining, and it makes us money, that’s all that matters.  And that’s wrong on so many levels.  But, you know what; I believe in Karma, and in the end, those writers and producers and game makers will pay dearly for it. You’ll see.  Trust me I did wrong in my own past life, and I paid the price for it.  Everyone does sooner or later.  Crime does not pay, and teaching the wrong morals is still a crime in my eyes (and in most peoples eyes).  And sooner or later they’ll pay the price for it.  So, no, I only believe in doing movies that teach the right morals.  And I definitely don’t want people emulating my characters, or coming up to me in real life saying “Oh man, I watched you in such and such, and it made want to be that guy for real”.  And you hear that all the time these days.  Disgusting.  No, my villain characters will creep the shit out of you, or make you wonder if you really want to get close to me in real life.  Because once you meet a real life villain, you really don’t know what to trust anymore.  And that’s the truth that I want to tell in all of my movies.  That will better mankind for the better.  Not lying to them or teaching them the wrong things.  That will only make things worse.  As we Americans are currently seeing in our country these days.  My god, kids have to carry backpacks with bulletproof vests inside of them.  The United States has definitely changed from when I was a kid.  That’s for sure; and not for the better.

FI: If you could have played any villain (or any anti-hero) so far in any film, who would you have played and why?

DV: Honestly, none of them.  My goal with my art is to be the very first at doing it.  Like what Anthony Perkins did with ‘Psycho’.  Or what Ted Levine did with ‘Buffalo Bill’.  They were the first ones do that kind of role, and we the audience will never forget those two performances.  They moved us like no other.  So, for me, I would love to be that one villain role that truly gets underneath the skin of the audience, but, a role that’s never been written before; a one of a kind role.  That’s what I’m always seeking from scripts each & every year.

FI: Top 5 Favourite Anti-Heroes of any medium?

DV:  Any Clint Eastwood role, Batman, The Punisher, any Charles Bronson role, and the fifth one, hmm, I don’t know.  That’s a tough one.  Oh, I would say Magneto.  I know that the audience sees him as the villain.  But, I don’t.  I see him fighting for his own race.  Sort of like what Malcolm X did for the African Americans; meaning, by any means necessary.

FI: Do you have any tips for those up and comers (or new movie critics) on what to look out for in the hallmarks of playing a memorable and distinctive villain?

DV: Just play the truth, the honest truth, and not try to make it entertaining at all.  And trust me, that’s very hard to do.  I’m still trying to learn how to do that myself.  I mean to take the lines of a fictional character and make it come across non-fictional is so hard to do.  But, in the end, the audience truly wants that.  Unless, once again, it’s a comedy, then that’s a different beast in itself.

On Method Acting

FI: You mentioned that your favourite actor is Daniel-Day Lewis, a man known for his amazing intensity and dedication in his method acting to each character; what is it that you admire about him?

DV: Definitely, his intensity on changing himself into someone else (and for months at a time as well).  First off, Daniel Day Lewis mostly does period piece roles.  So, not only does he transform himself into another character, but, he also lives the way that his character would have lived in that specific time period.  If you read his interviews, you’ll see that he’ll only wear the clothes or eat the food or bathe and wash or even hunt like his characters would have in that time period.  And to me there’s no actor more Method than Daniel Day Lewis.  I honestly don’t know how he does it.  I cannot transform myself like that.  Trust me, I’ve tried.  No, for me, I try to make the role as Dave Vescio, but, to be him as well.  I’m trying to mesh the two together. 

DV: But, Daniel Day Lewis just becomes something else entirely different from whom he really is.  And I wasn’t shocked that he broke the record for winning the most Oscars for best actor. He is definitely on his way to tying the record for most nominations too.  And he has enough time to break that record as well.  A truly gifted actor! 

DV: And the funny thing is, a sad thing as well, Heath Ledger did the same thing for The Joker role.  And to this date people are still talking about that comic gook villain performance.  And Heath Ledger totally immersed himself into that role as well.  Now, it probably killed him in the end; but, my god, what a performance of a comic book character, nothing like it to this date.

In method acting, how far is too far? Where does the line get drawn, if it does at all?

DV: I don’t know.  Our culture is always changing, and our morals are changing with it.  I mean when I was a kid, you never saw implied sex in movies, and now, sometimes, you actually see them actually doing real sex like in ‘The Brown Bunny’ film.  Plus, you have actors like Sylvester Stallone who will actually break their neck on ‘The Expendables’ movie because a stunt went too far, and he’ll continue to shoot the movie with a broken neck.  So, I don’t know what is too far.  Shoot, professional wrestlers in the old days would actually cut themselves and bleed for real in front of the live audience.  So, I honestly don’t think there is a limit of truthfulness, except for maybe murder, or cutting up body parts.  But, then again, they actually do cut up real animals or eat real animals on set as well.  Art is always evolving, and movie art is always evolving.  So, the only line that I don’t ever see them crossing, but, once again, it depends on the morality of the future world: is death or cutting up of human bodies.  But, once again, who knows.  We humans are always pushing the limits with everything, and we may go back to that one time period where they did actually kill for art and entertainment, and that was during the Roman Empire.  So, you never know.  You never, ever know.

The Future

FI: You’re obviously appearing in a film alongside Kate Beckinsale – what’s your role like there and how was the production?

DV :We actually shot the movie last summer, so, it should be coming out in 2014, if not later on this year.  And my role is that of a man protesting outside of the courthouse wishing this guilty client and her lawyer dead.  And Kate happens to be the lawyer in this movie.  So, it was fun; small little role, but, definitely fun.  And Kate is great!  So, so beautiful and a phenomenal actress to watch work!  And I got to work with Nick Nolte as well.  He’s awesome too; so professional.

FI: How does the role compare from 'The Trials of Cate McCall' to 'Hick'?

DV: My role in ‘Hick’ will always be memorable because I’m only one of two villains in the whole movie.  So, I would say that my role in ‘Hick’ is probably more comparable to my role in ‘The Odd Way Home’ with Rumer Willis (the daughter of Bruce Willis and Demi Moore).  And that should be out in 2014.

FI: For our final question, we’d like to ask this for our readers: your favourite film?

DV: My favorite film is ‘Staying Alive’ with John Travolta.  Plus, it was directed by Sylvester Stallone.  And the reason I love it so much (and I always have ever since that I can remember) is nowadays it really resembles my own artistic life.  The movie is about a dancer who really doesn’t fit into the Broadway dance world at all, but wants to be the lead dancer in a Broadway show.  And the same with me, but, as a lead villain in a studio budget film.  So, that’s the goal!



That’s it, and thank you for reading!

Follow him on Twitter: @davevescio
Follow us: @bydhifu

But you didn’t hear any of this from us,

The Mr and Misses.

Tuesday 7 May 2013

'Dead Man Down' Review

Dead Man Down

Directed by: Niels Arden Oplev
Starring: Colin Farrell, Noomi Rapace, Dominic Cooper, Terrence Howard, Isabelle Huppert
Written by: Joel Howard Wyman

Rating: 4.5/10


A watched pot never boils.




Funnily enough, neither does your average revenge thriller. Which pretty much is the summation of this film - while some of the cast put in good performances, the plot leaves a lot to be desired. Similar to other action stars, Farrell has that stoic and smouldering handsome look; which is why it hurts to see him in another in a long line of action movies that he should have passed on. Farrell perhaps isn't the greatest action star, but he's no slouch either. When the studios let him play something other than the typical action figure that stands and stares just above the camera either to the left or the right, looking tense and rigid - he actually delivers a fine performance. In "Seven Psychopaths" (for which we reviewed the DVD), Farrell was one of the best parts of the whole film. Similarly, in "In Bruges", as one half of a pair of hapless assassins, Farrell executes the role to a tee. His whole tense but slightly offbeat persona fits those type of films perfectly; he's like your typical action star, but not quite. Which is why it hurts to see him in such a role. Oplev, who directed the original Swedish adaptation of "The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo", is nowhere close to his previous form. That film had panache, focus and an atmosphere that pervaded everything it touched; this on the other hand, tries to hard to be a serious thriller and ends up falling flat, repeatedly.




The film is pretty much a stereotype of your uninspired revenge thriller; a relatively quiet engineer, (Farrell) works as a part time hit man/enforcer for boss Alphonse Hoyt (Terence Howard) who has been receiving inciting messages and threats. Someone who he has hurt in the past has come back to exact revenge on him and is killing his men one by one. Farrell's "Victor" has infiltrated the gang as becomes apparent early on and the conspiracy (and the plot) starts to unravel. "Victor" is seen by his intently watching neighbour and then blackmailed into carrying out a hit by "Beatrice" (Noomi Rapace). The hit obviously involves Beatrice's own sordid past; the drunk driver who left her 'disfigured' (a phrase that Hollywood overuses and never really delivers on). However, the story is let down by not allowing the audience in; there's not much room to relate to the characters, the pace is terrible and the film just never really gets started. The plot itself becomes rather implausible in places and it is easy to left feeling bored or simply out of place. Beatrice is posited by the story as two very different things; one being a manipulative woman out for total revenge, and the other being the love interest and humanisation tool of Victor - the problem is that the two are never really reconciled. The problem with both of the leads in the half pushed love story is that both of them are meant to have a troubled past - it's the whole reason that Victor joins up with Hoyt's gang. But to play like there's a heavy underhanded complex interior, you need someone like Gosling and his "Luke" from "The Place Beyond The Pines", with everything bubbling just beneath the surface. Instead, we have Farrell looking deadpan for what amounts to half the film; he seemed less engaged with the film then the audience were at points.

The cinematography plays it safe with your standard thriller shots from rooftop angles, and from quick pans - and the film stays in the noir and very dark/earthy tones. The soundtrack is nothing special; you wouldn't be able to pick it out from a line up of Hollywood's most overused action accompaniments.

The performers themselves, somewhat unintentionally and through some 'intelligent' casting, never really settle into something they are comfortable with. Noomi, a Swedish actress, plays a French woman living in America, while Farrell, a very astute Irish man, plays a Hungarian with an American accent. Not to mention that the chemistry between them is so lacklustre that any potential romance between them just seems completely out of step - much like the film, it never rises.

The potential duality of the characters simply falls short at the hurdles; Howard's vicious but scared out of his wits gangster never reaches potential, Farrell's troubled shut-in who goes on ludicrous action sequences isn't believable, and Rapace's flit between a revenge obsessed, tortured broken woman to broken wing romantic is not all there.

It's a B-movie action flick at best; the only surprising aspect of the entire caper is the $30 million reported budget.



What the Mr Thought:
Being Hungarian, I must say I enjoy watching films where the action includes a character purported to be of my nationality; but Farrell is pretty much about as far from a typical Hungarian male as you can get. By the time the film gets into the thick of the action, the clichés and the build up of crushing stereotypes are just too much to simply sit back and enjoy the action. If it was a straight up shoot-out with Farrell, it probably would have been more enjoyable. The mistake was wanting to create the tension and serious self-concious dark drama; this won't work without someone like Gosling to helm the lead.

What the Misses Thought:
I was interested in the film for the majority of the time we were sat in the cinema...however it lulled around the middle for me and I lost interest. I think the best word to describe it would be, fine.

But you didn't hear it from us,

Mr & Misses

Monday 6 May 2013

'21 and Over' - Review

21 and Over

Directed by: Jon Lucas, Scott Moore
Starring: Justin Chon, Skylar Astin, Miles Teller,
Written by: Jon Lucas, Scott Moore

Rating: 4/10


Probably best you give this one a miss.




That's what the studio execs should have said to Jon Lucas and Scott Moore, a notable comedic writer team known for penning all scripts for the three parts of the "Hangover", "Ghost of Girlfriends Past" and the ever entertaining, "The Change-Up". This is their first attempt at directing, and to be very frank, it reads like the first draft of "The Hangover". If, you know, the first draft had the same joke about Asian people being incredible overachievers pulled every 15 minutes, and a bunch of ridiculous gross out gags that get nowhere.

It would be a shame to refer to this writing/directing team as a one-trick pony (mostly since they've penned three fan favourite films) but there's no reason to repeat "The Hangover". I spent a good two days trying to come up with something, well, anything to say about this film and this should really be telling of it. It feels like they wanted to play it safe, and they've done it to a tee - the film is in such padded territory that it becomes unfunny for large parts of the film.



The film itself is essentially a bildungsroman, a coming-of-age tale, as the name should astutely reveal. The film centres on Skylar Astin's "Casey", a stand-up guy who is an undergrad at Stanford, and "Miller" (Miles Teller), the  Stifler of American Pie Fame carbon-copy, as they travel to meet their best friend, "Jeff Chang" (Justin Chon). It's Chang's 21st birthday, and Miller strong-arms both of his friends into heading out for a night out on the town to celebrate this eponymous event - and in their first bar, the boys manage to pierce the face of a guy called "Randy", someone who they re-encounter again and again and again. The catch in this game? Chang is expected to be ready at 7am the following day, for his father has set up a prestigious interview for medical school for him. Hilarity and foolish drunkenness are expected to ensue as the boys race to get Chang home, as he spends a large portion of the story unconscious or in states that are near enough to (a fact which many in the audience were very envious of) and neither of them can remember where he lives. There's a fair amount of comic set ups, such as two blindfolded sorority girls who believe they are receiving a hazing when they are being spanked by the conscious two male leads, an event for which they want to exact revenge.

Funnily enough, Miller and Casey are only referred to by their one name - there's never an extension. However, Jeff Chang is constantly referred to in full - which is one of those repetitive gags that is initially funny, then unfunny, and then somewhat slightly chuckle inducing towards the end. We took it as a way to reinforce the American-Chinese heritage of the lead, but it could have easily doubled up as one of the many tired and over-used jokes of the film. All three leads, while likeable and believable enough, are sadly no match for the great team they are modelled on - they have not the oddball comedy of Zach Galifianakis, the charm of Bradley Cooper or the understated out of place like-ability of Ed Helms. Even the best set ups are stolen straight from "The Hangover", which again adds to the first-draft hypothesis - instead of a tiger, we get a comic run around with a buffalo. Instead of gangsters and drug deals, you get a crazy Latin sorority and assorted undergraduates.

There's all the hallmarks of the crazy wild night films - the bully that won't leave them alone (Randy), the love interest who keeps showing up at all the most difficult and troubling times of the film to allow Casey to be repeatedly embarrassed (Nicole).




There's talk of an edited version being released in China due to constraints placed by the Chinese authorities. The film's plot will be slightly altered, to show a boy who experiences the corrupt ways of America, to return to his homeland a better person. I half wish we'd seen that version instead.

What the Mr thought:

It's a film that falls at every comic hurdle, coming up trumps on almost all of them - barely able to carry the comedic tune. If you've seen the Hangover, then do not do it a disservice by watching this - not Lucas and Moore's best work.

What the Misses thought:

The Mr said it all. It almost felt like a diluted version of the first Hangover, left me disappointed and as the Mr and I had discussed before seeing the film, the majority of the funniest parts were in the trailer.

But you didn't hear it from us,

Mr & Misses

Friday 3 May 2013

Framing Film – An Interview With Dave Vescio



Framing Film – An Interview With Dave Vescio

Part 1

Welcome to our brand new feature, ‘Framing Film’. 

I just want to give you all a little bit of an introduction – we started this blog about three weeks ago as a very possible past-time for spreading our love of film. It has so rapidly started to escalate that I can’t even begin to encompass it any other way than to share with you the journey that got us here to this feature – a feature which we can thank Dave Vescio (“Hick”, “Virus X”) for. It’s fairly long as it is our special first edition, but we hope you all enjoy it!

We don’t want the ‘Framing Film’ series to be easy-to-swallow fluff pieces, but questions that either tackle a core issue, body of work or point of view - hence the length and necessity of the questions.
Dave was the first actor to engage and chat with us after we mentioned that we loved “Hick”, a film he appears in, over Twitter. He’s a very recent actor in the business, having started in acting less than a decade ago. He’s been in a news studio, on a film set, in the army and even in prison for dealing drugs.
We sat down, metaphorically, to interview Dave on his storied tale that has brought him to our screens, his life experiences and where he hopes to take it all. It’s a revealing and in-depth interview, and since this is our first feature, we want to extend our gratitude again to Dave for taking his time to engage with us. Dave’s currently engaged with new work, so we had to ask big questions in a batch way – but he gave some great responses. We’ll leave the questions bolded to help them stand out!

He’s the constant shadow, the evil lurking in your garden… Well, in at least 40+ recent productions over the last 6/7 years. Dave Vescio is known for taking on tougher roles, with very menacing aspects – in the feature film “Hick” for example, he simply plays “Stranger”, a would-be-rapist who gets attacked by Eddie Redmayne’s character “Eddie”, who initially tried to cheat him out of money.

Where has he come from, what's his take on method acting, how has it affected him and what does he want to do next? Read on to find out!

Kind of like a bad studio movie idea,(but a necessary evil due to the actual length of the interview) we are releasing part 1 now and part 2 within the next week – so keep your eyes peeled! And keep up to date with us on Twitter: @bydhifu!

-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Ferenc Igali: Hey, welcome and thanks for doing this interview at But You Didn’t Hear It From Us – Dave Vescio!

Dave Vescio: Thank you as well Ferenc and Georgia!  I totally do appreciate it!

Photo: Dave Vescio


Life History


FI: First off, let’s start off with a bit of your history; What was it like being a CBS journalist?

DV: I was actually a TV photojournalist. I was in charge of shooting & editing the news stories, while the reporter wrote the story.  But, it was fun.  I definitely enjoyed it.  I mostly did spot news, which is natural disasters and man-made disasters.  But, in the end, it just got too easy for me.  And I really got bored watching all this life happen in front of me, not being able to participate in it, because my job was to record it and tell their story, and not be a part of the story.  So, I became an actor instead.  And acting is definitely challenging, I’m not bored yet, and it’s been eleven years now. 


FI: Clearly, your performances are drawn from some experience. You’ve said before that going to prison was an important part of your life – was it a turning point in what you wanted to do with your life?

DV: Umm, not really…  I actually decided to be an artist because of LSD.  I never understood art or why people did it in the first place.  I just didn’t get it.  And one night while I was clubbing in Waikiki doing LSD, I went outside with my friends and I started to notice the skyscrapers in the distance and that’s when hit me: that I wanted to be an artist.  I just didn’t know what kind of artist though.  So, before I went to prison I used to do realistic drawings with my sketchbook.  And while in prison I did some cooking which lead me to take culinary classes while I was on federal parole.  And after working in restaurants for awhile, I then decided to shoot documentaries while in school, and got hired by CBS News as a TV photojournalist.  And then I became a theatre actor who then became a movie actor.  And now, I’m co-producing and co-writing my very first feature film that I’m going to star in.  So, it’s always transforming from decade to decade.  And I honestly don’t know where it’s all going to lead to in the end. :)   But, I’ve definitely been an artist on a journey since that one night that I did LSD in Hawaii back in 1991.  By the way, whoever is reading this, do not do LSD.  I’ve seen more people harmed by it than not harmed by it.  So, definitely do not do it; it’s illegal for a reason.

DV: But, prison did turn me around though in other areas of my life.  I went clean and sober for seven years.  I only drink alcohol from time to time now.  No illegal drugs at all though.  And I started to read more (on average I read one to two non-fiction books a month – mostly business books these days), and I went back to college after prison, and started to observe life differently.  Definitely became more spiritual.  I try to meditate or connect my chakras each day.  Prison was the best thing for me.  It made me who I am today.  And it definitely changed my life for the better as well.  Shoot, I’m the only ex-con method actor in the world.  So, it definitely made me a rarity, that’s for sure.  And now I teach the world about the criminal world through my art.  So, I can’t beat it.


FI: You’ve mentioned your time in the U.S. Army before – has your time spent there affected your acting in anyway?

DV: Probably, the morality part, and serving others as well.  I’m definitely trying to expose the truth of the criminal world to the world’s audience.  To teach them how we really are, so, they can protect themselves from us.  And to also teach them that crime does not pay.  You will get caught or you will get killed / maimed in the end.  So, growing up in a military family, plus, serving in the U.S. Army definitely taught me right from wrong. 

DV: Plus, I do my own stunts and I can properly use most weapons, so, serving in an infantry unit taught me how to do all of that.  Plus, the U.S. Army taught me that failure is not an option.  Do or die there is no try.  So, that mentality definitely helps me on setting goals for myself, and then achieving them in the end.  I definitely learned self-discipline from the U.S. Army.


FI: Both have certainly seemed to galvanise you - you’ve become a prolific man since - appearing in over 40 films and TV productions, as well as gaining over 120,00 Twitter followers; how do you keep up with it all?

DV: Ha, ha, ha, that’s funny! :)   Yeah, umm, working all the time, working every single day with no days off (and I’m serious about that), and finding new ways to work smarter than before and harder than before is how I keep up with it all.  Hollywood is the Olympics for the movie and TV business.  The best of the best from around the world all work here.  So, you definitely have to outwork them or out hustle them to stay in the game.  And it’s hard, but, it’s my most favorite thing in the world to do.  And if I couldn’t be a movie actor, honestly, I would not want to be alive anymore.  It’s the only thing that truly makes me happy.  I just love serving mankind.  I truly do.  And that’s why I have a Twitter page for my growing fan base, and that’s why I try to communicate to my fans each day as well, because without them, shoot, I wouldn’t be able to do what I love to do most in this world.  So, I’m truly grateful! :)  I truly, truly am.

FI: Your Twitter fans certainly appreciate it – not only did you sit down to interview with us but you also take the time to look after your growing fan base by answering personal queries and constantly responding and engaging with them – it makes a difference to your on screen characters though! How hard is it to swap from that mindset you need to play those characters to the one the public see every day?

DV: Actually, both mindsets are me.  There’s an old saying that goes like this.  In each and every one of us are two dogs: a good dog and an evil dog.  And the dog that wins is the one that you feed the most.  So, I try to feed the good dog the most, but, I still feed the evil dog every single day as well when I have to prepare for an audition or prepare for an upcoming movie role or do these kinds of interviews or even write my own script.  So, I definitely have to feed him each & every day, so, I do.


Career So Far

Theatrical Trailer for 'Hick' - Phase 4 Films


FI: Your acting is known by a total dedication to the role; as a ‘good’ villain, you have to make people hate your character and you have done that so effectively on so many occasions. I have read about your time with studying method acting – how hard is it to get into a new role for you? How do you commit to it and what kind of prep do you do before filming?

DV: It’s very hard.  Each and every character thinks and acts differently.  And it’s my job to figure out why they think this way and why they choose to do these actions over any other action.  So, that’s a challenge in itself.  But, then, once I figure that out, I then have to make it for real on set.  No  pretending, but, actually doing it.  So, I try to figure that as well, and once I have it figured it, then we go to set and we start shooting it.  So, for me as a Method actor, I try to do what my character is doing but for real.  So, if he doesn’t sleep much, I don’t sleep much; or if he doesn’t drink much or eat much, the same exact thing; or If he gets into fights or gets thrown around or whatever, I do that too; no stuntmen ever.  I just realistically try to do whatever my character is doing but for real.  But, at the same time, not hurt any other actor on set.  But, definitely take it to that extreme distance though; because in the end, the audience wants this kind of reality.  They all say they don’t, but, in the end they actually do.  That’s why news and reality TV and documentaries are so popular these days.  The audience just loves reality based programs.  And the industry is changing because of the internet, and the acting style is changing again as well.  Everything is evolving into reality these days.  Well, at least drama acting is. Comedy, well that’s a whole different story.  That’s definitely becoming more abstract than anything ever before.  But, everything is evolving in this business, and I mean everything.

FI: Your favourite role so far?

DV: So far I would say my Stranger character in ‘Hick’, or my small role character in ‘The Millionaire Tour’.  But, I definitely do like my characters in my upcoming movies.  Let’s say the more I do this the better I get at it (because my art is always evolving as well).



FI: You’ve mentioned in another interview with Yahoo! that you would like to play anti-heroes as well; what draws you to that role?

DV: I actually became an actor with the hope of playing these kinds of roles.  I grew up watching John Wayne, Clint Eastwood, Charles Bronson, the Rambo characters, to etc. etc.  I love anti-hero roles! :)  Even Batman is an anti-hero role.  But, the business and the audience saw me as the villain.  And don’t get me wrong, I love doing these roles as well.  But, maybe one day the audience will see me as an anti-hero role and I’ll do that for them as well.  But, if not, trust me, villain roles and antagonistic roles are a blast to do.

DV: As for the anti-hero role, umm, maybe citizens taking responsibility for their own neighborhoods, or correcting the wrongs of the world in a quick manner: an eye for an eye or a tooth for a tooth type mentality; versus the whole “you’re innocent until proven guilty” mentality, that the democracy world tends to live in these days.  I don’t know.  I just admire men and women who help others and are willing to risk their own lives to save others from harm.  And these are normal day citizens, not soldiers, police officers, or firemen.  Shoot, I made a citizen’s arrest two summers ago, and got awarded for it by CBS Radio as “Hero of the Week”.  And trust me, if I didn’t intervene in anyway to stop this crime from happening, who knows how long this guy would have gone on harming others that night.  So, that’s why I love anti-hero roles.  Taking matters in your own hands is not wrong if someone is doing wrong to others right in front of you.  And yes, you’ll be classified as an anit-hero, for taking the law into your own hands.  But, what happens if you don’t do it?  Are you honestly going to watch others get harmed without ever doing anything about it? 



FI: What draws you to your current roles of playing the villain?

DV: As for what draws me to playing the villain; as I said before, the industry and the audience really wants me to play these roles.  And probably because I used to be a real life villain in my own life, so, I know that world better than most.  And maybe the audience wants to know that truth, versus the typical one dimensional or two dimensional villain characters that Hollywood usually turns out each and every year.  Plus, the customer is ALWAYS right!  And plus, I’m here to serve the audience, and no one else.  So, I do it, and trust me, I love to do it.  I get to expose the truth of the criminal world to the audience, and I get to correct my past wrongs by doing this, by doing good this time around, and I may help save lives as well, by telling the truth.  So, honestly, I’m fine being a villain actor for the rest of my career.  Totally fine!



FI: So, you aren’t afraid of being typecast for the future?

DV: And as for being typecast; well, everyone in this business is typecast somehow someway.  It’s called being an expert.  You have heart surgeons, you have classical musicians, and you have the lonely tough guy role (which is Clint Eastwood).  Everybody is an expert or seeking to be an expert at one or two things in their own lives.  It’s human nature.  It’s who we are.  And we’re only smart enough to be an expert in only one or two areas.  We just don’t live long enough to be an expert at much more.  And what’s the rule of becoming an expert at anything in life?  It’s the 10,000 Hour Rule; meaning, you actually have to put in 10,000 hours of work to become an expert at anything in life.  10,000 hours of work is a lot of work, and a lot of years of dedication.  And we humans only have so much time on this planet to only do what we truly love to do.  So, no, I’m not worried about being typecast at all.  If it makes the world happy, trust me, it’s going to make me happy as well. 






Join us for Part 2 next week where we look at Dave's thoughts on morality within films, heroes and anti-heroes, method acting and his favourite film!

Link to Dave’s iMDb page
Follow him on Twitter: @davevescio
Follow us: @bydhifu

If you like the interview, or have any thoughts/queries, get in touch with us below in the comment section or tweet us! Please share if you enjoyed it; the more known we are, the more makers of film we can get in touch with to interview - thanks for reading!


Also part 2 is now up! Click here and it will take you to it!

But you didn’t hear any of this from us,

The Mr and Misses.