Before I begin to discuss the film at hand, I should briefly mention that I saw Elysium this week when my brother got it from Redbox. I don't mean to lay the blame at his feet. I wanted to see it, but didn't want to watch it now, busy with Christmas movies and all. I can only say that I was disappointed at its naivete and transparency. It is a paper-thin allegory for universal healthcare.
Its primary problem is it sets up a very different kind of world from the one we live in. In this world, all healthcare is cheap, simple, and easy with no need for trained professionals or really anything, but machines so plentiful that the rich merely have these magical panacea machines in their homes, lying empty most of the time. If only those evil billionaires would allow the helpless working poor to use their magic machines. Its tacky in a world where healthcare is not a problem of class warfare or rampant injustice, but a real world problem with causes that amount to more than greed and politics, but include wealth and logistics. I'll say no more, but it gets 3 stars. Matt Damon can still do shock and awe.
Now on to the main event, Joyeux Noel. First off, I'd like to discuss how much more painstaking this process has become. In my determination to be more careful with my reviews, I have to take every .25 I've given before with a grain of salt, as I compare this film to others I've reviewed. It takes longer to make these decisions. I compared JN to nearly every film I've ever rated in wonder to make sure I got it right. I'm still not sure.
To wit. I gave this film a 9.25. Here's my reasoning. First, the opening nearly brought me to tears. It opens on three children from the three represented countries of the Western Front; Britain, France, and Germany; reciting very real poems about genocidal hatred for their enemy. It reminds us of the propaganda propagated by all sides in this conflict that created the animosity necessary to justify this world war.
This film is overall marked not by great lines, but by great incidents. Whether it's the excited Scots announcing the beginning of war to an older priest who knows enough to be wary or the German soldier interrupting an opera to give a message from the Kaiser or German and French officers exchanging stories from the same street in Paris, this film has some of the best scenes I've ever seen marked by no particularly memorable dialogue.
In fact, the overall evenness of tone and charisma in this film is one of its most remarkable features. There are moments of high piety and moments of simple hilarity, but the film is never low or vulgar and never sentimental. In moments that could have been sappy, like a French officer telling his own father that he is a grandfather, they manage to keep the film on track and on message. Men tear up, but the film doesn't cheapen it with a musical deathblow. This is most notable, because the film has great music, but they never use it for emotional momentum.
As far as wisdom goes, this is where they shine. They make there point beautifully, but the point itself is a beautiful one. Instances of goosebumps abound.
First, this film is obviously a critique of World War I and all the conflict did and meant. I agree who his wholeheartedly but it is not an original point. The greater point is a critique of the propaganda and misanthropy that accompanies war in general. It helps that the story is true. If this story had not happened, it might be naive or childish to invent it. But here we find a story of humanity triumphing over the enforced power of institutional hate.
Over and over, the point is made how much these sides distrust each other. They insist well into the story that the other side is trying to trick them, lull them to sleep to slit their throats. But genuine fellowship between people breeds a simple love. Intimate knowledge and humor break down walls and the recognition of each others humanity destroys the ability to wage war.
The most important part of this for me is the scathing critique of pro-war religion. The insistence of those people who simplify conflict that is often more complicated and the genocidal aspect is laid bare and allowed to speak and sicken for itself. This message could hardly be more important now.
The most important aspect of this for me is the frightful circumspection of the film in general. It is never one-sided or simplistic. It first ignores any tendency to imagine WWI as a righteous cause for either side, but continues to acknowledge the various sides of war itself. It recognizes that genuine knowledge of the demonized other creates a kind of kinship and also recognizes that the inhumanity of war can destroy our ability to empathize at all. It sees hope in a group of soldiers laying down arms over Christmas and recognizes that one game of football or mass won't end war and that nothing about war is simple. I can't remember a moment when it insists on a point without recognizing the complications and nuances involved.
For wonder, it received a 9.5 as well. This film is exceptional for its music, for one primary reason. As mentioned earlier, it does not abuse the power. Music is never used here to pump up an otherwise dull scene. It is almost noticeably absent in key moments. But music is used to great effect as the means of initiating the movement of two disparate groups to each other. The Scottish happened and the German opera singers and the French wind instrumentalists combine to perform fantastic music, organic to the story, that sets the tone for this film. An overall theme for this film is the restraint shown by the filmmakers in using powerful tools with skill and precision.
I am always one for the classics and this film will have hard battle to do to beat out It's a Wonderful Life or Miracle on 34th St., by this film might someday be my very favorite Christmas movie.
Be well and happy Nativity!
Monday, December 30, 2013
On the Third Day of Christmas(Wink): Joyeux Noel (2005) 9.25, 10, 9.5, 28.75
Wednesday, November 27, 2013
Interlude VI: The Badspel of Flight and Other News
There are certain moments that make you feel like you need to share them. Christians are, whether they like it or not, made evangelists by the idea that there is a bit of good news not everyone is privy to that they have to share. Beyond that, I am an evangelist for Netflix and Google. Any chance I get, I extol the praises of these brands, because I believe that they will make our collective lives better. Almost as often, I find myself bashing every Apple product I've ever owned for almost the same reason. I have had a negative experience and I want to keep others, those I care about from that pain and loss. Rarely do movies do that to me. But Flight has done just that. This film is so poorly put together that I feel the need to share.
Flight's biggest problem is its plot. This thing is full of absurd coincidence, but more importantly weak characters paired with extraordinary ability and luck. The story follows Denzel Washington, playing a very non-descript alcoholic pilot who wakes up one morning to pilot a passenger plane drunk, evened with cocaine, and then proceeds to drink himself into a stupor after takeoff too. Did I mention that he flies the plane better than most humans can, despite his condition. No spoiler that the plane goes down and he saves almost everyone's life and then has to face the consequences.
I wasn't excited, but I was willing to let the movie roll on, despite the gross overuse of music and the absurd volume of it.
But the last half of the film could've been pulled from an Alcoholics Anonymous pamphlet. The powerless alcoholic that makes good in the end. It was utterly predictable and loathsomely simplifying. There is no nuance, not in the writing, and not in Denzel's eyes. And whoever wrote the scene with the Christian co-pilot in the hospital should know that it was almost a good scene, except for the creepy, emotionless, Jesus-screaming wife behind him. Just in case the Oscar nod or any other parts of this movie made you want to see it, don't. If you value your time, avoid it.
Now let me tell you about some of the other things I've been watching recently. Another movie that was frighteningly bad is Gravity. I heard a lot of things, positive and negative, but I'll break it down for you. The problem was writing again. There are no characters and no story. That's not literally accurate. There are three characters that appear on screen. The first is killed off early. He is a cheap throwaway for effect. Then we have George Clooney and Sandra Bullock. It would be inaccurate to say that they play characters. George is an uninteresting cliche whose fate, which I'll not divulge here, was obvious from the first minute of the film. Sandra's character was so uninteresting and hopeless that I did not even want her to survive.
The most potent messages were all falsehoods, in my humble opinion. Lesson #1: All religions are more or less the same. Lesson #2: Human survival is meaningful in itself. One note, this is the best use of 3D I've ever seen in a movie. Caveat: I've only seen three movies in 3D and one of them was Avatar, but this was much better. Just don't expect a movie. Imagine you're going to the IMAX in 1998 and you don't care what you see.
Two other movies that didn't get 5 stars, but I feel like telling you a bit about. First, Thor: The Dark World was in most ways a good movie. If it hadn't been for the annoying and blindingly unnecessary part played by Kat Dennings, who reprises her role from that crappy sitcom on CBS, this would have been 5 stars, like its predecessor. It was not as good as Iron Man 3, but I was happy for it. Caveat: I am a comic book nerd and I'm just happy to see these great characters on the screen without wanting to gouge my eyes out.
I just got around to seeing Brave last week and it's not five stars, because I found the main thread of the plot unconvincing, but it was another good outing for Pixar overall.
I've been watching a good deal of TV on DVD recently and I would like to recommend the FX show
Justified, which I finished the first season of. It is witty and the characters are well thought out and complex. Overall, I'm excited for more. For another high compliment, it reminds me of Longmire.
I also watched the first seasons of Dollhouse by Joss Whedon and Human Target. I can't say I recommend either, which is a big disappointment for on the former, because I've been such a big fan of Joss Whedon recently.
Lastly, I watched a couple of comedy specials recently and I cannot recommend Aziz Ansari's second special, Buried Alive, which was boring and unoriginal compared to his first. But I can recommend Rob Delaney: Live at the Bowery Ballroom with the proviso that it is pretty filthy. His delivery is funnier than most people's best jokes.
I will finally bid you ado, my good friends. Hopefully soon I will finally finish my review of 12 Years a Slave.
Flight's biggest problem is its plot. This thing is full of absurd coincidence, but more importantly weak characters paired with extraordinary ability and luck. The story follows Denzel Washington, playing a very non-descript alcoholic pilot who wakes up one morning to pilot a passenger plane drunk, evened with cocaine, and then proceeds to drink himself into a stupor after takeoff too. Did I mention that he flies the plane better than most humans can, despite his condition. No spoiler that the plane goes down and he saves almost everyone's life and then has to face the consequences.
I wasn't excited, but I was willing to let the movie roll on, despite the gross overuse of music and the absurd volume of it.
But the last half of the film could've been pulled from an Alcoholics Anonymous pamphlet. The powerless alcoholic that makes good in the end. It was utterly predictable and loathsomely simplifying. There is no nuance, not in the writing, and not in Denzel's eyes. And whoever wrote the scene with the Christian co-pilot in the hospital should know that it was almost a good scene, except for the creepy, emotionless, Jesus-screaming wife behind him. Just in case the Oscar nod or any other parts of this movie made you want to see it, don't. If you value your time, avoid it.
Now let me tell you about some of the other things I've been watching recently. Another movie that was frighteningly bad is Gravity. I heard a lot of things, positive and negative, but I'll break it down for you. The problem was writing again. There are no characters and no story. That's not literally accurate. There are three characters that appear on screen. The first is killed off early. He is a cheap throwaway for effect. Then we have George Clooney and Sandra Bullock. It would be inaccurate to say that they play characters. George is an uninteresting cliche whose fate, which I'll not divulge here, was obvious from the first minute of the film. Sandra's character was so uninteresting and hopeless that I did not even want her to survive.
The most potent messages were all falsehoods, in my humble opinion. Lesson #1: All religions are more or less the same. Lesson #2: Human survival is meaningful in itself. One note, this is the best use of 3D I've ever seen in a movie. Caveat: I've only seen three movies in 3D and one of them was Avatar, but this was much better. Just don't expect a movie. Imagine you're going to the IMAX in 1998 and you don't care what you see.
Two other movies that didn't get 5 stars, but I feel like telling you a bit about. First, Thor: The Dark World was in most ways a good movie. If it hadn't been for the annoying and blindingly unnecessary part played by Kat Dennings, who reprises her role from that crappy sitcom on CBS, this would have been 5 stars, like its predecessor. It was not as good as Iron Man 3, but I was happy for it. Caveat: I am a comic book nerd and I'm just happy to see these great characters on the screen without wanting to gouge my eyes out.
I just got around to seeing Brave last week and it's not five stars, because I found the main thread of the plot unconvincing, but it was another good outing for Pixar overall.
I've been watching a good deal of TV on DVD recently and I would like to recommend the FX show
Justified, which I finished the first season of. It is witty and the characters are well thought out and complex. Overall, I'm excited for more. For another high compliment, it reminds me of Longmire.
I also watched the first seasons of Dollhouse by Joss Whedon and Human Target. I can't say I recommend either, which is a big disappointment for on the former, because I've been such a big fan of Joss Whedon recently.
Lastly, I watched a couple of comedy specials recently and I cannot recommend Aziz Ansari's second special, Buried Alive, which was boring and unoriginal compared to his first. But I can recommend Rob Delaney: Live at the Bowery Ballroom with the proviso that it is pretty filthy. His delivery is funnier than most people's best jokes.
I will finally bid you ado, my good friends. Hopefully soon I will finally finish my review of 12 Years a Slave.
Thursday, October 31, 2013
Moneyball** (2011) 9.5, 10, 9, 27
Every once in a while, a story is chosen by God to hit you where you live and help you understand something with which you struggle. For me, Moneyball, though this was my second time watching it, hit a spot that I didn't know was sore and ready for hitting. I'll expound on that as I jump straight into wisdom. I gave this one a 10 for wisdom, which I feel the need to assure you is not common. I'll have to dig briefly into my own philosophy to explain. For quite a while, I have believed that God is intimately involved in the workings of the world. He plans things down to the minutiae. To my mind, he gives us two essential things. Using some language borrowed from a fake religion invented for fiction by Kurt Vonnegut, he gives us wampeters and korasses. A wampeter is some sort of goal or end which we are tasked to achieve and a korass is a group of people with whom we identify. God brings us into korasses to achieve the matter of his wampeters and gives us wampeters to pull together korasses. This philosophy plays out in a very interesting way in Moneyball.
Brad Pitt plays a very real general manager from Major League Baseball named Billy Beane. Beane begins the film as the GM of the Oakland A's. His goal is to take the A's to a World Series championship. At the very beginning he has already come very close, but is limited by his budget. He simply cannot afford to pay the big names as much as it would require to win, or so it seems. He meets a young baseball exec with a degree from Yale in economics named Peter Brand, played expertly by Jonah Hill. Brand has an unpopular theory about how a team might take advantage of the rest of the league's consistent undervaluing of good players. Here we see a simple korass formed to go with the wampeter they both already have.
I would like to point out that if you haven't seen this, I'm going to tell almost all of it to illustrate my point so skip ahead or just watch it and come back
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\SPOILER ALERT!/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
But not everyone is in. They have to deal with the world around them not in their select korass, but nonetheless tasked with them, like the owner and the manager and the fans. But they follow the things they have reason to believe in, as well as reevalutate their old ways of doing things and it begins to turn out right. Simultaneously and from early on, we are also made aware of Billy's young daughter. In the end, Billy is very successful but not ultimately successful. He is given a bigger and better chance to accomplish his goal of really changing the game of baseball and he has to choose between the clearest path for his wampeter and the clearest path for the advancement of his korasses, particularly his family and he chooses the korasses.
A lot of people like me, romantics and idealists tend to push for the accomplishment of goals over the relationships that make up our life. We will sacrifice our closeness with the people we've grown close to for the pursuance of a dream. We are taught to, as a part of our idealism. In the musical, Les Miserables, I can remember the line that makes me cringe, the line that drives forward revolutions and movements all throughout history, "Our little lives don't count at all."
But Lewis makes the perfect counterpoint in his sermon, The Weight of Glory, “There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilizations - these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub and exploit - immortal horrors or everlasting splendors." The point here is that we are given missions and we are given friends and I believe truly that the highest mission will always be our friends. For me, this means that all of my dreams, goals, passions, and "missions from God" must stop short of the point where they seem to insist that I sacrifice others on their altars. Whether I must simply leave them behind or kill them or snub them or exploit them, no end is worth using another person as the means.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\SPOILER ENDED!/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
That is it for wisdom, but I also gave it a 9.5 for wit. Here I'd like to begin by spinning a bit of prose praise for Aaron Sorkin. He's not solely responsible for this story or this screenplay but anyone who's seen The Social Network ought to be able to feel the similarities in style. The conversation is not dominated by big lines but feels free and witty without seeming produced. I can best compare him to Shakespeare, not the same caliber, but a very similar talent.
I am always effusive about Brad Pitt, but he truly hits it right on the head here. His character can be extremely big and flamboyant, but when he's listening to his daughter sing, he melts in the sort of way that would make you melt even if the girl singing wasn't any good (but she is). There are few movie stars like Brad Pitt, that are able to allow a movie to hang around them effortlessly. Most actors who lead a cast look like the weight of the story is on their shoulders, but while this film is very squarely centered on Billy Beane, you almost forget he's there whenever he steps off-screen.
This is the best Jonah Hill has ever been and I only hope we aren't still saying that in five years. It truly revealed actual acting ability under the comedy guise. He has chops not just the ability to make us laugh. By way of a quick hurrah for Philip Seymour Hoffmann (surprise, surprise), he's really good. He really makes me feel for him. Three others worth mentioning are the cameo by Spike Jonze, one of the funniest things I've seen recently, Kerris Dorsey as Beane's daughter, who both sings hauntingly and acts with depth for one so young, and Chris Pratt, who excites me and makes me laugh.
As far as wonder, I also opted for a 9.5. The music was good. I've let my opinion of that out. Beyond that I can think of nothing but the solid and lovely nature of the film as a whole. The director, Bennett Miller, who also directed Capote, does a subtle but impressive job of bringing it all together.
Well, I'm about to get kicked out of the library. I hope you all enjoy this film if you haven't already and maybe even get something from my rambling philosophy. Enjoyez!
Brad Pitt plays a very real general manager from Major League Baseball named Billy Beane. Beane begins the film as the GM of the Oakland A's. His goal is to take the A's to a World Series championship. At the very beginning he has already come very close, but is limited by his budget. He simply cannot afford to pay the big names as much as it would require to win, or so it seems. He meets a young baseball exec with a degree from Yale in economics named Peter Brand, played expertly by Jonah Hill. Brand has an unpopular theory about how a team might take advantage of the rest of the league's consistent undervaluing of good players. Here we see a simple korass formed to go with the wampeter they both already have.
I would like to point out that if you haven't seen this, I'm going to tell almost all of it to illustrate my point so skip ahead or just watch it and come back
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\SPOILER ALERT!/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
But not everyone is in. They have to deal with the world around them not in their select korass, but nonetheless tasked with them, like the owner and the manager and the fans. But they follow the things they have reason to believe in, as well as reevalutate their old ways of doing things and it begins to turn out right. Simultaneously and from early on, we are also made aware of Billy's young daughter. In the end, Billy is very successful but not ultimately successful. He is given a bigger and better chance to accomplish his goal of really changing the game of baseball and he has to choose between the clearest path for his wampeter and the clearest path for the advancement of his korasses, particularly his family and he chooses the korasses.
A lot of people like me, romantics and idealists tend to push for the accomplishment of goals over the relationships that make up our life. We will sacrifice our closeness with the people we've grown close to for the pursuance of a dream. We are taught to, as a part of our idealism. In the musical, Les Miserables, I can remember the line that makes me cringe, the line that drives forward revolutions and movements all throughout history, "Our little lives don't count at all."
But Lewis makes the perfect counterpoint in his sermon, The Weight of Glory, “There are no ordinary people. You have never talked to a mere mortal. Nations, cultures, arts, civilizations - these are mortal, and their life is to ours as the life of a gnat. But it is immortals whom we joke with, work with, marry, snub and exploit - immortal horrors or everlasting splendors." The point here is that we are given missions and we are given friends and I believe truly that the highest mission will always be our friends. For me, this means that all of my dreams, goals, passions, and "missions from God" must stop short of the point where they seem to insist that I sacrifice others on their altars. Whether I must simply leave them behind or kill them or snub them or exploit them, no end is worth using another person as the means.
/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\SPOILER ENDED!/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
That is it for wisdom, but I also gave it a 9.5 for wit. Here I'd like to begin by spinning a bit of prose praise for Aaron Sorkin. He's not solely responsible for this story or this screenplay but anyone who's seen The Social Network ought to be able to feel the similarities in style. The conversation is not dominated by big lines but feels free and witty without seeming produced. I can best compare him to Shakespeare, not the same caliber, but a very similar talent.
I am always effusive about Brad Pitt, but he truly hits it right on the head here. His character can be extremely big and flamboyant, but when he's listening to his daughter sing, he melts in the sort of way that would make you melt even if the girl singing wasn't any good (but she is). There are few movie stars like Brad Pitt, that are able to allow a movie to hang around them effortlessly. Most actors who lead a cast look like the weight of the story is on their shoulders, but while this film is very squarely centered on Billy Beane, you almost forget he's there whenever he steps off-screen.
This is the best Jonah Hill has ever been and I only hope we aren't still saying that in five years. It truly revealed actual acting ability under the comedy guise. He has chops not just the ability to make us laugh. By way of a quick hurrah for Philip Seymour Hoffmann (surprise, surprise), he's really good. He really makes me feel for him. Three others worth mentioning are the cameo by Spike Jonze, one of the funniest things I've seen recently, Kerris Dorsey as Beane's daughter, who both sings hauntingly and acts with depth for one so young, and Chris Pratt, who excites me and makes me laugh.
As far as wonder, I also opted for a 9.5. The music was good. I've let my opinion of that out. Beyond that I can think of nothing but the solid and lovely nature of the film as a whole. The director, Bennett Miller, who also directed Capote, does a subtle but impressive job of bringing it all together.
Well, I'm about to get kicked out of the library. I hope you all enjoy this film if you haven't already and maybe even get something from my rambling philosophy. Enjoyez!
Tuesday, October 1, 2013
Interlude V: The Interlude
I'd like to take a break here and talk a little about some of the things I've watched recently that haven't made it on here yet. For fall TV, I've got a couple outright winners so far and some on the cusp. The obvious, "everybody's-already-watching-these" shows for me are Modern Family and Parks and Rec. The best two new shows I've seen are Brooklyn Nine Nine and The Goldbergs.
The former is the first cop comedy in recent memory. This is a show starring cop characters that is first and foremost a comedy. And it is funny. Andy Samberg is automatic comedy gold. If you didn't already know this, then you must have missed some of my favorite SNL ever. My next favorite is somewhat less known, but Chelsea Peretti is one of the funniest people out there. The whole thing is great and I wholeheartedly endorse it.
The latter is a solid period (80's) family comedy that has a solid chance. Jeff Garlin is the dad, of which I wholly approve. Patton Oswalt is the narrator as well. It is definitely something I'll be watching.
I also wholly endorse Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. This won't surprise many, but I'm really happy with the pilot. It absolutely reminds me of Firefly, which I finally watched recently. I didn't finish it, but I will. Joss Whedon continues to impress.
I still haven't finished Breaking Bad, in case you're wondering, but I'm more excited still for the last season of Mad Men.
I just started the third season of Eastbound and Down recently and I can't help but think it's one of the funniest shows out there and with a surprising amount of heart. It's got a lot of completely superfluous cursing, which I couldn't care less about, but I appreciate many who do. It can also be a little crude, but very often in the service of something higher.
There are two Hulu exclusives that I'd like to comment on. The first and better is Moone Boy. This period (also 80's) family comedy is set in Ireland about a young boy with an imaginary friend, played by the hilarious Chris O'Dowd. It is probably my favorite TV format comedy of the year until Community comes back.
Quick Draw is trying too hard to be Arrested Development in the Old West, but it kind of works. I've only seen the one episode, but I'm kind of excited.
I've watched a number of movies recently that have fallen short or have left me unsure what to do with them. The first is Safety Not Guaranteed. This film has a lot going for it. First, the premise: "WANTED: Someone to go back in time with me. This is not a joke. You'll get paid after we get back. Must bring your own weapons. I have only done this once before. SAFETY NOT GUARANTEED." Then you add Aubrey Plaza and Mark Duplass and I'm pretty excited. Aubrey has been the light and joy of one of the funniest shows on TV now, Parks and Recreation. Mark Duplass is impressive wherever, though I got tired of his character on The League. The script is good, but there is something confusing towards the end that put me off. If anything I've said makes you excited, watch it. I probably will again, but not just yet.
One movie I do not recommend is The Dictator. I'm probably behind on this but Sasha Baron Cohen just isn't that funny. I think a lot of the reason I loved Borat, which I really did, is the people who are unaware that there is a joke going on. Without that base level of trickery, there's not much going on.
I think that's all for now. I promise to pick something good for the 50th post. Thank you to all who read this.
The former is the first cop comedy in recent memory. This is a show starring cop characters that is first and foremost a comedy. And it is funny. Andy Samberg is automatic comedy gold. If you didn't already know this, then you must have missed some of my favorite SNL ever. My next favorite is somewhat less known, but Chelsea Peretti is one of the funniest people out there. The whole thing is great and I wholeheartedly endorse it.
The latter is a solid period (80's) family comedy that has a solid chance. Jeff Garlin is the dad, of which I wholly approve. Patton Oswalt is the narrator as well. It is definitely something I'll be watching.
I also wholly endorse Marvel's Agents of S.H.I.E.L.D. This won't surprise many, but I'm really happy with the pilot. It absolutely reminds me of Firefly, which I finally watched recently. I didn't finish it, but I will. Joss Whedon continues to impress.
I still haven't finished Breaking Bad, in case you're wondering, but I'm more excited still for the last season of Mad Men.
I just started the third season of Eastbound and Down recently and I can't help but think it's one of the funniest shows out there and with a surprising amount of heart. It's got a lot of completely superfluous cursing, which I couldn't care less about, but I appreciate many who do. It can also be a little crude, but very often in the service of something higher.
There are two Hulu exclusives that I'd like to comment on. The first and better is Moone Boy. This period (also 80's) family comedy is set in Ireland about a young boy with an imaginary friend, played by the hilarious Chris O'Dowd. It is probably my favorite TV format comedy of the year until Community comes back.
Quick Draw is trying too hard to be Arrested Development in the Old West, but it kind of works. I've only seen the one episode, but I'm kind of excited.
I've watched a number of movies recently that have fallen short or have left me unsure what to do with them. The first is Safety Not Guaranteed. This film has a lot going for it. First, the premise: "WANTED: Someone to go back in time with me. This is not a joke. You'll get paid after we get back. Must bring your own weapons. I have only done this once before. SAFETY NOT GUARANTEED." Then you add Aubrey Plaza and Mark Duplass and I'm pretty excited. Aubrey has been the light and joy of one of the funniest shows on TV now, Parks and Recreation. Mark Duplass is impressive wherever, though I got tired of his character on The League. The script is good, but there is something confusing towards the end that put me off. If anything I've said makes you excited, watch it. I probably will again, but not just yet.
One movie I do not recommend is The Dictator. I'm probably behind on this but Sasha Baron Cohen just isn't that funny. I think a lot of the reason I loved Borat, which I really did, is the people who are unaware that there is a joke going on. Without that base level of trickery, there's not much going on.
I think that's all for now. I promise to pick something good for the 50th post. Thank you to all who read this.
Wednesday, September 18, 2013
The Wolverine* (2013) 9, 9.5, 9.5, 28
I have been excited about this film since I first heard about it. I am a great fan of comic books and Wolverine is one of my favorite characters ever and he's never been anything but a joke in the movie franchise so far. This rating could be high, because I had very little reason to believe this time out would be different, but I was happy with it. With that preface, I would like to break it down for you.
I chose to give this one a 9 for wit. This to me is an out and out win. It's been a lot worse. I never rated X-Men Origins: Wolverine, but if I had to guess, I'd bet I would have given it about a 5. I compared it to Winter's Bone and Zero Dark Thirty and it wasn't close, but compared to more modest fare like Watchmen and Valkyrie, it thrilled. The former two were 9.5's and the latter were 9's. The dialogue rarely felt forced or over-expository. It genuinely felt on par with some of its source material. The ultra-purists will scoff, but all the relationships were dealt with deftly and the actors made it all feel real.
Hugh Jackman and Famke Janssen reprised major roles. Hugh finally felt at home in the character in a way he'd failed to previously. Famke played solely in dreamy sequences and spent most of her time playing out Logan's demons, which she did, without seeming too out of place. It's not easy to ride the line between, clearly not real and dream-believable.
Newcomer Tao Okamoto made a splash in my mind as well. I will definitely look forward to her next appearance. She managed to play strength and weakness in equal measures, to have confidence and yet vulnerability. I was truly impressed. The rest of the actors were more or less forgettable, but filled their place well. The writers both have made a number of solid, if not remarkable films, but this seems like a step up to me.
For wisdom, I felt the movie had a lot in common with True Grit (2010). Some basic questions about revenge and justice came up, but this one avoided a lot of that by putting Wolverine in a different place than he often is. Don't get me wrong; he kills a bunch of dudes and that can't simply be overlooked. But he only kills criminals in the pursuit of murder, kidnapping, etc. The bigger questions are about his obligation to be a hero and to step in when he sees injustice. This kind of stuff gets me going. He realizes the essential truth that hiding from the world is not an option. One has to take action in the face of evil.
There is also a subplot about the possibility of healing and peace, even for those who have seen and done hard and harsh things for the right reasons and people who have experienced great loss. They come down squarely on the more optimistic side, which I approve of. Overall, the film is close to perfect in this regard. I only have a few reservations about its characterization of love. Specifically the whole, "I love you but I have to leave you" schtick. I don't buy it. So 9.5.
For wonder, I choose to give a 9.5. A couple of points push this. One is the realism of, that is the lack of distraction from, his claws. They really looked real, metal, and menacing. Other than that it looked great and sounded great. And surely the director isn't a complete bozo. Some of the stuff was weird and I don't know how it will be dealt with, but I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt. Go see this movie. Or rent it. And please, pray that Disney and Fox can come into some sort of agreement to bring the X-Men and other Fox properties together with the Avengers, where they belong.
I chose to give this one a 9 for wit. This to me is an out and out win. It's been a lot worse. I never rated X-Men Origins: Wolverine, but if I had to guess, I'd bet I would have given it about a 5. I compared it to Winter's Bone and Zero Dark Thirty and it wasn't close, but compared to more modest fare like Watchmen and Valkyrie, it thrilled. The former two were 9.5's and the latter were 9's. The dialogue rarely felt forced or over-expository. It genuinely felt on par with some of its source material. The ultra-purists will scoff, but all the relationships were dealt with deftly and the actors made it all feel real.
Hugh Jackman and Famke Janssen reprised major roles. Hugh finally felt at home in the character in a way he'd failed to previously. Famke played solely in dreamy sequences and spent most of her time playing out Logan's demons, which she did, without seeming too out of place. It's not easy to ride the line between, clearly not real and dream-believable.
Newcomer Tao Okamoto made a splash in my mind as well. I will definitely look forward to her next appearance. She managed to play strength and weakness in equal measures, to have confidence and yet vulnerability. I was truly impressed. The rest of the actors were more or less forgettable, but filled their place well. The writers both have made a number of solid, if not remarkable films, but this seems like a step up to me.
For wisdom, I felt the movie had a lot in common with True Grit (2010). Some basic questions about revenge and justice came up, but this one avoided a lot of that by putting Wolverine in a different place than he often is. Don't get me wrong; he kills a bunch of dudes and that can't simply be overlooked. But he only kills criminals in the pursuit of murder, kidnapping, etc. The bigger questions are about his obligation to be a hero and to step in when he sees injustice. This kind of stuff gets me going. He realizes the essential truth that hiding from the world is not an option. One has to take action in the face of evil.
There is also a subplot about the possibility of healing and peace, even for those who have seen and done hard and harsh things for the right reasons and people who have experienced great loss. They come down squarely on the more optimistic side, which I approve of. Overall, the film is close to perfect in this regard. I only have a few reservations about its characterization of love. Specifically the whole, "I love you but I have to leave you" schtick. I don't buy it. So 9.5.
For wonder, I choose to give a 9.5. A couple of points push this. One is the realism of, that is the lack of distraction from, his claws. They really looked real, metal, and menacing. Other than that it looked great and sounded great. And surely the director isn't a complete bozo. Some of the stuff was weird and I don't know how it will be dealt with, but I'm giving it the benefit of the doubt. Go see this movie. Or rent it. And please, pray that Disney and Fox can come into some sort of agreement to bring the X-Men and other Fox properties together with the Avengers, where they belong.
Tuesday, September 17, 2013
True Grit** (2010) 9.5, 9.5, 9.5, 28.5
This is only my third post since I got home and my first of the month, so I thought I'd celebrate some milestones. I have passed a hundred views from Russia and Germany. Whoever you are, thanks. My most popular post, the one on Flame and Citron is at 91 views and would be my first to 100. I am nearly to my 50th post and I thank you all for reading.
Now I'm sure you've all seen this movie, but I have to admit this was one of those watch-whatever's-lying-around choices. Obviously, from the score I gave, I like this film, so this is no insult, but I feel like this isn't going to blow anyone's mind. You probably all have your opinions, but I know I've never gotten mine well-formulated before so I thought I'd put it here for your perusing pleasure. Let's break it down.
For wit, I chose to award it a 9.5. It was only barely off a 10. This film is nearly perfectly scripted, deftly handled dialogue to match any Coen brothers' outing, and superbly acted. The easy comparison for writing alone was Slumdog Millionaire. They both have a funny way of sounding like a story you've always known. The main players deserve special attention.
Jeff Bridges reinvents a part played to near perfection by the Duke himself. There is no sign of John Wayne here, but in his place is a completely new performance that opens up nuances that are missing in Mr. Wayne's performance. I know I like to pretend at the first name basis with my actors, but this is just anyone. Jeff brings in a level of indolence and carelessness to the role, while maintaining an air of nobility.
Matt Damon doesn't fail to impress either. I've never thought of Matt Damon as an actor with a lot of different speeds. He does well in particular parts, but the only two surprises he ever gave me were in this and The Informant! In this, he achieves an unbelievably silly earnestness that warms my heart and pisses me off. He's obnoxious to his compatriots without being obnoxious to the audience.
Josh Brolin and Barry Pepper both manage to simultaneously blend in and stick out. Neither one gives you any reason to remember that they have ever played another part before. They genuinely seem to start from scratch in creating their characters, not easy, because I have really liked both of them before. They stand out by being interesting characters and disappearing into them.
Hailee Steinfeld deserves a mention, if only for being more of stoic canvas for the story than Kim Darby. She was amazingly worth watching in scenes filled with more-seasoned actors. And when she played without Jeff and Matt, as when she bargained for horses or fell in a snake pit, you couldn't take your eyes off of her.
Now to the tricky matter of the wisdom. I've debated this a good deal in my head and can't come to any decision, so I'll lay it out here. The pluses can be summed up with this quote, "You must pay for everything in this world, one way and another. There is nothing free except the grace of God." There is a very deeply ingrained part of me, backed up by mountains of Scripture and a good deal of reading and learning which tells me that this is one of the wisest statements in history. But I am also aware that it ignores grace and mercy and a slew of Christian virtues. Well, not ignores, but seems to pay little more than lip service to. This lip service, especially as it is far more than that, for the character, if not the writers, seems enough to get this one to a 9.5. Rooster kills a lot of men and never bats an eye, but never any but confessed violent criminals. He has a moral code that beats that of most and he sticks to it. I don't know if I convince myself, but maybe I convinced somebody.
As far as wonder goes, I have compared it favorably to Uncertainty, which garnered a 9. It has a quality feel, but not much setting it apart within its period domain. The reason I gave it a 9.5 is about the matter of dialect. I don't know where I heard it before, but I remember the stickling for period speech really makes a big difference. One can clearly feel the difference when Josh talks. His minimum of contractions gives a very different feel to his character. This is a big point for the directors in my book.
I hope I said something worthwhile and a little new about something for someone. If you haven't already seen it, get on it. If you have, maybe you can watch it different this time. Enjoyez!
Now I'm sure you've all seen this movie, but I have to admit this was one of those watch-whatever's-lying-around choices. Obviously, from the score I gave, I like this film, so this is no insult, but I feel like this isn't going to blow anyone's mind. You probably all have your opinions, but I know I've never gotten mine well-formulated before so I thought I'd put it here for your perusing pleasure. Let's break it down.
For wit, I chose to award it a 9.5. It was only barely off a 10. This film is nearly perfectly scripted, deftly handled dialogue to match any Coen brothers' outing, and superbly acted. The easy comparison for writing alone was Slumdog Millionaire. They both have a funny way of sounding like a story you've always known. The main players deserve special attention.
Jeff Bridges reinvents a part played to near perfection by the Duke himself. There is no sign of John Wayne here, but in his place is a completely new performance that opens up nuances that are missing in Mr. Wayne's performance. I know I like to pretend at the first name basis with my actors, but this is just anyone. Jeff brings in a level of indolence and carelessness to the role, while maintaining an air of nobility.
Matt Damon doesn't fail to impress either. I've never thought of Matt Damon as an actor with a lot of different speeds. He does well in particular parts, but the only two surprises he ever gave me were in this and The Informant! In this, he achieves an unbelievably silly earnestness that warms my heart and pisses me off. He's obnoxious to his compatriots without being obnoxious to the audience.
Josh Brolin and Barry Pepper both manage to simultaneously blend in and stick out. Neither one gives you any reason to remember that they have ever played another part before. They genuinely seem to start from scratch in creating their characters, not easy, because I have really liked both of them before. They stand out by being interesting characters and disappearing into them.
Hailee Steinfeld deserves a mention, if only for being more of stoic canvas for the story than Kim Darby. She was amazingly worth watching in scenes filled with more-seasoned actors. And when she played without Jeff and Matt, as when she bargained for horses or fell in a snake pit, you couldn't take your eyes off of her.
Now to the tricky matter of the wisdom. I've debated this a good deal in my head and can't come to any decision, so I'll lay it out here. The pluses can be summed up with this quote, "You must pay for everything in this world, one way and another. There is nothing free except the grace of God." There is a very deeply ingrained part of me, backed up by mountains of Scripture and a good deal of reading and learning which tells me that this is one of the wisest statements in history. But I am also aware that it ignores grace and mercy and a slew of Christian virtues. Well, not ignores, but seems to pay little more than lip service to. This lip service, especially as it is far more than that, for the character, if not the writers, seems enough to get this one to a 9.5. Rooster kills a lot of men and never bats an eye, but never any but confessed violent criminals. He has a moral code that beats that of most and he sticks to it. I don't know if I convince myself, but maybe I convinced somebody.
As far as wonder goes, I have compared it favorably to Uncertainty, which garnered a 9. It has a quality feel, but not much setting it apart within its period domain. The reason I gave it a 9.5 is about the matter of dialect. I don't know where I heard it before, but I remember the stickling for period speech really makes a big difference. One can clearly feel the difference when Josh talks. His minimum of contractions gives a very different feel to his character. This is a big point for the directors in my book.
I hope I said something worthwhile and a little new about something for someone. If you haven't already seen it, get on it. If you have, maybe you can watch it different this time. Enjoyez!
Friday, August 9, 2013
Man on the Moon** (1999) 9.5, 8.5, 9, 27
I've been very into comedy and stand-up recently and I remembered it had been quite a while since I had seen this film. So when I saw it at the library, it demanded a watch. This movie is big for me primarily because of the story it tells and not as much because of the portrayal itself. The story of Andy Kaufman, who he was and the way that he broke wide open the rules and walls of comedy and being funny, is one of the best. I laughed so much just at the classic Andy Kaufman jokes that Jim Carrey does.
For wit, I gave it 9.5. It's hard to tell if the writing is really good or if it's just because of how funny Andy was. That said, Jim was great, possibly his best performance. Danny DeVito was great too. Paul Giamatti was as good as ever.
Some of the best stuff was the people playing themselves, the best of which was Jerry Lawler, the wrestler.
The wisdom was an 8.5. I question whether all of the deception that Andy did for his comedy was worth it. I imagine he did too, when no one believed he had cancer. Altogether I think the film had a good message about the power of funny things and about the worth of doing what you love even when no one else gets it. Also love. Pretty great all told.
The wonder gets a 9 just for the makeup job on the Tony Clifton parts. Especially when Paul fooled me into thinking he was Jim.
The music was great too. REM did a number of songs, including an original.
All in all, an absolutely good use of an afternoon. I hope you all enjoy.
Wednesday, July 31, 2013
Evil Dead* (2012) 9, 8.5, 10, 27
I would like to begin by welcoming myself back to my blog. I have been on the road for a while and I didn't see very many movies and I didn't review the ones I did see.
For my comeback, I'll be reviewing a gem that my nephew, Isaiah, insisted I watch. I wanted to watch it, but the right time hadn't presented itself. I am a fan of the Sam Raimi/Bruce Campbell original. This is not that. I was skeptical, because I am not very familiar with the previous work of the director, Fede Alvarez. He co-wrote and directed this, only his fifth directed film and second English language film. This one is so good that I want to watch his others.
The biggest difference between this and the original is where the original is somewhere between horror and comedy, this is between horror and drama. There is something lost in this, but also something gained. But let's break it down.
The writing is good. The dialogue makes some quality callbacks to the original but is overall its own film. The pacing is good enough to recognize an underutilized character and make a play on it.
The acting is surprising as well. The main two characters, a brother and sister played by Shiloh Fernandez and Jane Levy, are really good. I knew Shiloh from a little indie movie that came out a few years ago called Happiness Runs. It was a decent movie, but I now remember Shiloh as the stand out. His work here is comparable. He's the emotional crux of the film for most of it. He does a great job conveying horror, fear, revulsion and resolution. Jane Levy is nearly unknown to me. I always saw the end of Suburgatory when I recorded Modern Family. It seems stupid. But Jane impressed me. She did well the junkie, the fighter, and the possessed. All of it works.
The best though is Lou Taylor Pucci. He's had small parts in movies I've liked like Beginners, but I don't remember him. In this, he gets perfectly the kind of jerk who just won't leave it alone. He really plays the classic jerk so well.
Wisdom is an 8.5 because the message is ambiguous at best. Like the classic, the basic message is don't mess with witchcraft. Maybe also don't scoff at witchcraft. Either way, not the most profound of lessons. Maybe a light anti-heroin message, but that's hardly as groundbreaking as it was when Frank did The Man with the Golden Arm. Alogether, I might be being generous, but it isn't really about a message, but about enjoyment. This is a little shallow.
Wonder is the key. This film is awesome in its depiction of violence. Whether it's raining blood or someone is stabbing someone else in the eye, this film is creepy and well-made.
One last thing that I don't know where to put. There are some very unrealistic moments in the violence. I won't ruin anything, but some limbs are torn off a little too easily.
If you are squeamish about violence, do not watch this. Also, the demon-possessed girl says some foul things. This should be understood, because demons are bad. I cannot object to the realistic depiction of demons, though I can imagine why one wouldn't want young people to see it.
Enjoy friends!
Tuesday, June 4, 2013
Star Trek into Darkness* (2013) 8.5, 8, 9.5, 26
I went considerably out of my way to see this, that is, I left the country to find a showing. I have been very excited for a long time over it. But I was disappointed. Let me tell you why.
For wit, I gave it an 8.5. This is what I gave the first one too. The acting was, to me, first rate. Chris Pine and Zachary Quinto hit every note. Simon Pegg is hilarious. I still think Karl Urban has remade McCoy in his own image without bring anything unfaithful to the original. Zoe Saldana, John Cho, Anton Yelchin. I love Anton already since "Fright Night". Peter Weller (whom I remembered from Dexter) and Alice Eve made a splash too.
And if anyone deserved his own paragraph it is Benedict Cumberbatch. The man absolutely commanded the screen, the whole time.
But alas, the writing was not worthy of all their efforts. I don't want to place all the blame on Damon Lindelof's shoulders. There are three credited writers. But it does have some very disturbingly Lost-esque moments that seem to be shortcuts after writing into a corner. I'll discuss this more at the end in the section for those who've seen it already.
As far as wisdom goes, I dipped even lower than before, to an 8, than before. This is because of the way that Benedict's character is treated. He's an old Star Trek villian and I almost believed that he might get a fresh treatment, but he's assumed as a bad guy by our "heros" from the very beginning. He really doesn't do anything to deserve it. Nothing. This is again a writing problem.
That all put aside, the film is beautiful and well put together. Ut truly has quite a number of great scenes. Music is great and editing makes for a clean film.
Overall, I still suggest seeing it, but a non-Trekkie like myself could easily wait for DVD.
SPOILER ALERT
If you've seen this film already, I'd love to be more specific about my issues with the writing. Other Spock is a clear and unabashed deus ex machina. Somehow, in the middle of a giant battle, Spock gets a message to New Vulcan and doesn't ask for reinforcements, but queries Other Spock on Khan. This is clearly ridiculous. Then after getting what he needs to defeat Khan, he simply wraps it up. It is simply beyond too easy. Also it is clearly morally suspect. Spock has only the judgment of the man who.has already betrayed him, that is Marcus, to imagine Khan as a villian. Whatever Other Spock tells him will be the story, not of Khan, but of Other Khan and thus Kirk's decision to stun him after Khan has helped him is baldly treacherous. This is morally baffling and just plaij bad plotting. Sorry, J. J.
But, great moments include making Spock scream Khan's name when Kirk dies, reversing it; Kirk and Khan getting ready to go get Marcus; the build up to resurrecting Kirk; and the clear references to Sulu's eventual captainship.
Thursday, May 9, 2013
Mud* (2013) 9, 9.5, 9.5, 28
First, I'd like to note that the line to get into this movie was huge. Part of this was surely French movie theaters insistence on not letting anyone into a movie more than a few minutes before, but the theater was almost full. This film only had a limited release in the US, which means that it probably didn't show anywhere in my home town and got a week or two in the little indie theater in Lawrence(God bless 'em). This movie nearly filled a theater on a movie premier day with plenty of other things going on. That's kind of cool.
Beyond that, I was happy in general to find this movie a little more plot-driven than Jeff Nichols' last film, Take Shelter, not because I prefer that (I clearly do not), but because it's good to see indie filmmakers with the ability to produce a balanced oeuvre. This movie is practically a thriller. It isn't quite as full of twists and turns as the trailer would have us believe, but it tells a complex and fulfilling story about someone really growing up. Let's break it down.
For wit, I gave it a 9. I went up and down on this, but I stuck with a 9 because of comparisons with Jaws and Punch Drunk Love, both of which I watched last weekend, and I recognized less points where I felt like things were said so well I was taken aback. Less, not none. Comparing Vincent Cassel in Mesrine or Joaquin Phoenix in The Master with Matthew McConaughey in anything seems unfair. Not that Matthew is disappointing. He is at the awesome height of surprising quality that I got when he first appeared on Eastbound and Down. This will be the last time I underestimate him. He demands sympathy for his character and a certain fellow-feeling. You know that he isn't totally on the up-and-up, but you absolutely feel his pain.
Reese Witherspoon is even a bit surprising, but I attribute that mostly to the writing. The story flows with an ease that I remarked about in Jaws. It is all-encompassing. When you are watching it, it is reality. All credit not given to the engrossing screenwriter goes to the two young actors who drove the film from beginning to end: Tye Sheridan as Ellis and Jacob Lofland as Neckbone. Their natural chemistry, helping someone like me, who hasn't talked to his childhood best friend much recently, a real reminder of what it is to not remember not knowing someone and to trust them implicitly and to really defy any attempt to create hierarchy between you. Neither one has a long history in acting, but Tye's credit in a Terrence Malick film is nothing to scoff at. His performance is as layered as it can be in a clear bildungsfilm.
Sarah Paulson and Ray McKinnon played his parents and both had their moments without standing out. Sam Shepard was great, but his best moment was in being clearly upstaged by Tye. The only other character who did much for me was Michael Shannon as Galen, Neck's uncle. He has his one or two scenes where he clearly is the point of attraction. Early on, in his first appearance, just after we've been told he's 'doing it,' he follows a young lady out apologetically explaining, "Some people are okay with that kind of thing in the bedroom. Now we know you're not, I'll keep that in mind." Later, he brings his character around from the irresponsible uncle/guardian when he warns Ellis not to "get Neck in any trouble (he) can't get him out of." Michael absolutely nails it, giving the most nuanced adult performance.
Enough said about wit, I turn to wisdom, which was a 9.5. I had to give this a good bit of thought. It seemed clearly above Moonrise Kingdom which I gave a 9.5, because it doesn't have that obvious glaring defect. The ideas are clearly said, though not simply told. We learn that those we love sometimes fail us but that doesn't mean Love has failed us. We learn that all actions, whether they be seeking revenge (no matter where in the chain you may fall) or infidelity, have consequences, sometimes dire ones. But we also learn that sometimes things turn out for the best because of our most selfless acts. All these seem good to me, even unassailable, but they simply weren't enough to put this film in the class of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington or Nice Guy Johnny, which I gave 10's.
The last is wonder and I gave it a 9.5 for its portrayal of the swampy rivery wilderness of Arkansas. It gave it the romanticism it deserves and gave some great shots of moving down the river. The music was good too, if unobtrusive. Not least the somewhat ironic use of "Help Me, Rhonda" for the closing credits. There was some obnoxious over-cutting between various figures during dramatic dialogue. I prefer staying with one character until there's a break in the dialogue. I can settle for not seeing the character talking if the other character's reaction is more interesting. It just felt nervous about missing something.
If there is a theater near you showing this, I would suggest it. There's nothing approaching a sex scene and though some people get shot, it's pretty tame. Neck can't stop talking about "titties," but it's nearly endearing by the end. Enjoyez!
Beyond that, I was happy in general to find this movie a little more plot-driven than Jeff Nichols' last film, Take Shelter, not because I prefer that (I clearly do not), but because it's good to see indie filmmakers with the ability to produce a balanced oeuvre. This movie is practically a thriller. It isn't quite as full of twists and turns as the trailer would have us believe, but it tells a complex and fulfilling story about someone really growing up. Let's break it down.
For wit, I gave it a 9. I went up and down on this, but I stuck with a 9 because of comparisons with Jaws and Punch Drunk Love, both of which I watched last weekend, and I recognized less points where I felt like things were said so well I was taken aback. Less, not none. Comparing Vincent Cassel in Mesrine or Joaquin Phoenix in The Master with Matthew McConaughey in anything seems unfair. Not that Matthew is disappointing. He is at the awesome height of surprising quality that I got when he first appeared on Eastbound and Down. This will be the last time I underestimate him. He demands sympathy for his character and a certain fellow-feeling. You know that he isn't totally on the up-and-up, but you absolutely feel his pain.
Reese Witherspoon is even a bit surprising, but I attribute that mostly to the writing. The story flows with an ease that I remarked about in Jaws. It is all-encompassing. When you are watching it, it is reality. All credit not given to the engrossing screenwriter goes to the two young actors who drove the film from beginning to end: Tye Sheridan as Ellis and Jacob Lofland as Neckbone. Their natural chemistry, helping someone like me, who hasn't talked to his childhood best friend much recently, a real reminder of what it is to not remember not knowing someone and to trust them implicitly and to really defy any attempt to create hierarchy between you. Neither one has a long history in acting, but Tye's credit in a Terrence Malick film is nothing to scoff at. His performance is as layered as it can be in a clear bildungsfilm.
Sarah Paulson and Ray McKinnon played his parents and both had their moments without standing out. Sam Shepard was great, but his best moment was in being clearly upstaged by Tye. The only other character who did much for me was Michael Shannon as Galen, Neck's uncle. He has his one or two scenes where he clearly is the point of attraction. Early on, in his first appearance, just after we've been told he's 'doing it,' he follows a young lady out apologetically explaining, "Some people are okay with that kind of thing in the bedroom. Now we know you're not, I'll keep that in mind." Later, he brings his character around from the irresponsible uncle/guardian when he warns Ellis not to "get Neck in any trouble (he) can't get him out of." Michael absolutely nails it, giving the most nuanced adult performance.
Enough said about wit, I turn to wisdom, which was a 9.5. I had to give this a good bit of thought. It seemed clearly above Moonrise Kingdom which I gave a 9.5, because it doesn't have that obvious glaring defect. The ideas are clearly said, though not simply told. We learn that those we love sometimes fail us but that doesn't mean Love has failed us. We learn that all actions, whether they be seeking revenge (no matter where in the chain you may fall) or infidelity, have consequences, sometimes dire ones. But we also learn that sometimes things turn out for the best because of our most selfless acts. All these seem good to me, even unassailable, but they simply weren't enough to put this film in the class of Mr. Smith Goes to Washington or Nice Guy Johnny, which I gave 10's.
The last is wonder and I gave it a 9.5 for its portrayal of the swampy rivery wilderness of Arkansas. It gave it the romanticism it deserves and gave some great shots of moving down the river. The music was good too, if unobtrusive. Not least the somewhat ironic use of "Help Me, Rhonda" for the closing credits. There was some obnoxious over-cutting between various figures during dramatic dialogue. I prefer staying with one character until there's a break in the dialogue. I can settle for not seeing the character talking if the other character's reaction is more interesting. It just felt nervous about missing something.
If there is a theater near you showing this, I would suggest it. There's nothing approaching a sex scene and though some people get shot, it's pretty tame. Neck can't stop talking about "titties," but it's nearly endearing by the end. Enjoyez!
Wednesday, May 8, 2013
Jaws** (1975) 9, 9, 10, 28
This weekend I was blessed by the opportunity to see an old classic again in good company. If you haven't seen Jaws go ahead and do it. Unless you're squeamish about blood, because there's a lot of it. Let's break this one down.
I gave it a 9.5 for wit because this film is a veritable treasure trove of one-liners and the cast absolutely acts every one of them. I'll give you a smattering. Hooper the marine biologist, when a bunch of people going after the shark make fun of him, "Ha, ha - they're all gonna die." Chief Brody, when the massive shark first pokes his head out of the water, "You're gonna need a bigger boat." Brody again when one of the locals starts bugging him about something, "That's some bad hat, Harry." The film manages to craft at least a couple really dynamic and powerful characters in Brody, Hooper, and Quint within the bounds of this shark-story thriller.
Roy Scheider gives an easy and free performance, leaving you sure that he could never be anyone else. This whole film is really one of complete immersion. Whether he's reacting to a smack in the face, asking his young son for a kiss, or gazing in fear at the water where the shark just was, I never felt the pull of the real world while he was onscreen.
Richard Dreyfuss is amiable and fun. Really helping to lighten a mood that could easily get too heavy. Robert Shaw, who plays Quint really sucks you in with his monologues too. He has too big ones: first when he scratches the chalkboard to get everyone's attention and then offers to go after the shark. That monologue is worth a great many movies I've seen. The second is his narration of attack by sharks on a sinking ship during WWII. He really gives you the most engrossing sort of campfire story I think any film pulls off.
The background artists really make this film though. It truly is all about atmosphere. A couple problems with the non-descript and lackluster ending, which practically qualifies as a plot-hole.
The wisdom is a simple 9. It has a clear message: don't value economy and money over people's lives be cautious and respect the power of nature. But this seems something over-simplistic. It may not have been meant to teach a great lesson, but that seems like a bit of a flaw.
The ten here is for Spielberg and his ability to make a terrifying shark movie with so little shark. The little boy's flailing body and the red water bubbling under him is far more frightening than the best moments of the animatronic shark. That and John Williams, the absolute best for-screen composer ever. He is truly a magician. That 10 doesn't feel hard to justify. That is rare.
I hope those few who haven't seen this classic can get the bug, otherwise enjoy.
I gave it a 9.5 for wit because this film is a veritable treasure trove of one-liners and the cast absolutely acts every one of them. I'll give you a smattering. Hooper the marine biologist, when a bunch of people going after the shark make fun of him, "Ha, ha - they're all gonna die." Chief Brody, when the massive shark first pokes his head out of the water, "You're gonna need a bigger boat." Brody again when one of the locals starts bugging him about something, "That's some bad hat, Harry." The film manages to craft at least a couple really dynamic and powerful characters in Brody, Hooper, and Quint within the bounds of this shark-story thriller.
Roy Scheider gives an easy and free performance, leaving you sure that he could never be anyone else. This whole film is really one of complete immersion. Whether he's reacting to a smack in the face, asking his young son for a kiss, or gazing in fear at the water where the shark just was, I never felt the pull of the real world while he was onscreen.
Richard Dreyfuss is amiable and fun. Really helping to lighten a mood that could easily get too heavy. Robert Shaw, who plays Quint really sucks you in with his monologues too. He has too big ones: first when he scratches the chalkboard to get everyone's attention and then offers to go after the shark. That monologue is worth a great many movies I've seen. The second is his narration of attack by sharks on a sinking ship during WWII. He really gives you the most engrossing sort of campfire story I think any film pulls off.
The background artists really make this film though. It truly is all about atmosphere. A couple problems with the non-descript and lackluster ending, which practically qualifies as a plot-hole.
The wisdom is a simple 9. It has a clear message: don't value economy and money over people's lives be cautious and respect the power of nature. But this seems something over-simplistic. It may not have been meant to teach a great lesson, but that seems like a bit of a flaw.
The ten here is for Spielberg and his ability to make a terrifying shark movie with so little shark. The little boy's flailing body and the red water bubbling under him is far more frightening than the best moments of the animatronic shark. That and John Williams, the absolute best for-screen composer ever. He is truly a magician. That 10 doesn't feel hard to justify. That is rare.
I hope those few who haven't seen this classic can get the bug, otherwise enjoy.
Friday, May 3, 2013
Shakespeare In Love** (1998) 9, 8, 9.5, 26.5
This film won Best Picture at the Oscars in '99. I don't agree with this, especially given the quality of its competition. It's on this, in part, that I'll try to base my review.
For wit, I'm going to give it a 9. I don't have a rating recorded for Life Is Beautiful (1997), but I can infer from my memory of it from at least four years ago the last time I saw it, a memory better than movies I saw last month, that it is at the very least a 9.5 for wit. That film is heartbreakingly funny and perfectly acted. Shakespeare In Love is by contrast of a considerably lower caliber in its humor and its pathos, this despite taking numerous lines from some of the better works of someone I think may be the greatest writer who ever lived, at least in his own language. I am annoyed by the low quality of some of the puns, not only anachronistic in the extreme, which is forgivable, but poorly constructed and unimaginative. I can only hope that the more tawdry bits don't come from Tom Stoppard, of whom I'm a fan. That said, some of the best bits are plays on Shakespearean in-jokes. I think its funny when Shakespeare clearly steals lines from the world around him. I like his interaction with Marlowe and John Webster.
I also think the acting is great. Tom Wilkinson stands out from the very beginning, really adding the umph from the supporting cast. His character's transformation and complexity are hilarious and heartwarming. Geoffrey Rush is as weasley as he's ever been yet endearing in his own way, especially when he ensures various characters that things will be alright, magically, somehow. Joe Roberts, the little boy who plays John Webster, is great, even if his character is overused. The wealth of great actors playing interesting characters is one of the movie's saving graces. Joseph Fiennes as a fun version of the Bard, Gwyneth Paltrow as a ridiculous lady-love, Martin Clunes as Burbage, Sandra Reinton as Rosalind, Simon Callow as the Master of Revels, Dami Judi as Elizabeth, Imelda Staunton as the Nurse, Colin Firth as Wessex, Ben Affleck as Ned Alleyn, Rupert Everett as Marlowe, Jim Carter as the man playing the Nurse. They all weave something beautiful and funny, even if it does get crowded.
Wisdom is a tricky point. Historical evidence, which as a Shakepeare enthusiast, I am far to aware of for a movie reviewer, continually shows that not only did most of Shakespeare's plays not come from life, their plots are almost always unoriginal and stolen and the lines are a result of the writing prowess of Shakespeare, not some magical muse who inspired him to write a great romance about teenagers in his late twenties, early thirties. This post-Romantic theory of authorial inspiration is even problematic when applied retrospectively to the Romantics themselves, how much more to people who preceded them by centuries? This and the insistently extra-marital inspiration for what Shakespeare chooses to make intra-marital sex scenes gives this film a sour taste as far as wisdom goes. For all that I still give it a 8, which puts it on par with something like Mammoth (2009), which displays some understanding of the world of extra-marital sex and international power relations, but still seems largely to miss the point.
For wonder, it doesn't seem overgenerous to give a 9.5. The spectacle is great on a lot of levels from dance to costume to setting. If not for the language, this movie might have been a great period piece.
Overall, this is not a high encouragement for those who haven't seen it to pick it up, but it still has a place in my heart next to Anonymous (2011), the even less plausible and more outlandish Oxfordian version of the Shakespeare story. They stand out as attempts to read Shakespeare differently, which though not always good reading, it rarely fails to make an interesting story.
For wit, I'm going to give it a 9. I don't have a rating recorded for Life Is Beautiful (1997), but I can infer from my memory of it from at least four years ago the last time I saw it, a memory better than movies I saw last month, that it is at the very least a 9.5 for wit. That film is heartbreakingly funny and perfectly acted. Shakespeare In Love is by contrast of a considerably lower caliber in its humor and its pathos, this despite taking numerous lines from some of the better works of someone I think may be the greatest writer who ever lived, at least in his own language. I am annoyed by the low quality of some of the puns, not only anachronistic in the extreme, which is forgivable, but poorly constructed and unimaginative. I can only hope that the more tawdry bits don't come from Tom Stoppard, of whom I'm a fan. That said, some of the best bits are plays on Shakespearean in-jokes. I think its funny when Shakespeare clearly steals lines from the world around him. I like his interaction with Marlowe and John Webster.
I also think the acting is great. Tom Wilkinson stands out from the very beginning, really adding the umph from the supporting cast. His character's transformation and complexity are hilarious and heartwarming. Geoffrey Rush is as weasley as he's ever been yet endearing in his own way, especially when he ensures various characters that things will be alright, magically, somehow. Joe Roberts, the little boy who plays John Webster, is great, even if his character is overused. The wealth of great actors playing interesting characters is one of the movie's saving graces. Joseph Fiennes as a fun version of the Bard, Gwyneth Paltrow as a ridiculous lady-love, Martin Clunes as Burbage, Sandra Reinton as Rosalind, Simon Callow as the Master of Revels, Dami Judi as Elizabeth, Imelda Staunton as the Nurse, Colin Firth as Wessex, Ben Affleck as Ned Alleyn, Rupert Everett as Marlowe, Jim Carter as the man playing the Nurse. They all weave something beautiful and funny, even if it does get crowded.
Wisdom is a tricky point. Historical evidence, which as a Shakepeare enthusiast, I am far to aware of for a movie reviewer, continually shows that not only did most of Shakespeare's plays not come from life, their plots are almost always unoriginal and stolen and the lines are a result of the writing prowess of Shakespeare, not some magical muse who inspired him to write a great romance about teenagers in his late twenties, early thirties. This post-Romantic theory of authorial inspiration is even problematic when applied retrospectively to the Romantics themselves, how much more to people who preceded them by centuries? This and the insistently extra-marital inspiration for what Shakespeare chooses to make intra-marital sex scenes gives this film a sour taste as far as wisdom goes. For all that I still give it a 8, which puts it on par with something like Mammoth (2009), which displays some understanding of the world of extra-marital sex and international power relations, but still seems largely to miss the point.
For wonder, it doesn't seem overgenerous to give a 9.5. The spectacle is great on a lot of levels from dance to costume to setting. If not for the language, this movie might have been a great period piece.
Overall, this is not a high encouragement for those who haven't seen it to pick it up, but it still has a place in my heart next to Anonymous (2011), the even less plausible and more outlandish Oxfordian version of the Shakespeare story. They stand out as attempts to read Shakespeare differently, which though not always good reading, it rarely fails to make an interesting story.
Thursday, May 2, 2013
Iron Man 3* (2013) 9, 9, 9.5, 27.5
I know it's been forever since I wrote a review on here. I apologize. I have only seen one movie since my last review on March 19th. For those who know me, this is nearly unbelievable. But I am a grad student. And busy. I saw Warm Bodies (2013) and I liked it but never got around to reviewing it. See above about busyness. But here I return for the first of Marvel's Phase Two films. As a big fan of Marvel Comics and the Marvel Studios adaptations, I was surprised to find I did not have any ratings for any of the phase one films on my list, so I get to start from scratch here.
For those of you in America, this film comes out tomorrow, on my birthday and I hope you get to read this before you go see it. To begin with, after Iron Man 2 (2010), I was skeptical as to what good could come next. I have been a fan of Jon Favreau since Made (2001) and that movie alone proved to me that he could direct. I loved Iron Man (2008), but something was lost in the sequel. I don't blame Favreau, though I guess someone did. Not knowing the new director from Adam, I came in with a healthy skepticism. But it was confounded. Overall, if you're still on the fence, go. I'll try to elucidate the why if my solid word doesn't convince you.
For wit, I gave the film a 9. This is a standard. Maybe if it hadn't been so close to In the Name of the Father (1993), which I also gave a 9, I could have let it go higher, but comparing any actor to Daniel Day-Lewis is a losing game. A shining leading pair in Robert Downey Jr. and Gwyneth Paltrow is certainly a plus. I don't mean to downgrade them. They are genuinely better than the core cast of The Dark Knight (2008). I don't say that lightly, but Christian Bale and Maggie Gyllenhaal genuinely don't make that movie and in this one, the leading pair are very strong, with hints of greatness. But like the aforementioned superhero powerhouse, it's the supporting cast that seals the deal. In this analogy, Don Cheadle and Jon Favreau are Gary Oldman, solid but not scene-stealers. The big three for me are Guy Pearce, Sir Ben Kingsley, and Ty Simpkins. That's going up. Who's Ty Simpkins? I'll get to him.
First, Guy Pearce as Aldrich Killian. This is him at his Memento best. He really works his charm and his ability to be disgusting here. Appreciate it. Ben is the Mandarin and if you've seen the trailer, you ought to already be excited. But if your worried, as I was, that he seems very similar to Heath Ledger's Joker, you'll be pleasantly surprised, as I was. I won't ruin the twist, but it gives Sir Ben the chance to show his full range. Lastly, Ty. This little guy is probably my favorite part. A pretty minor character, but he has that essential point in Tony Stark's rebirth, a bit too much like The Dark Knight Rises (2012), but they do it their own way. Plus I've been reading some of the comic source material and who knows whether Matt Fraction or the Nolans wrote this first?
The writing is good, solid, but not nearly as fantastic and flawless as it could have been, but fun all the way through.
For wisdom, I opted for the 9. I don't think that Tony is the wisest character or even that his platitudes are ingenious, but I do think they are more or less correct. The message is simple and clear, exactly like most of these Marvel Studios films have been and there's nothing wrong with that. They lack the complexity and depth of the Dark Knight Trilogy, but I forgive them for failing to meet that awesome standard. The simple version of this films idea is reaping and sowing, karma. It is a truth of life that most of our problems end up being our fault, in one way or another. And this is played out like a morality play. Sweet and to the point with explosions. Just like a morality play.
Lastly, the explosions and the music and the special effects. It's all great and I hope you enjoy the sheer scale of it. Wonder is a 9.5 for all the enjoyable things that I can't be more specific about because I saw it a week ago. Enjoy! Why are you still reading this? It hasn't come out yet in your country? Sorry. Take your time.
For those of you in America, this film comes out tomorrow, on my birthday and I hope you get to read this before you go see it. To begin with, after Iron Man 2 (2010), I was skeptical as to what good could come next. I have been a fan of Jon Favreau since Made (2001) and that movie alone proved to me that he could direct. I loved Iron Man (2008), but something was lost in the sequel. I don't blame Favreau, though I guess someone did. Not knowing the new director from Adam, I came in with a healthy skepticism. But it was confounded. Overall, if you're still on the fence, go. I'll try to elucidate the why if my solid word doesn't convince you.
For wit, I gave the film a 9. This is a standard. Maybe if it hadn't been so close to In the Name of the Father (1993), which I also gave a 9, I could have let it go higher, but comparing any actor to Daniel Day-Lewis is a losing game. A shining leading pair in Robert Downey Jr. and Gwyneth Paltrow is certainly a plus. I don't mean to downgrade them. They are genuinely better than the core cast of The Dark Knight (2008). I don't say that lightly, but Christian Bale and Maggie Gyllenhaal genuinely don't make that movie and in this one, the leading pair are very strong, with hints of greatness. But like the aforementioned superhero powerhouse, it's the supporting cast that seals the deal. In this analogy, Don Cheadle and Jon Favreau are Gary Oldman, solid but not scene-stealers. The big three for me are Guy Pearce, Sir Ben Kingsley, and Ty Simpkins. That's going up. Who's Ty Simpkins? I'll get to him.
First, Guy Pearce as Aldrich Killian. This is him at his Memento best. He really works his charm and his ability to be disgusting here. Appreciate it. Ben is the Mandarin and if you've seen the trailer, you ought to already be excited. But if your worried, as I was, that he seems very similar to Heath Ledger's Joker, you'll be pleasantly surprised, as I was. I won't ruin the twist, but it gives Sir Ben the chance to show his full range. Lastly, Ty. This little guy is probably my favorite part. A pretty minor character, but he has that essential point in Tony Stark's rebirth, a bit too much like The Dark Knight Rises (2012), but they do it their own way. Plus I've been reading some of the comic source material and who knows whether Matt Fraction or the Nolans wrote this first?
The writing is good, solid, but not nearly as fantastic and flawless as it could have been, but fun all the way through.
For wisdom, I opted for the 9. I don't think that Tony is the wisest character or even that his platitudes are ingenious, but I do think they are more or less correct. The message is simple and clear, exactly like most of these Marvel Studios films have been and there's nothing wrong with that. They lack the complexity and depth of the Dark Knight Trilogy, but I forgive them for failing to meet that awesome standard. The simple version of this films idea is reaping and sowing, karma. It is a truth of life that most of our problems end up being our fault, in one way or another. And this is played out like a morality play. Sweet and to the point with explosions. Just like a morality play.
Lastly, the explosions and the music and the special effects. It's all great and I hope you enjoy the sheer scale of it. Wonder is a 9.5 for all the enjoyable things that I can't be more specific about because I saw it a week ago. Enjoy! Why are you still reading this? It hasn't come out yet in your country? Sorry. Take your time.
Tuesday, March 19, 2013
The Master* (2012) 9.5, 9, 9.5, 28
Paul Thomas Anderson is one of my favorite directors. He is the only director with three movies in my top twenty-five. I was really excited about The Master from the first time I heard about it, but I was a bit disappointed. The Master lacks the clarity of There Will Be Blood, Magnolia, or Punch-Drunk Love. Those films are far from simple, but the themes and ideas are clear. The Master lacks a crisp quality that those films have. But let me be more specific.
Often, I would take points off wit for lack of clarity, but I don't think that the problem is not conveying the point well, but the unworthiness of the point to begin with. In TWBB, we have a film almost worthy of being called a morality play, in the least condescending way possible. We see a character do bad things and we see what that does to him. And if we're honest and not sociopaths, we don't like it. Maybe it frightens us. Magnolia literally narrates a sort of short documentary on coincidence before giving us a story that illustrates its main theme. Punch-Drunk Love is even more complicated, but it still is a simple tragedy. Man of high standards with a normal life experiences awful, disastrous circumstances that turn out to be mostly his fault. Not simple, but not over-complicated.
Obviously, I think that the story is well-written and acted; I gave it a 9.5 out of 10. The dialogue and the sequence of scenes is beyond fascinating; it is enslaving. Philip Seymour Hoffman and Amy Adams really sell their characters, the charismatic leader of a new religion and his dedicated, if dogmatic and particular wife. But the absolute best is Joaquin Phoenix. Can I just say how happy I am that I'm Still Here was a hoax? It would be a loss too great to bear. He addresses the character of the unstable PTSD sufferer with a great deal of tenderness and compassion, while being raw and even frightening. He tears you open and makes you feel his pain without requiring you to understand it or even relate to it. It reminds me of a novel, Children of Men, upon which the film is based but not the same in so many ways. The main character is not relatable or likable, but you can see him for all he is and the story gains a lot in being told through him. I don't mean to leave Philip and Amy out. Philip really gives you a sense of how a person starts a religion, even a false one, with a certain kind of honesty. Amy is harsher and more grating than I have ever seen her before, a real departure. She's almost frightening. Jesse Plemons, previously of Breaking Bad, was also pretty interesting. Amber Childers and Rami Malek also did good. Lastly a great, if brief performance by Christopher Evan Welch, who plays a skeptic harassed by Joaquin.
The last .5 is off mostly because of a couple of scenes which contain an ambiguity as to whether they are to be seen as really happening or not. There is a single scene with a good deal of nudity that is surreal enough that I assumed it hadn't happened and to make you wonder what is really happening and what's not.
Wisdom is 9 because I heard and, as I see it, understood what P. T. wanted to say. This has something to do with questioning the possibility of living without a master or being your own master. For this reason, I think that the titular master is not the leader of the cult, but Joaquin. He insists on a sort of freedom that might be seen simply as slavery to oneself. This idea is good, but I'm not sure the whole movie is justified by that one point. But I like it. I'm still pretty ambivalent here. I could watch it again next week and remove this section of my review entirely, but I still have that nagging feeling that made me leave the theater a little disappointed. It may be comparable to the feeling I got when I saw The Darjeeling Limited. Following There Will Be Blood is even harder than following The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou. What a thing!
Wonder here is pretty straightforward for Paul. He knows how to do nearly anything that can be done in film with fresh vision, an idea I'm stealing from somebody else, though I can't remember who. No, I remember. It's from his IMDb profile. Good point anyway. Jonny Greenwood succeeds again, in a great way with the music, as he did in TWBB. I say like, but it was nothing like it, except in its quality.
This has not been an easy film for me to review; there's so much uncertainty, but I would suggest it to anyone who's seen and like previous films of Paul's, though if you haven't I'd start with something else.
Obviously, I think that the story is well-written and acted; I gave it a 9.5 out of 10. The dialogue and the sequence of scenes is beyond fascinating; it is enslaving. Philip Seymour Hoffman and Amy Adams really sell their characters, the charismatic leader of a new religion and his dedicated, if dogmatic and particular wife. But the absolute best is Joaquin Phoenix. Can I just say how happy I am that I'm Still Here was a hoax? It would be a loss too great to bear. He addresses the character of the unstable PTSD sufferer with a great deal of tenderness and compassion, while being raw and even frightening. He tears you open and makes you feel his pain without requiring you to understand it or even relate to it. It reminds me of a novel, Children of Men, upon which the film is based but not the same in so many ways. The main character is not relatable or likable, but you can see him for all he is and the story gains a lot in being told through him. I don't mean to leave Philip and Amy out. Philip really gives you a sense of how a person starts a religion, even a false one, with a certain kind of honesty. Amy is harsher and more grating than I have ever seen her before, a real departure. She's almost frightening. Jesse Plemons, previously of Breaking Bad, was also pretty interesting. Amber Childers and Rami Malek also did good. Lastly a great, if brief performance by Christopher Evan Welch, who plays a skeptic harassed by Joaquin.
The last .5 is off mostly because of a couple of scenes which contain an ambiguity as to whether they are to be seen as really happening or not. There is a single scene with a good deal of nudity that is surreal enough that I assumed it hadn't happened and to make you wonder what is really happening and what's not.
Wisdom is 9 because I heard and, as I see it, understood what P. T. wanted to say. This has something to do with questioning the possibility of living without a master or being your own master. For this reason, I think that the titular master is not the leader of the cult, but Joaquin. He insists on a sort of freedom that might be seen simply as slavery to oneself. This idea is good, but I'm not sure the whole movie is justified by that one point. But I like it. I'm still pretty ambivalent here. I could watch it again next week and remove this section of my review entirely, but I still have that nagging feeling that made me leave the theater a little disappointed. It may be comparable to the feeling I got when I saw The Darjeeling Limited. Following There Will Be Blood is even harder than following The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou. What a thing!
Wonder here is pretty straightforward for Paul. He knows how to do nearly anything that can be done in film with fresh vision, an idea I'm stealing from somebody else, though I can't remember who. No, I remember. It's from his IMDb profile. Good point anyway. Jonny Greenwood succeeds again, in a great way with the music, as he did in TWBB. I say like, but it was nothing like it, except in its quality.
This has not been an easy film for me to review; there's so much uncertainty, but I would suggest it to anyone who's seen and like previous films of Paul's, though if you haven't I'd start with something else.
Sunday, February 10, 2013
Seven Psychopaths* (2013) 9.5, 9.5, 9.5, 28.5
First, I watched this one with the small guilt that I feel watching extraneous films during Oscar prep season. I have numerous films that I'm not going to get to. I will miss Amour. I also will probably miss Beasts of the Southern Wild and Life of Pi, but I have been looking forward to this one since before I heard of Lincoln. The truth of that statement is that I have been waiting with rapt anticipation for Martin McDonagh's next movie since the end of the first time I saw In Bruges. I am a fan of McDonagh from his plays, starting with my friends rendition of The Pillow Man to my reading of the Leenane trilogy on my own time. I absolutely treasure his morbid sense of humor and his tendency to portray peripheral characters who do terrifyingly violent things to other people. I treasure this as a call-back to Flannery O'Connor and the idea that our society can truly see itself most clearly in the monsters it creates. I've had long discussions with friends about this and I agree with some people's conception that the glimmer of hope and the possibility of grace and redemption entering these stories is lacking from the Southern gothic style of Flannery, but I believe in the power of looking well into the void and the power of that critique on the way we allow our world to work.
That said, Mairtin (as he often spells it, I believe to emphasize an Irish pronunciation) takes a step back from his normal tack in this film and does something reminiscent of what Charlie Kaufman achieved in Adaptation. The story is about a borderline alcoholic Irish screenwriter in Hollywood named Martin. Not quite what Charlie did, but he takes other steps into the surreal world of commenting on his own process.
Thus, for wit, I gave it a 9.5. This is .5 lower than Adaptation, but that one is nigh unapproachable. I also compared it to A Serious Man, which would have dropped it below 9.5, but it was as well written and acted as Rushmore, a statement that will get people on my case, I know, but it is true. McDonagh tears apart his obsession with psychopaths and his tears apart his categories and he gets Colin Farrell, Sam Rockwell, Christopher Walken, and Woody Harrelson to help him.
The whole cast really gets involved and creates a magnificent story here. Colin Farrell does what he normally does, no offense, but nothing new. This is not an insult, because what he does can be gut-wrenching and captivating, but Irish drunk is his schtick. I love it. Sam Rockwell has also gotten used to being the crazy guy. But here it is clearly above and beyond, both on the crazy and on the sane end of it. Christopher Walken is at the top of his game, not completely out of character, but more reserved and even less violent. Woody Harrelson plays another over-the-top sort of character, very much in the vein of Tallahassee from Zombieland. Too many great actors to name, but none that struck me as jumping out of there comfort zones.
For wisdom, I'm a little conflicted. Mairtin's decision to deal with the seeming conflict between his feelings about violence and his ease with depicting it seems wise. That may not be how he would describe what he's doing, but it's hard to describe. It's hard to pin down these points without ruining it, but he clearly comes down on a side that is against the idea that violence solves problems, yet simultaneously against the idea that violence is never the answer. It is all about changing your life when you see a problem developing and sending the right sort of message. For this, I give it a 9.5. There's just a couple of small niggles in my brain about the nature of a psychopath and religious mumbo-jumbo. That will certainly come up when I review Life of Pi.
Lastly, I will give him a 9.5 for wonder on the basis of the use of voice-over and cutaways effectively, good music choice, and good work for a director without a lot under his belt. There seems less to say here, but it really is a "wonder"ful movie. That seems silly as soon as I type it, but I'm alright with it.
I can think of all sorts that I would not suggest this movie to. My grandma and all my dad's family. Cursing and violence absolutely abound and all the characters are pretty messed up, but there is something really good behind it all, I truly believe. Enjoyez!
That said, Mairtin (as he often spells it, I believe to emphasize an Irish pronunciation) takes a step back from his normal tack in this film and does something reminiscent of what Charlie Kaufman achieved in Adaptation. The story is about a borderline alcoholic Irish screenwriter in Hollywood named Martin. Not quite what Charlie did, but he takes other steps into the surreal world of commenting on his own process.
Thus, for wit, I gave it a 9.5. This is .5 lower than Adaptation, but that one is nigh unapproachable. I also compared it to A Serious Man, which would have dropped it below 9.5, but it was as well written and acted as Rushmore, a statement that will get people on my case, I know, but it is true. McDonagh tears apart his obsession with psychopaths and his tears apart his categories and he gets Colin Farrell, Sam Rockwell, Christopher Walken, and Woody Harrelson to help him.
The whole cast really gets involved and creates a magnificent story here. Colin Farrell does what he normally does, no offense, but nothing new. This is not an insult, because what he does can be gut-wrenching and captivating, but Irish drunk is his schtick. I love it. Sam Rockwell has also gotten used to being the crazy guy. But here it is clearly above and beyond, both on the crazy and on the sane end of it. Christopher Walken is at the top of his game, not completely out of character, but more reserved and even less violent. Woody Harrelson plays another over-the-top sort of character, very much in the vein of Tallahassee from Zombieland. Too many great actors to name, but none that struck me as jumping out of there comfort zones.
For wisdom, I'm a little conflicted. Mairtin's decision to deal with the seeming conflict between his feelings about violence and his ease with depicting it seems wise. That may not be how he would describe what he's doing, but it's hard to describe. It's hard to pin down these points without ruining it, but he clearly comes down on a side that is against the idea that violence solves problems, yet simultaneously against the idea that violence is never the answer. It is all about changing your life when you see a problem developing and sending the right sort of message. For this, I give it a 9.5. There's just a couple of small niggles in my brain about the nature of a psychopath and religious mumbo-jumbo. That will certainly come up when I review Life of Pi.
Lastly, I will give him a 9.5 for wonder on the basis of the use of voice-over and cutaways effectively, good music choice, and good work for a director without a lot under his belt. There seems less to say here, but it really is a "wonder"ful movie. That seems silly as soon as I type it, but I'm alright with it.
I can think of all sorts that I would not suggest this movie to. My grandma and all my dad's family. Cursing and violence absolutely abound and all the characters are pretty messed up, but there is something really good behind it all, I truly believe. Enjoyez!
Thursday, February 7, 2013
Argo* (2012) 8, 8.5, 9.5, 26
I can readily admit that I was not excited by Argo as a concept, when I first heard about it. It gave me pause to know that Ben Affleck directed it, as I am a very big fan of his feature-length directorial debut, Gone Baby Gone. I really felt for the lone samurai insisting on doing the right thing. Well-made, but most of all well-acted and well-written. This is to be attributed to Ben as well, both as director and as co-writer. This got me excited about it, but the look of the movie seemed ridiculous, but it occurred to me that this was historically. Silly period. This ended up being nearly my favorite part.
For wit, I gave the film an 8. Overall the writing did not deserve anymore. I compared it with American Gangster, which did not seem right, that one being slightly better acted, but definitely better written. It compared more to Artois the Goat or American History X. Though I haven't seen it, the comparison with Gangster Squad occurred to me. They both seem like great historical, true stories that need to be told, but they deserve something better than the way they are being portrayed. History demands nuance. Another problem with the incompatibility of the two major stories is important, but I'll come back to that when I deal with wonder.
As far as acting goes, kudos to Bryan Cranston for playing it solid, but simple on the first time I've seen him out of Breaking Bad. Kyle Jordan also practically reprises his role from Zero Dark Thirty with nearly the same effect. Not a lot, but certainly not bad. Alan Arkin and John Goodman were solid, if unspectacular. Lastly, positive points for each of the hiding Americans, just solid characters that will make me look again at a movie I see them in in the future. I should mention Ben, but what is there to say.
On to wisdom, which could definitely have been higher if there had been more cohesion. The beginning was something like an admission of responsibility by America in the reign of the Shah and the deposing of Mossadeq. This was refreshing to begin with, but it seemed to turn quickly. I would not have objected to a turn that made the point that the takeover of the embassy was a huge clustercuss, but the result was a complete abandonment of the original subplot. It was all, 100% American spy thriller. Fun, but confusing. The end became nearly identical to the end of Charlie Wilson's War, which, though it was fun and funny the first time, this time it seemed unnecessary. Overall I chose to give it an 8.5, not for bad morals, but confused presentation.
Wonder is a 9.5. I came to really like the period nature of it and appreciated the apparent attention to detail, not that I know what '79 looked like, really. I think Ben did alright, but it was kind of a let-down after Gone Baby Gone and The Town. Maybe he needs to get back to material that he wrote, or at least co-wrote, because I trust him as a writer, since Good Will Hunting. I hope the next one is better.
Friday, February 1, 2013
Les Miserables* (2012) 9, 9.5, 9.5, 28
This film, as a musical, makes it awkward to delineate the boundary between wit and wonder. Normally, the acting and the music work together but are demonstrably different elements. In this case, they are not. I will thus, try to analyze these in connection. Another issue is that this is a record of production of a musical with a long history (particularly a long personal history for me) and thus it almost feels silly going over how well written the songs feel, but I'll try to imagine you all meeting me from scratch, as I like to think is true for some of you.
The script/music for this musical is very well-done. The depth of a book like Les Miserables, a challengingly long and intricate novel, is played out here with a surprisingly large amount of detail, given the disparity in size between the two incarnations. The story in its original form is one of my very favorite stories, the passion (in the sense of the word used to describe the trial and execution of Jesus) of a man who endures some of the most despicable treatment possible for one person to put upon another without someone being killed and is yet transformed into the kind of force that changes the lives of everyone around him, not without failures and mistakes, but without a relapse into darkness. The little kindnesses we undertake, such as Monseigneur Bienvenu does for Jean Valjean, truly can have tremendous consequences. This ignores the deep and complex romance of Marius and Cosette, on the level with Romeo and Juliet, and the human tragedies of Fantine, Eponine, and Gavroche. The story is almost too big to consider in this forum, even in its abbreviated musical version. Needless to say I am a fan.
The music gives life and verve to this beautiful tale, creating one of the most stick-in-your-head feelings of any musical I've ever known, or any music for that matter. I'm actually listening to the 10th Anniversary Recording now. It cannot help but bring me a flood of memories. The film fails this tradition slightly in the way that far too often the actors, almost all of whom could actually sing quite well, undersung the dialogue. They seemed to find something synonymous between whispery singing and the display of emotion. That said, the acting rarely had anything lacking. Before I dive into that, I should mention that listening to some of the 10th Anniversary Recording, I decided that they definitely are guilty of oversinging and underacting. Who knows where the golden mean is? How we need you now, Aristotle.
Back to acting, Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway are eminently deserving of all the adulation they have received. Their respective soliloquies are the best part of the movie acting-wise. No shame should be placed on Eddie Redmayne and Amanda Seyfried either, though. They embody the two young lovers as well as anyone I can think of. Some comparison with the 1998 incarnation could be instructive.
Hugh vs. Liam Neeson leaves me preferring someone over Liam for the first time I can remember. Jackman is just more capable of making me feel both the destitute Valjean, fresh from prison, and the saintly Valjean at his death, are the same person, even if they are nearly unrecognizable. That should be put down in no small part to costume design and makeup. I'll come back to that. If I compare Anne to Uma Thurman, there is no comparison. Anne really owns this part like no one I've ever seen before. When I hear the musical, I hear her behind the other singer and she judges her harshly. When I read the novel, I now clearly see Anne. Except that "the Blonde" shouldn't have such dark hair. Russell Crowe does not, God forgive me, compare with Geoffrey Rush. Absolutely not. Too bad, I imagined such good things. Amanda vs. Claire Danes is hard. I've loved Claire for a long time and this is the first time since Mean Girls I've really liked Amanda. I'll give them a tie. With Claire, I felt the clear-cut sense of innocence more palpably. I cannot choose between one pair of doe eyes and another, but Claire's portrayal is just more nuanced. Claire and Hans Matheson clearly have a better chemistry than Amanda and Eddie, though. Eddie on his own is better than Hans. Eddie makes me believe the dichotomy between the revolutionary and the lover more fully, with no little help from the music. He doesn't seem shallow for being preoccupied with Cosette on the eve of the revolution, but he also doesn't seem like just a jerk for being miserable about his dead friends when he has Cosette forever.
This could be too academic for many, but I really enjoy the comparison. I do not know whether to place the aforementioned undersinging on the negative of wit or wisdom, so I take it 2.5 off each and incidentals place them each down at 9.5, but I cannot ignore it as much as I have. I would love to have the .25 measure in my methodology, but that's not going to happen now, so I absolutely must make wit a 9. I can't make it wonder, even though it seems like a failure of the director, but the costumes and makeup need recognition.
Wisdom comes last. I have few complaints. The bishop is underplayed and the chorus too often becomes cynical. The final number is absolutely wonderful. I also like the interpretation of what must have been envisioned as a simple musical finale as a glimpse at the afterlife, that is, the inclusion of all the dead in the scene and exclusion of the living and the lost dead, a.k.a. Javert. Add Valjean and Fantine's soliloquies and Fantine's calling of Valjean as he dies, and the mysterious, religious, libertarian, republican themes of the whole thing makes me quiver with the chill of hearing truth clearly and lovingly expressed. I will again point out the scene when the whores recruit Fantine as an example of the unfortunate ambiguity of the musical on these kind of social/moral issues that keeps me from giving it a straight 10.
I know that a large percentage of the good friends I've had the longest have long since seen this for the same reason it was so important to me, but if you haven't, even if you know nothing of Les Miserables, especially then, I suggest you do.
The script/music for this musical is very well-done. The depth of a book like Les Miserables, a challengingly long and intricate novel, is played out here with a surprisingly large amount of detail, given the disparity in size between the two incarnations. The story in its original form is one of my very favorite stories, the passion (in the sense of the word used to describe the trial and execution of Jesus) of a man who endures some of the most despicable treatment possible for one person to put upon another without someone being killed and is yet transformed into the kind of force that changes the lives of everyone around him, not without failures and mistakes, but without a relapse into darkness. The little kindnesses we undertake, such as Monseigneur Bienvenu does for Jean Valjean, truly can have tremendous consequences. This ignores the deep and complex romance of Marius and Cosette, on the level with Romeo and Juliet, and the human tragedies of Fantine, Eponine, and Gavroche. The story is almost too big to consider in this forum, even in its abbreviated musical version. Needless to say I am a fan.
The music gives life and verve to this beautiful tale, creating one of the most stick-in-your-head feelings of any musical I've ever known, or any music for that matter. I'm actually listening to the 10th Anniversary Recording now. It cannot help but bring me a flood of memories. The film fails this tradition slightly in the way that far too often the actors, almost all of whom could actually sing quite well, undersung the dialogue. They seemed to find something synonymous between whispery singing and the display of emotion. That said, the acting rarely had anything lacking. Before I dive into that, I should mention that listening to some of the 10th Anniversary Recording, I decided that they definitely are guilty of oversinging and underacting. Who knows where the golden mean is? How we need you now, Aristotle.
Back to acting, Hugh Jackman and Anne Hathaway are eminently deserving of all the adulation they have received. Their respective soliloquies are the best part of the movie acting-wise. No shame should be placed on Eddie Redmayne and Amanda Seyfried either, though. They embody the two young lovers as well as anyone I can think of. Some comparison with the 1998 incarnation could be instructive.
Hugh vs. Liam Neeson leaves me preferring someone over Liam for the first time I can remember. Jackman is just more capable of making me feel both the destitute Valjean, fresh from prison, and the saintly Valjean at his death, are the same person, even if they are nearly unrecognizable. That should be put down in no small part to costume design and makeup. I'll come back to that. If I compare Anne to Uma Thurman, there is no comparison. Anne really owns this part like no one I've ever seen before. When I hear the musical, I hear her behind the other singer and she judges her harshly. When I read the novel, I now clearly see Anne. Except that "the Blonde" shouldn't have such dark hair. Russell Crowe does not, God forgive me, compare with Geoffrey Rush. Absolutely not. Too bad, I imagined such good things. Amanda vs. Claire Danes is hard. I've loved Claire for a long time and this is the first time since Mean Girls I've really liked Amanda. I'll give them a tie. With Claire, I felt the clear-cut sense of innocence more palpably. I cannot choose between one pair of doe eyes and another, but Claire's portrayal is just more nuanced. Claire and Hans Matheson clearly have a better chemistry than Amanda and Eddie, though. Eddie on his own is better than Hans. Eddie makes me believe the dichotomy between the revolutionary and the lover more fully, with no little help from the music. He doesn't seem shallow for being preoccupied with Cosette on the eve of the revolution, but he also doesn't seem like just a jerk for being miserable about his dead friends when he has Cosette forever.
This could be too academic for many, but I really enjoy the comparison. I do not know whether to place the aforementioned undersinging on the negative of wit or wisdom, so I take it 2.5 off each and incidentals place them each down at 9.5, but I cannot ignore it as much as I have. I would love to have the .25 measure in my methodology, but that's not going to happen now, so I absolutely must make wit a 9. I can't make it wonder, even though it seems like a failure of the director, but the costumes and makeup need recognition.
Wisdom comes last. I have few complaints. The bishop is underplayed and the chorus too often becomes cynical. The final number is absolutely wonderful. I also like the interpretation of what must have been envisioned as a simple musical finale as a glimpse at the afterlife, that is, the inclusion of all the dead in the scene and exclusion of the living and the lost dead, a.k.a. Javert. Add Valjean and Fantine's soliloquies and Fantine's calling of Valjean as he dies, and the mysterious, religious, libertarian, republican themes of the whole thing makes me quiver with the chill of hearing truth clearly and lovingly expressed. I will again point out the scene when the whores recruit Fantine as an example of the unfortunate ambiguity of the musical on these kind of social/moral issues that keeps me from giving it a straight 10.
I know that a large percentage of the good friends I've had the longest have long since seen this for the same reason it was so important to me, but if you haven't, even if you know nothing of Les Miserables, especially then, I suggest you do.
Friday, January 25, 2013
Zero Dark Thirty* (2013) 9.5, 10, 9, 28.5
Sometimes films dictate the order in which I approach the questions I choose to put to myself. The controversy that has engulfed this film, that is to say my willing awareness thereof, forced me to consider this movie first and foremost in terms of its moral content. I'd like to make a couple of simple points prior to my assessment. This film has been accused of being pro-torture. As per numerous statements of the director and writer, this may not have been intended to support torture, but this film makes a clear argument for torture and not an unconvincing one. I will willingly admit that I was forced to confront the possibility that without torture, which I desperately want to call "enhanced interrogation techniques" because it simply feels better, without torture groups like Al-Qaeda cannot be defeated. This would not make torture right, but it would complicate the issue significantly. I would argue, even though I wasn't convinced by the argument, that this film does us all the fine service of confronting us with a version of events that makes us confront the dichotomy between freedom and security, that makes us question the easy answers we live behind while other people do work that we might not be comfortable with that nonetheless keeps us safe. That may be my favorite part about this one as far as wisdom goes. There is no simple answer. It is a film that sparks questions that countries like the US, that is, countries with a great deal of power and thus responsibility, must ask themselves, questions that are often left unanswered in the minds of people protected from these hard facts. For this reason and not because I totally agree with the movie's point of view, I gave it a 10 for wisdom.
I would like to make a simple argument that this film is making an argument for the detention program. It's story argumentation 101. They introduce two major characters who have differing opinions about how to counter Al-Qaeda. One says that we can use money and incentives to lure terrorists into giving up their superiors, tactics that worked well in the Cold War. The other insists that because Al-Qaeda is made up primarily of true believers that getting the information needed to capture the leaders of Al-Qaeda will require interrogation and, though not stated explicitly, perhaps torture. The film later shows the former's theory violently squashed and the latter's theory violently vindicated. Maybe this is simply the story that they were given, but the story reads like a pro-torture fairy-tale, in which the Big Bad Wolf is thwarted by torturing his second cousin.
Beyond this, I'd like to step to the question of wit. In general, this film is well written. There are a number of one-liners that made me laugh and the scenes of intense emotion make you either want to cry or shout. This should, of course be attributed to actors as well. But one more thing about the writing. Pacing a story that takes ten years to unfold cannot be easy. From the beginning, with the haunting, but utterly discreet reminder of 9/11, to the end with the end well-placed addendum, this film managed to keep me interested despite the large amounts of real-world time between the interesting events. This is truly good work.
As far as acting goes, Jessica Chastain holds your attention even when she's in the background of a scene. I genuinely watched for her reaction to almost everything that happened around her. Hers is not the only good performance. Jason Clarke is the closest anyone comes to stealing Jessica's spotlight. His work in the torture scenes is impeccable and his line about the CIA taking his monkeys is the perfect mix of hilarious and gut-wrenching. James Gandolfini gives a good performance, the sort of beautiful over-the-top to set off Jessica's subtlety. One of the most amazing performances of the year is Reda Kateb, the subject of the torture. He blew me away and I knew I knew him, so I checked. He features prominently in one of the best French films I've ever seen, Un Prophète.
Overall, I give this movie a solid 9.5, really just barely not a 10. I just lacks that edge.
As far as wonder goes, the film has a strong core of action and music, but nothing that stands out. The director did not astound me in The Hurt Locker and I'm less than impressed by the overall skill here. I praised the script and I cannot know what exactly was script and what direction, what the actor's skill or director's suggestion, but no one does more than I thought they could do. The story works, but I don't get the sense that this working is because of that one thing falling into place. That is to say that I don't have any big complaints. Overall, I give it a 9. What's missing is that thing that would make it a real contender for Best Picture. That is what I don't see. I've only seen four of the nominees and I already feel confident that Zero Dark Thirty shouldn't win.
Forgive the last paragraph. I might have made it sound all too dire, but the film astounding. When I came home after watching it, I could only tell my dad that it was "heavy." If you're in the mood to have your morals questioned and "your worldview rocked," to quote my alter-ego, the Ice King, then find time to see this film.
P.S. I have already watched Les Misérables and Argo since this one and I expect to have reviews soon. Thanks for reading, faithful friends.
I would like to make a simple argument that this film is making an argument for the detention program. It's story argumentation 101. They introduce two major characters who have differing opinions about how to counter Al-Qaeda. One says that we can use money and incentives to lure terrorists into giving up their superiors, tactics that worked well in the Cold War. The other insists that because Al-Qaeda is made up primarily of true believers that getting the information needed to capture the leaders of Al-Qaeda will require interrogation and, though not stated explicitly, perhaps torture. The film later shows the former's theory violently squashed and the latter's theory violently vindicated. Maybe this is simply the story that they were given, but the story reads like a pro-torture fairy-tale, in which the Big Bad Wolf is thwarted by torturing his second cousin.
Beyond this, I'd like to step to the question of wit. In general, this film is well written. There are a number of one-liners that made me laugh and the scenes of intense emotion make you either want to cry or shout. This should, of course be attributed to actors as well. But one more thing about the writing. Pacing a story that takes ten years to unfold cannot be easy. From the beginning, with the haunting, but utterly discreet reminder of 9/11, to the end with the end well-placed addendum, this film managed to keep me interested despite the large amounts of real-world time between the interesting events. This is truly good work.
As far as acting goes, Jessica Chastain holds your attention even when she's in the background of a scene. I genuinely watched for her reaction to almost everything that happened around her. Hers is not the only good performance. Jason Clarke is the closest anyone comes to stealing Jessica's spotlight. His work in the torture scenes is impeccable and his line about the CIA taking his monkeys is the perfect mix of hilarious and gut-wrenching. James Gandolfini gives a good performance, the sort of beautiful over-the-top to set off Jessica's subtlety. One of the most amazing performances of the year is Reda Kateb, the subject of the torture. He blew me away and I knew I knew him, so I checked. He features prominently in one of the best French films I've ever seen, Un Prophète.
Overall, I give this movie a solid 9.5, really just barely not a 10. I just lacks that edge.
As far as wonder goes, the film has a strong core of action and music, but nothing that stands out. The director did not astound me in The Hurt Locker and I'm less than impressed by the overall skill here. I praised the script and I cannot know what exactly was script and what direction, what the actor's skill or director's suggestion, but no one does more than I thought they could do. The story works, but I don't get the sense that this working is because of that one thing falling into place. That is to say that I don't have any big complaints. Overall, I give it a 9. What's missing is that thing that would make it a real contender for Best Picture. That is what I don't see. I've only seen four of the nominees and I already feel confident that Zero Dark Thirty shouldn't win.
Forgive the last paragraph. I might have made it sound all too dire, but the film astounding. When I came home after watching it, I could only tell my dad that it was "heavy." If you're in the mood to have your morals questioned and "your worldview rocked," to quote my alter-ego, the Ice King, then find time to see this film.
P.S. I have already watched Les Misérables and Argo since this one and I expect to have reviews soon. Thanks for reading, faithful friends.
Tuesday, January 15, 2013
Silver Linings Playbook* (2012) 9.5, 9, 9.5, 28
I got to see this film with one of my oldest friends without really knowing at all what it was about. I was fortunate. This one is a beautiful little tale about a struggling individual overcoming adversity, but not in the normal, humdrum, Hollywood manner. I carves a new path for himself and Bradley Cooper really knocks this one out of the park. Let's begin.
For wit, I gave this one a 9.5. There are very few points of complaint here. The writing is ingenious in the way that the dialogue is funny and heartfelt, never pulling punches and the plotting is bravely offbeat never heading quite where you expected it to go and not being ashamed of a happy ending. I hope saying that the ending is happy doesn't give too much away, but there you go. There are some anti-climactic and improbable moments, but they still manage to feel organic to me. I leave room for others to disagree as even I felt my leg being pulled a couple times, but that was only .5 off in my view. Thus the 9.5.
The acting should also get some high praise. Both Bradley Cooper and Jennifer Lawrence blew me away with their portrayals of people who have endured significant trauma and come out the other end, some times more and some times less intact. Bradley Cooper is rather mesmerizing in his outbursts. He makes me watch him fall apart. Jennifer Lawrence delivers some of the best lines of the film like a pro.
It's hard to compliment De Niro without insulting him by underselling him. The best thing I can say is that he doesn't take over the scene unless it's appropriate. When his time comes, he captures you and even out of focus he steals the scene, but when it's not time, he plays the background part as well as anyone. This same compliment applies to Chris Tucker. He can be a loudmouth and can takeover things when you don't want him to. In this film, he takes his one scene and steals it, but the rest of the time he plays his part without getting on your nerves.
The wisdom was a little more disappointing. My views on mental health are probably far from orthodox or even very coherent, but I worry a little bit about the conclusions the film makes on the main character taking his medicine. I may be a little biased on this. The affirmation of the father's obviously ridiculous gambling habits seemed hard to take as well. This I feel more confident about. It is more than enough to keep this from being higher than a 9.
The 9.5 that I gave this for wonder is utterly well deserved. The cinematography is bold. The decision to allow Robert De Niro to talk to Bradley Cooper while out of focus and various other odd places for the camera, done well for effect, really endeared this movie to me. Music as well was well picked and really worked well in the film.
I would suggest this to anyone who can take some swearing and some very serious situations. Its hilarious and thoughtful as well as heart-warming. Watch this with someone you care about. The last point I'd like to make is that this is the first post I've made since the page went over 1000 views. Thanks to everyone who reads this. If you care about me or just enjoy it, feel free to argue with me and comments galore.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)