Haven't posted / rated here in a very long time and it's not something I entertain much anymore (my letterboxd page is now totally dead), but I seem to have gotten my movie-watching mojo back (after a serious dry spell, due to very busy projects or just no-mood, no-desire) and watched a movie every day during August. To honor that, I'll summarise them here (long post ahoy). They're mostly auteur / high-(f)art / kino stuff, you know me (or maybe you do not).
Living (2022)
For which Bill Nighy got a rather peculiar, odd-one-out Oscar nomination last year. I do like Nighy, but even with that in mind his range can be fairly one-style. A remake of a 50s Kurosawa classic, Ikiru, which I have not seen, so cannot argue if it was a good or even necessary remake (at least it was of an old movie, not one of those immediate English redos, meant for those who can't stand subtitles at foreign movies). Overall watchable, a moral tale totally up to viewers' interest. Had an odd narrative jump in its last third. Also appeared to prep up a young protagonist, only to cast him aside a good chunk of runtime, then bring him back, was rather clunk.
Un amour impossible (2018)
I fancy Virginie Efira a lot, which is probably why I end watching a lot of what she stars in. Does its "frenchiest" to craft shocking ramifications out of a romance premise and voice them liberally and reflectively (reminded me of François Ozon's twisted ideas, in that regard). Dragged on during its 2 hours plus, with all said ramifications. The acting quality of the actress playing the adult daughter made it hard to connect with that character's distress.
Heat (1995)
Not much to argue against this movie's coolness and cult-ness, to the point of tolerable runtime sweats or crazy action setpieces (in which I assume a lot of fantasy was put: surely full-on metropolis-open shootouts are not a thing in America… right?). As for its De Niro v Pacino hype, I found De Niro coming off better and just right, whilst the latter oozed heavy levels of HAM - though I imagine this was an intentional subversion of any banal protagonist-villain depthless scheme. Put it on to enjoy, and did so.
The Green Knight (2021)
Certainly an outlier, unconventional and very "kino" presentation - which may be its biggest strength and worth of recommendation (David Lowery, too, is the kind of auteur worth rooting for and keeping faith in with each new project). Oozes c i n e m a virtue, richness and boldness at all times. How woe then, even with such artistry, that the first thirty minutes were electrifying, yet the rest couldn't keep up a similar pulse and immersion (and story intelligibility, if it matters).
Broker (2022)
By Hirokazu Koreeeda, who won the Palme d'Or five or six years ago with Shoplifters. Feels like a return to similar social commentary on low-class Japan nomads, good-hearted crooks and odd birds. Quality filmmaking, intriguing premise, somewhat endearing on a human level (so much that you could attribute it a feel-good value in the end), though all these also felt parked in a "safe" niche for this filmmaker. Wasn't the most serious, patient watch on my end, either.
The Blair Witch Project (1999)
Because never seen it, so why not? For a genre-defining movie, it gave off a proper vibe of a concept "done right". Did not mind its low count of fright and startles - not the horror type in general, myself - it was all artistic and psychological rather than sensationalistic. Was already spoiled to the ending, but still found it a big vault in intensity.
Yomeddine (2018)
View into the indigent quarters of Egypt, from the perspective of a leper colony resident who embarks on a long journey, together with a young orphan sidekick, to find his real roots. Played by a non-professional lead, himself stricken in real life with leprosy disability, whose natural expressivity has to be seen to be fully appreciated. A humane approach, avoids miserabilism, though at the same not without some sugary touches.
Benediction (2021)
Terrence Davies is a very particular, graceful, profound filmmaker, which is easy for me to acknowledge, but often adds to the chagrin of not connecting with some of his works (The Deep Blue Sea, Sunset Song) in particular). This one (a biopic of poet Siegfried Sassoon) fared better. First 10 minutes felt a bit edgy, due to not-quite-organic montages of old war footage and very short, hopping biographical moments. Then a sanatorium arc was simply breathtaking (especially scenes of dialogue between Jack Lowden with Julian Sands). Then the biographic lens expanded further, almost inevitably lessening the strength of the early set pieces. Bit lopsided overall between focusing on Sassoon’s conscientious opposition to the war and his dandy-driven, romantic-turmoiled life. Great, passionate acting from Lowden (though he also looked close to a Michael Fassbender doppelganger). Not clean of mannerism and melodrama, but well worth seeing.
Asteroid City (2023)
Fatigue towards Wesandersonian bulk-moviemaking and golden ratios is real for me, for some time now, so I try to take it as a light as I can with each new movie. I can just about say that it’s better than French Dispatch, but fa(aaaa)r away from Grand Budapest Hotel greatness. Schwartzman and Johansson play really well – the former even more so, given that his character is handcrafted to be quite insufferable – otherwise, the usual multicast, multi-quirked polyphony. Middle act got into a really good gear, the rest, ech. But yeah, I’m tempted to resist critical effort for someone so intent to keep playing the same tricks in the book forever.
Old (2021)
Shyamalan doing his usual thing. People stuck on a beach, age very quickly and beyond control or escape. Wasn’t worth processing much. Poor reasoning and communication between characters fueled much of the drama flow. Much of the time-flow gimmick is done to wow with special effects, makeup and quirky ideas, yet a lot of it wasn't even that good. Most actors don’t act well or weren’t directed to do so or just didn’t care. Twist is within shyamalanian range, not great, not terrible.
EO (2022)
Intentional homage or variation on Bresson’s Au hazard Balthazar – widely credited as one of the greatest movies in history (haven’t seen it) – except that, from what I understand, the experiences of this donkey protagonist range, thankfully, beyond just different shades of human cruelty. Once the fella gets wandering, the movie turns into several vignettes, really, but they’re quite well sustained by variety (including the visual kind: several sequences are downright trippy) and a good amount of empathising. Some divagations go awry, so that for a bit the camera lens forgets about the donkey and suddenly there’s Isabelle Huppert on screen, for some reason, going through some family drama. Really curious, but good movie, might even reach for the heartstrings.
The Terrorizers (1986)
By Taiwanese director Edward Yang (of Yi yi later fame). Was intrigued by its promo image and liked it, though I can’t describe it in too clear detail. Works on multiple storylines that in the end intertwine, against a backdrop of street unrest, noir-ish nightlife or different individual tumults. Mix of minimalistic, chic, existential; goes a bit bonkers in the last 15 minutes.
Beau is Afraid (2023)
……………. well. I wrote to a friend during the watch that it felt like a three-hour anxiety attack or like the "Mr Incredible goes Uncanny” equivalent of psychological miserable tropes. Had a first half hour that was electrifying and worth going along with its lunatic pace and absurdity, but even so there was little hope that would hold on for another two and half hours, and it did not. In fact, I zoned out completely during its last half hour. Thing is, this is by all account Ari Aster’s most daring, audacious, f’d up step yet … buuut that still doesn’t mean much, given that it was also gruesome, excessive and bit pointless, even if were to be taken for art’s sake.
A Quiet Place Part II (2020)
Never cared to watch the sequel, but was saved and was in a popcorn evening mood. Expected it to give Emily Blunt her shining moment, but it actually hypes up the kids' heroics. Better monster effects than in the first movie, iirc? Prologue was sort of better than the entire rest of the movie, now that I recall. Otherwise, storyline of just one main survival objective, with a lot of risk-taking set pieces tallied up. Wasn’t invested, wasn’t interested.
Benedetta (2021)
It’s Verhoeven, so of course it did not hold back on covering catholic nun Benedetta Carlini’s blend of bio and myth into something that, let’s just say, could be labelled “steamy”, “supernatural” and “controversial” on streaming platforms. Virginie Efira, though <3.
Ali and Ava (2021)
I’m a fan of Clio Barnard (2013’s The Selfish Giant is on my "gentle movie" favourites list, and I still remember how its ending broke me) and this new one is fine, though also feels a bit low-stakes and sticking to the same lower-class social commentary, by crafting an unlikely romance between people from different cultures. Even its predictable racial tensions seemed to fizzle out halfway through, as If common sense was to win the day (or maybe that’s the message desired). Anyway, casual, understated, charming, even has a couple of cool electro bangers, but did not feel forward-pushing in her filmography.
Shiny Happy People: Dugger Family Secrets (2023)
Guess I’ll count this mini-series as well. Was already on holiday and friends wanted to binge it. What can I say, “great” family and cult stuff. Seizes more with its many unfolding layers than its documentarian virtues themselves. One detail I wanted to have more depth was expanding on how former IBLP members managed to break out (it does so for one interviewee, but it also feels that it was simply because her story had more harrowing weight).
Falcon Lake (2022)
Greatly acclaimed debut from Canadian actress Charlotte Le Bon and, while I don't recall having been awed in the superlative, it was very poised and beautiful. Banks it all on its young cast and they pull off a great, believable mix of assured, moody, independent demeanours (though several times I was also wondering why the adult figures are portrayed so liberal as to act so disconnected and uninvolved in their childrens’ existence). Might require box of tissues during the last stretch – speaking of which, the ending was tad wonky, not for the resolution chosen per se (even if it enforces a big neon-flashy “actions have consequences, and dumb/impulsive actions sometimes have even bigger consequences” banner), but in how trimming out several sequences and revealing less would have worked even better.
Close (2022)
Having followed after Falcon Lake, it proved a double dosage of frail, tender, heart-rending kids-growing-up stuff, perhaps even more so than the former (or at least the tone and heft of it was dialed to eleven). Might for sure require box of tissues as early as halfway into the movie; it certainly creates (very well) at least two super intense moments, in that regard (my lady friend bawled through the remaining stuff, to the point of freaking me out, but she assured me it was just emotional stuff, and that the movie was beautiful). The child actors were pretty amazing.
Top Gun: Maverick (2023)
The holiday group asked for a breather after the emotional dramas above, heh, so popcorn movie pick it was. “Does the job” was my overall impression. Action wowzing, otherwise not a lick of storytelling that didn’t felt lazy or a mere prop to fan service / nostalgia lane driving. Laughed a bit even at the fact that the “enemy” was not specified in full, probably out of political restraint.
Scanners (1981)
An early 80s Cronenberg flick, which I enjoyed the heck out of, to be honest. Does a great thing diving right in, no exposition, no ease into, nothing. The following analogy might not be apt, but it felt very shonen-like (aka a certain genre of manga): peoples with special abilities exist, secret collective monitors them, a lucifer-like character intends to burn everything to the ground, a gifted protagonist must master his skills in very short time to defeat da baddie. Entertaining, nice supernatural gimmick, cut to the chase mostly. Definite thumbs up, might even prove a classic of Cronenberg’s for me.
All the Beauty and the Bloodshed (2022)
Venice-winning, Oscar-nominated documentary on photographer Nan Goldin’s life and anti-Oxy/Pharma/Sacklers activism. Felt the biographical rewinds were much stronger (and longer, and more worthwhile) than the activism detailing. Goldin’s own voiceover recounts were quite gripping. Very interesting artistic figure, the documentary is commendable with the given material.
Near Dark (1987)
The only rewatch in the list (hence during my movie month as well), though first watch was way back in 2015, so might as well count it as a fresh new look. It seems I rated 5/10 back then, to which I’d say it improved now, there are certain aspects that I felt were smart and tight, at least for a B-movie cult range. I think I also watched it back then as part of a side-project to check all the movies that were scored by Tangerine Dream (and in this aspect, half of the music material doesn’t fit the movie). This is Kathryn Bigelow’s solo debut, a filmmaker towards which I still heavily oscillate between the extremes of being gripped (The Hurt Locker) and giving very little farts (Zero Dark, Detroit). There’s little I could say that the Half in the Bag guys didn’t review better. Bill Paxton goes crazy, probably my favourite part.
Blood Simple (1984)
Coen Brothers’ debut (though I think only Joel had directing credit). Really slick, sharp lines of dialogue and suspense. Builds some of their trademark styles: Southern neo-noir vibe, slow-boil violence, farce of errors and misreckonings between the characters (which I didn’t even pick up in full, until I read some reviews afterwards). I’m a sucker for good/great debuts in music, and this is one of the best, most confident and razor-sharp examples.
Apollo 10 1/2: A Space Age Childhood (2022)
Richard Linklater goes animated, with a fantasy story (that works bits of self-reflecting biographical cues) about a boy tasked to test the moon landing before the real mission. A lot of the movie backs up into a coming-of-age sequence that was quite charming and humorous (at least it made me watch intently, since 10 minutes in, I was sure I was going to just faze out through it all).
Love Sick (Legături bolnăvicioase) in original (2006)
Quite an oldie already in the Romanian New Wave canon (notably aged from the get go with its old gadget, non-HD, unfocused filming). Tudor Giurgiu, from what I recall, goes for both arthouse and mainstream touches, with a penchant for controverse-brewing ideas, and here there’s a daring love triangle between not just lesbians, but also incestuous siblings, wowie. The mix of best friend/lover chemistry between an assured/unstable force of temper (Maria Popistașu) and an innocent-dear-like sensitive type (Ioana Barbu) is both believable and predictable – to which the brother figure inserted himself as a salty, obsessed, total douchebag, the actor (Tudor Chirilă) overplaying it, so that all his scenes got pushed into cringe. Some famous Romanian acting faces added to the decorum, but you could change their scripts and they’d play the same way, really. No strong feelings about this one, it was watchable, it had a standout in Popistașu, it took a non-judgmental approach in depicting these romances. At one point one of the girls wondered out loud if their romance was normal or sick, which felt self-referential, in terms of actual depth.
The Future Tense (2022)
Docu-styled series of accounts and anecdotes from the two filmmakers, mostly focused on personal and historical tensions of Irish identity within the British community. Total mismatch for me, could not connect with the chosen presentation – i.e., two thirds of the movie had just the two of them on camera, reading from the script pages, with the Rode microphone even showing in frame (they blamed this choice on the pandemic), the rest field footages or odd-reenactments with different locals or non-prof actors. Also, some of their musings veered into total silliness, like the guy at one point saying how he developed a tooth gap throughout the years, only to ponder if it was a sign of the disconnect he felt living in the UK as an Irishman. I rolled my eyes hard and picked up the Switch right after.
Frankie (2019)
Isabelle Huppert o’clock, here as a temperamental but secretly frail old celebrity, who invites an ensemble-cast of various family members and friends in rural Portuguese paradise, wanting (or rather scheming) to connect (with) them (something that most often fails, as each character turns into an individual wanderer). Dunno why I expected this to be a more zany, mad-lady type of movie, but I guess I pre-judged Ira Sachs, who turns out to go for more poised and sentimental drama-making. Each story thread is sort of loose and fragmentary, striving for resolution, but in the end coming to terms with little, besides the idea of living the moment.
Passing (2021)
Story about two women, former childhood friends, that meet again, only to discover that one of them leads a tightrope life white-passing in 1920s New York. Drama is quite tense and arresting, a lot of it placed on Tessa Thompson’s shoulders in dealing restlessly and self-destructively with the revelation (though there’s also some pretty strained marriage interplay between her and André Holland’s character). Unsure how much of the black and white lens was a necessary artifice – I personally can’t picture either Thompson, or Ruth Negga passing as white in real life.
Miracle (Miracol, in original) (2021)
Had this Romanian movie saved on my Max watchlist, figured I’d give it a go already. Divided in two halves, about a young convent novice who goes in secret to town to solve some personal issues, only for bad stuff to happen to her; then switches to an investigator looking into what happened, only to exhibit the wildest amount of irate, unprofessional, evidence-tampering actions, until it slowly becomes clear what motives drove him to do so. A fresco of misogynism, anti-clerical tirades, low-class corruption, though I also sensed it was keen to build up a lot of shock value. Final moments provide a twist that undoes everything, unless you treat it as pertinent to a message about cruelty and self-interest (towards women).
Creed III (2023)
Was both in a popcorn mood and wanting to wrap this trilogy up. Pointless expansion – at least Creed II had a nostalgic / fan service link to the Rocky series, this one constructs an unresolved past-coming-to-haunt-you conflict. Stallone/Rocky is poof and lore-wise doesn’t even get a single mention as to why. All the Creed movies were helmed by different directors and this time it’s Michael B. Jordan himself, who seems least inspired. Even the action got worse, imo, or at least leaned into the worse tendencies (like slow-motion).
Taste of Cherry (1996)
[blank, this and The Terrorizers were two movies during which I fell asleep – not due to their quality in any way, just got real late and real tired watching them – and, contrary to the former, I never got back yet to rewatch this properly]
Armageddon Time (2022)
James Gray is another distinct filmmaker, whose movies I tend to at least like, if not love, and would always recommend. (Ad Astra, the Brad Pitt version of Interstellar and 21st-Century-Space-Odyssey attempts, might be his most well-known, if also his most off-orbit [no pun intended] stylistically). With this one he goes back to period-set (think The Immigrant), slow-paced, dark-hued, moody, introspective dramas – coming-of-age story about a sensible kid who aspires to be an artist (against all pragmatic family wishes, as well as strict school tenets) and bonds with a loose-cannon, poor, destined-to-go-dirtbag Afro-American classmate. Child protagonists and Anne Hathaway were pretty great, while with Jeremy Strong I suspect his usual method acting bullshit was on; Anthony Hopkins also in and about. Very novelistic in tone as well, felt often in the vein of reading something by Roth.
Search found 72 matches
Return to “Rate the last movie you've seen”
- Sat Sep 02, 2023 7:01 am
- Forum: Tinsel Town
- Topic: Rate the last movie you've seen
- Replies: 274
- Views: 31928
- Sat Apr 07, 2018 7:28 pm
- Forum: Tinsel Town
- Topic: Rate the last movie you've seen
- Replies: 274
- Views: 31928
Re: Rate the last movie you've seen
Planning to get back in my usual movie watching groove after March has been overall marred by too many late evening rehearsals, after-work fatigue or focusing heavily on helping a friend of mine launch a game presentation. Nonetheless, I did manage to watch a few new ones:
Comment ca va? (How Is It Going?) (Jean-Luc Godard) (1976) ⋆⋆
Another (rather random, now that I try to recall how I got to this) pick in my very slow process to go through Godard's movies (same as with every other big auteur), although I couldn't exactly say how well it went and it's certainly not one of his that I'd find recommendable to anyone who hasn't developed at least some adherence to his filmmaking. Still, this is in his typical fashion of making an essay - deconstructing the process, aesthetic and language of moviemaking in the midst of making the movie itself - and fleshing out some particular topics rather than a basic story, as most of it focuses on two (sometimes more) newspaper editors trying to prepare a video presentation or essay of their own - something covering political riots, which was also right up Godard's interests. Godard's partner and co-director Anne-Marie Miéville steps in as, well, herself, if not possibly as Godard himself or an embodiment of godardian critique, going at it with radical and experimental ideas about every detail of the presentation, every frame or line of text, what it means or how's it meant to be placed in context and so on. I've already read some articles (one of them here) that offer more satisfying ideas on what this video-essay or documentary-within-a-documentary is meant to signify, however I cannot say the viewing itself was satisfying. By the time Miéville started nitpicking and asking every critical question possible, to which her on-screen colleague reacted every time with a "what are you on about" face, it was clear to me that it'll mostly go over my head, tuned out and started playing some Zynga.
Columbus (Kogonada) ⋆⋆⋆
Story of a conjectural bond between a man coming to see his moribund architect father and a young student passionate about architecture, but struggling between pursuing her dreams and fostering her addict mother. With a fine mix of exploring the architectural delights of Columbus via the meaningful connections the characters have with them, as well as parental discord or the connection between people longing to share things with someone else and self-discover themselves a bit more along the way, this might be the right kind of intimate and mild drama to enjoy. Gave me a bit of lost-in-translation-y vibes in regards to its talk-heavy, wondering-around rapport between the two main characters, connecting with each other while feeling otherwise alienated. Both performance are very fine - certainly the best I've seen thus far from Haley Lu Richardson - who has been considerably pushed forward as a newcoming talent (side role in Split, lead role in The Edge of Seventeen, which I recall not having liked much) - even if still not entirely wowing me. One may well appreciate the balanced tone - such as the relationship not going in as many directions as it potentially could, and, apart from a few moments that could be considered more melodramatic, the range of emotions and feelings remaining reserved and soft-spoken. Widely acclaimed alternative/indie feature overall - despite not having remained in awards' contention past Sundance last year - though I couldn't quite find superlatives in any part of it.
Dawson City: Frozen Time (Bill Morrison) ⋆⋆⋆1/2
Now this was quite something, in terms of both its story and its presentation. It's based on the discovery back in the 70s of more than 500 reels of silent (1900s to late 1920s) films buried in the permafrost. With the exception of a brief intro and epilogue, the rest of the documentary is basically dialogue free, built with archival footage and salvaged material from the reels, in such way that it winds back the pendulum to provide a bit about the town's history, including its settling during the Klondike Gold Rush, its evolution afterwards and, of course, how so many silent films got to be screened there and then lost (as they were never returned). I think it's definitely something that can be watched and enjoyed not just out of cinephilic fascination and it's crafted so well and to the point. I ain't even that much of a silent movie buff in order to marvel at the quality of such footage and yet I found it intriguing to catch a glimpse of such restored art and how topical most of the films were to their given period in time.
Homo Sapiens (Nikolaus Geyrhalter) ⋆⋆⋆
This documentary is way more outré by comparison, as it inflexibly subjects you during the entirety of an hour and a half to watch a collage of long shots of derelict, deserted, abandoned places and buildings. Dialogue-free, human-free, nada. Not context-free, of course, though even here its intent might be for the viewer to fill in the blanks, get philosophical about it and such. Is it, for instance, a vision of a post-apocalyptic, post-human setting or is it more present-day than one could imagine? Totally engrossing for its entire duration? Not quite, but dazzling in its montage, sound and visual design and finesse of its abstracted idea? For sure.
Houston, We Have a Problem! (Ziga Virc) ⋆⋆⋆1/2
And yet another documentary, toying with myth and reality around the Space Race and the extent of involvement in it from the former Yugoslav Republic, U.S. loans during the 60s to Soviet countries such as Yugoslavia or relationships between several US presidents and Tito. First off, I must say I watched this with the total amount of gullibility I can sometimes prove myself capable of - so much so, that I could have written an entirely different comment here, had I not surfed the internet for more info afterwards. Otherwise, I feel it'd rather be a shame to spoil too much in a review about the extent of this docufiction. One point that has been raised, and which my own viewing might be proof of, is that most viewers might not simply "get" this movie and read it in a completely different way than intended. But once such things would get cleared up, there should be no denying that this is a well stitched piece, part bubbly Cold War soap opera, part meta commentary on its historical topics, as well as things that may reach well outside the scope of the movie. It's ingenious even if it doesn't hit you, let alone if or when it does.
Detroit (Kathryn Bigelow) ⋆⋆⋆
Bigelow's recount of the '67 Detroit riots starts out quite broadly for the first half an hour, in a way that might have hinted at a Wire-esque sense of multiperspectivity, before it becomes clear that every plot line is designed to converge at the Algiers Motel and she locks it into a chamber piece of the incident for another intense hour and a half or so. Can't say I felt her reenactment methods to be as manipulative as the worst reviews on the movie have called it out to be, but can't say I felt it to be above average in its depiction, either. I would somehow place this alongside Mudbound as movies that wanted to spell out racist issues and mirror the past with the present in that regard, yet without managing to elevate the message above a level of distressing rendering.
Comment ca va? (How Is It Going?) (Jean-Luc Godard) (1976) ⋆⋆
Another (rather random, now that I try to recall how I got to this) pick in my very slow process to go through Godard's movies (same as with every other big auteur), although I couldn't exactly say how well it went and it's certainly not one of his that I'd find recommendable to anyone who hasn't developed at least some adherence to his filmmaking. Still, this is in his typical fashion of making an essay - deconstructing the process, aesthetic and language of moviemaking in the midst of making the movie itself - and fleshing out some particular topics rather than a basic story, as most of it focuses on two (sometimes more) newspaper editors trying to prepare a video presentation or essay of their own - something covering political riots, which was also right up Godard's interests. Godard's partner and co-director Anne-Marie Miéville steps in as, well, herself, if not possibly as Godard himself or an embodiment of godardian critique, going at it with radical and experimental ideas about every detail of the presentation, every frame or line of text, what it means or how's it meant to be placed in context and so on. I've already read some articles (one of them here) that offer more satisfying ideas on what this video-essay or documentary-within-a-documentary is meant to signify, however I cannot say the viewing itself was satisfying. By the time Miéville started nitpicking and asking every critical question possible, to which her on-screen colleague reacted every time with a "what are you on about" face, it was clear to me that it'll mostly go over my head, tuned out and started playing some Zynga.
Columbus (Kogonada) ⋆⋆⋆
Story of a conjectural bond between a man coming to see his moribund architect father and a young student passionate about architecture, but struggling between pursuing her dreams and fostering her addict mother. With a fine mix of exploring the architectural delights of Columbus via the meaningful connections the characters have with them, as well as parental discord or the connection between people longing to share things with someone else and self-discover themselves a bit more along the way, this might be the right kind of intimate and mild drama to enjoy. Gave me a bit of lost-in-translation-y vibes in regards to its talk-heavy, wondering-around rapport between the two main characters, connecting with each other while feeling otherwise alienated. Both performance are very fine - certainly the best I've seen thus far from Haley Lu Richardson - who has been considerably pushed forward as a newcoming talent (side role in Split, lead role in The Edge of Seventeen, which I recall not having liked much) - even if still not entirely wowing me. One may well appreciate the balanced tone - such as the relationship not going in as many directions as it potentially could, and, apart from a few moments that could be considered more melodramatic, the range of emotions and feelings remaining reserved and soft-spoken. Widely acclaimed alternative/indie feature overall - despite not having remained in awards' contention past Sundance last year - though I couldn't quite find superlatives in any part of it.
Dawson City: Frozen Time (Bill Morrison) ⋆⋆⋆1/2
Now this was quite something, in terms of both its story and its presentation. It's based on the discovery back in the 70s of more than 500 reels of silent (1900s to late 1920s) films buried in the permafrost. With the exception of a brief intro and epilogue, the rest of the documentary is basically dialogue free, built with archival footage and salvaged material from the reels, in such way that it winds back the pendulum to provide a bit about the town's history, including its settling during the Klondike Gold Rush, its evolution afterwards and, of course, how so many silent films got to be screened there and then lost (as they were never returned). I think it's definitely something that can be watched and enjoyed not just out of cinephilic fascination and it's crafted so well and to the point. I ain't even that much of a silent movie buff in order to marvel at the quality of such footage and yet I found it intriguing to catch a glimpse of such restored art and how topical most of the films were to their given period in time.
Homo Sapiens (Nikolaus Geyrhalter) ⋆⋆⋆
This documentary is way more outré by comparison, as it inflexibly subjects you during the entirety of an hour and a half to watch a collage of long shots of derelict, deserted, abandoned places and buildings. Dialogue-free, human-free, nada. Not context-free, of course, though even here its intent might be for the viewer to fill in the blanks, get philosophical about it and such. Is it, for instance, a vision of a post-apocalyptic, post-human setting or is it more present-day than one could imagine? Totally engrossing for its entire duration? Not quite, but dazzling in its montage, sound and visual design and finesse of its abstracted idea? For sure.
Houston, We Have a Problem! (Ziga Virc) ⋆⋆⋆1/2
And yet another documentary, toying with myth and reality around the Space Race and the extent of involvement in it from the former Yugoslav Republic, U.S. loans during the 60s to Soviet countries such as Yugoslavia or relationships between several US presidents and Tito. First off, I must say I watched this with the total amount of gullibility I can sometimes prove myself capable of - so much so, that I could have written an entirely different comment here, had I not surfed the internet for more info afterwards. Otherwise, I feel it'd rather be a shame to spoil too much in a review about the extent of this docufiction. One point that has been raised, and which my own viewing might be proof of, is that most viewers might not simply "get" this movie and read it in a completely different way than intended. But once such things would get cleared up, there should be no denying that this is a well stitched piece, part bubbly Cold War soap opera, part meta commentary on its historical topics, as well as things that may reach well outside the scope of the movie. It's ingenious even if it doesn't hit you, let alone if or when it does.
Detroit (Kathryn Bigelow) ⋆⋆⋆
Bigelow's recount of the '67 Detroit riots starts out quite broadly for the first half an hour, in a way that might have hinted at a Wire-esque sense of multiperspectivity, before it becomes clear that every plot line is designed to converge at the Algiers Motel and she locks it into a chamber piece of the incident for another intense hour and a half or so. Can't say I felt her reenactment methods to be as manipulative as the worst reviews on the movie have called it out to be, but can't say I felt it to be above average in its depiction, either. I would somehow place this alongside Mudbound as movies that wanted to spell out racist issues and mirror the past with the present in that regard, yet without managing to elevate the message above a level of distressing rendering.
- Wed Mar 07, 2018 9:03 pm
- Forum: Tinsel Town
- Topic: Rate the last movie you've seen
- Replies: 274
- Views: 31928
Re: Rate the last movie you've seen
Wasn't meant as a jab at TPTR - though it had its episodes that stretched it thin. Lynch can and does obviously film his scenes at whatever pace he pleases. Couldn't say the same about this ... *looks it up*... Craig Zahler fella. But yeah, couldn't think of a better example during some snail-paced prison scenes in which I felt I was better off watching Bad Coop during his time in lockup.
- Wed Mar 07, 2018 6:56 pm
- Forum: Tinsel Town
- Topic: Rate the last movie you've seen
- Replies: 274
- Views: 31928
Re: Rate the last movie you've seen
DH reaction when he'll notice 0 new uses of banal
Spoiler: show
- Wed Mar 07, 2018 6:48 pm
- Forum: Tinsel Town
- Topic: Rate the last movie you've seen
- Replies: 274
- Views: 31928
Re: Rate the last movie you've seen
The Post (Steven Spielberg) (2017) ⋆⋆1/2
Save for Phantom Thread, this one was the last award-nominated movie that I picked during my December-January binge and it found me in an exhausted and somewhat fed up mood. Even weeks later, I only feel inclined to resort to simple remarks: It's competent (the set and costume designs, the script salad of delivering the right speeches or fighting for the just causes), yet equally routine and unexciting; it's relevant, timely and moralizing, yet no more compelling in its actual delivery; Hanks does a stronger role than one might perhaps expect; less sure about Streep's overall performance, regardless how much significance her character's arc has, and the rest of the ensemble cast is incredibly amorphous, save maybe for a bit of Odenkirk; it does not waste its historical subject, but it sure isn't a memorable presentment of it, either.
A Quiet Passion (Terrence Davies) (2016) ⋆⋆⋆1/2
The previous two movies by Davies found me in an unenlightenedly dissenting mood for reasons I wish they wouldn't have - aesthetically finespun works that nevertheless struck as too sumptuous or sugary. While not entirely converting me, I suppose I do prefer A Quiet Passion to those prior samples of dolorous romanticism or cinematic prose (also enhanced by it having ended up for many reputable critics as an alternate favorite to the dull recurrent list of top-worthy or awards-worthy picks, something I can root for myself, in light of hardly anything from said batch having enraptured me). Its pacing and tact are still not elements I could call arresting, however past a certain point of biographical sketchings, period design and fancy, quick-witted parlances, it delves into such intimacy, withdrawal and anguish that it becomes quietly discomforting to keep watching. Voiceovers blend in so poignantly and murk the lines between pensiveness and lyrical quotation. Nixon's performance and character intentness is pretty wondrous.
Blade of the Immortal (Takashi Miike) (2017) ⋆⋆⋆
Seems fitting that, for his 100th directorial work, Miike would adapt a material with a central quirk that allows for endless amount of blood spurting, bodily lacerations and crazed butchering, and with a protagonist able to withstand all of those (whilst taking a brutal beat himself more often than not), recharge and carry on through one fodder or boss level fight after another. Fortunately, such convenience doesn't translate into just senseless lunacy, as the movie does end up entertaining and also has a veritable manga/anime vibe in its dialogue and set pieces that's nicely replicated and that, as a half nerdy combat shonen reader (think Bleach), I really enjoyed. Sure, the main characters' either heroic, antagonistic or vengeful convictions all seem to get fuzzy midway through, which creates a bit of a mess out of the third act, a few side characters simply vanish from the movie and a side villain is crammed into the second half of the story to lesser effect, still not much of this detracted from the fleeting enjoyment of the movie.
Borg vs McEnroe (Janus Metz) (2017) ⋆⋆1/2
A modest and hardly necessary relating of a match that can be riveting just by watching it, commentary free even, with a typical, flat drama woven around it that's more Borg than it is McEnroe or "vs. McEnroe", for indeed this could have been (and truthfully is, for two thirds of the movie) just a Borg biopic, conventionally trailing a character arc from volatile kid talent mentored into a self-possessed if win-hungry perfectionist, while the McEnroe counterpoint is logical yet all too brief and run on a singular idea ("he who is the other's polar opposite"), his own backstory easy to substitute with just about any supercut video of outbursts from the real man himself. The flashback format is slackly conventional, too, as if to fill up the movie and leave the match as the decisive act. I would award extra points for both Gudnason's and LaBeouf's good performances and evocations, as well as the match reenactment being done more upclose and in detail than, say, how I felt it during Battle of the Sexes - alas the melodrama is churned way too thick out of a dual character study based on two-three ideas at best.
Brawl In Cell Block 99 (S. Craig Zahler) (2017) ⋆⋆
Fuel Vaughn's serious drama aspirations any further following that True Detective S2 utter headscratcher and this is what'll happen - a movie in which all that's missing from his TD cues would perhaps be the philosophical palaver. Otherwise this is Vince Vaughn - blankly collected expert thug; Vince Vaughn - master of everything; and Vince Vaughn, transcending into brawl invincibility during his chucknorrisian descent to hell during the final act. The pacing, scenery and talking are so torpid, minimalist and crudely edited that, had this movie been made a year later, I would have suspected the moviemaking of some Twin Peaks: The Return adoration. Given all this, its final burst of ultra-violent, limb-splintering, face-stomping ridiculousness may actually be its slightly redeeming part. Grindhouse particularities may well elude me, but this still felt like blah fantasy.
Roman J. Esquire, Jr. (Dan Gilroy) (2017) ⋆⋆1/2
I wrote this originally as a meme review on Letterboxd, because otherwise I was in no serious mood to touch upon this solely reliant on Denzel's performance, undercooked and shooting in all directions drama.
denzel he the man denzel he can act man denzel he's got them quirks denzel he fights the good fight denzel he an old timer having to keep up with the times denzel he is a true man of his profession denzel he excels at his job although idk he's shown just twice at it and blunders it bigly both times denzel he is a man of morals at least until he says fuck it I guess and gets in even bigger doodoo but hey its DENZEL man denzel he can handle it denzel has the tact and quirk and panache denzel can handle a story going in four different directions on a whim cuz denzel he man denzel he is ACTING when you think of someone like that it is denzel we need to nominate a denzel so let's get denzel denzel he knows his classic jazz i was gonna tear up if his ipod was gonna get stolen but then omfg how is this from the same guy as Nightcrawler
Molly's Game (Aaron Sorkin) (2017) ⋆⋆1/2
No real surprise that Sorkin sticks to his writing patterns and mannerisms (yet also with a sensible air of incorrigibility, especially after the very mixed and preachy quality of his show The Newsroom), proficient in adapting a theme, topic or bio and churn it into silver-tongued, sharp, moralizing, conversant trivia, patois, drama, talkfest and whatnot - if squeezing a bit the life out of it in the process. No real surprise, either, that his directorial debut doesn't have any other distinguished virtues. The leads entertain a solid rapport, though even here one might sense more lines being delivered or chewed than acting. As for much of what else Sorkin pens, there's just no suppleness or fun to it. If you can get past the first five minutes, with the protagonist recollecting in whirlwind, overflowing, technical detail a life-changing sports injury, then you'll probably deem the rest watchable. I actually grew disconnected the more the story shifted into high gear - probably around when it was decided there's guidance required, graphics and all, on how hands rank in poker. The brief inserts of jokes or highbrow banter had a bit of cringe in them, as per usual when Sorkin is straining to write them in. The characters, at one point, explain to each other a long foreshadowed intellectual pun (the Salem bit). Psychological closure is written into an on-screen dialogue, heavens forbid it be left for the viewer to discern or hypothesize. The courtroom resolution to the whole judicial part of the movie made me want to reach for the memoir, just to check if the judge's speech is annotated in there or was righteously concocted by Sorkin. Far be it from me to wish to devalue a comprehensive story of grand successes and failures of a strong (and strongly performed) woman, but this was a nothingburger of a movie, really.
P.S.: You might actually enjoy Michael Cera in this. In case you usually don't, I mean. (No, Twin Peaks doesn't count, shush.)
Phantom Thread (Paul Thomas Anderson) (2017) ⋆⋆⋆1/2 bordering on ⋆⋆⋆⋆, but probably not quite
If there was ever one growing concern as I tripped along with each of PTA's movies, it was that his very peculiar, profound and currently near unequalled style and mannerisms would skid off into sheer eccentricity and an untranslatable, unrelatable kind of auteur-ishness - something that felt averted, if nearly so, with his arguably most demanding and complex The Master, only to then finally collapse, soufflé style, with his pynchonian off-the-wall caprice Inherent Vice.
There is relief, then, in Phantom Thread being a toned down, poised return, while its elegance, polish and shipshape subject approach are all still in spades. Similarly, regardless whether it will prove his final role or not, DDL's (not our) performance is less the resounding, clangorous type that one might expect - sometimes getting overshadowed by Vicki Kripes (just as strong-minded) and Leslie Manville (near unreadable in her true thoughts and considerations) - yet still minute and transposed into this difficult, stilted, inflexible character, influencing the others even when seemingly less present. With this being set to evoke the fashion artistry of London's 50s, you can expect PTA to summon all the powdered, refined designs and visuals he can think of - Greenwood's score being also very fine and adequate, if not quite of the highest order (though it did made me go dust off my Schubert and Brahms) - still, it all boils down to an artist-muse relationship turned somehow on its head and a wicked tale of love that goes to such lengths, that others would surely abandon it halfway through or file it under corny, overwrought conflict. The character development and performances are ultimately central and supreme, with ripples of The Master's similar display of power dynamics (some even bring up the oddball, atypical romance from Punch Drunk Love, though I honestly found less of that). There were at least a handful of scenes that mesmerized the eye beyond any rationale (a sort of balletic prologue during the first five minutes, a ghostly parley towards the middle and a finale that took a sec, but actually bloody works). Perhaps not the most relevant topic to make a movie about or indulge in, in what might surely count as PTA's least fanciful and ambitious movie in a while, but with so many things impressively done.
Save for Phantom Thread, this one was the last award-nominated movie that I picked during my December-January binge and it found me in an exhausted and somewhat fed up mood. Even weeks later, I only feel inclined to resort to simple remarks: It's competent (the set and costume designs, the script salad of delivering the right speeches or fighting for the just causes), yet equally routine and unexciting; it's relevant, timely and moralizing, yet no more compelling in its actual delivery; Hanks does a stronger role than one might perhaps expect; less sure about Streep's overall performance, regardless how much significance her character's arc has, and the rest of the ensemble cast is incredibly amorphous, save maybe for a bit of Odenkirk; it does not waste its historical subject, but it sure isn't a memorable presentment of it, either.
A Quiet Passion (Terrence Davies) (2016) ⋆⋆⋆1/2
The previous two movies by Davies found me in an unenlightenedly dissenting mood for reasons I wish they wouldn't have - aesthetically finespun works that nevertheless struck as too sumptuous or sugary. While not entirely converting me, I suppose I do prefer A Quiet Passion to those prior samples of dolorous romanticism or cinematic prose (also enhanced by it having ended up for many reputable critics as an alternate favorite to the dull recurrent list of top-worthy or awards-worthy picks, something I can root for myself, in light of hardly anything from said batch having enraptured me). Its pacing and tact are still not elements I could call arresting, however past a certain point of biographical sketchings, period design and fancy, quick-witted parlances, it delves into such intimacy, withdrawal and anguish that it becomes quietly discomforting to keep watching. Voiceovers blend in so poignantly and murk the lines between pensiveness and lyrical quotation. Nixon's performance and character intentness is pretty wondrous.
Blade of the Immortal (Takashi Miike) (2017) ⋆⋆⋆
Seems fitting that, for his 100th directorial work, Miike would adapt a material with a central quirk that allows for endless amount of blood spurting, bodily lacerations and crazed butchering, and with a protagonist able to withstand all of those (whilst taking a brutal beat himself more often than not), recharge and carry on through one fodder or boss level fight after another. Fortunately, such convenience doesn't translate into just senseless lunacy, as the movie does end up entertaining and also has a veritable manga/anime vibe in its dialogue and set pieces that's nicely replicated and that, as a half nerdy combat shonen reader (think Bleach), I really enjoyed. Sure, the main characters' either heroic, antagonistic or vengeful convictions all seem to get fuzzy midway through, which creates a bit of a mess out of the third act, a few side characters simply vanish from the movie and a side villain is crammed into the second half of the story to lesser effect, still not much of this detracted from the fleeting enjoyment of the movie.
Borg vs McEnroe (Janus Metz) (2017) ⋆⋆1/2
A modest and hardly necessary relating of a match that can be riveting just by watching it, commentary free even, with a typical, flat drama woven around it that's more Borg than it is McEnroe or "vs. McEnroe", for indeed this could have been (and truthfully is, for two thirds of the movie) just a Borg biopic, conventionally trailing a character arc from volatile kid talent mentored into a self-possessed if win-hungry perfectionist, while the McEnroe counterpoint is logical yet all too brief and run on a singular idea ("he who is the other's polar opposite"), his own backstory easy to substitute with just about any supercut video of outbursts from the real man himself. The flashback format is slackly conventional, too, as if to fill up the movie and leave the match as the decisive act. I would award extra points for both Gudnason's and LaBeouf's good performances and evocations, as well as the match reenactment being done more upclose and in detail than, say, how I felt it during Battle of the Sexes - alas the melodrama is churned way too thick out of a dual character study based on two-three ideas at best.
Brawl In Cell Block 99 (S. Craig Zahler) (2017) ⋆⋆
Fuel Vaughn's serious drama aspirations any further following that True Detective S2 utter headscratcher and this is what'll happen - a movie in which all that's missing from his TD cues would perhaps be the philosophical palaver. Otherwise this is Vince Vaughn - blankly collected expert thug; Vince Vaughn - master of everything; and Vince Vaughn, transcending into brawl invincibility during his chucknorrisian descent to hell during the final act. The pacing, scenery and talking are so torpid, minimalist and crudely edited that, had this movie been made a year later, I would have suspected the moviemaking of some Twin Peaks: The Return adoration. Given all this, its final burst of ultra-violent, limb-splintering, face-stomping ridiculousness may actually be its slightly redeeming part. Grindhouse particularities may well elude me, but this still felt like blah fantasy.
Roman J. Esquire, Jr. (Dan Gilroy) (2017) ⋆⋆1/2
I wrote this originally as a meme review on Letterboxd, because otherwise I was in no serious mood to touch upon this solely reliant on Denzel's performance, undercooked and shooting in all directions drama.
denzel he the man denzel he can act man denzel he's got them quirks denzel he fights the good fight denzel he an old timer having to keep up with the times denzel he is a true man of his profession denzel he excels at his job although idk he's shown just twice at it and blunders it bigly both times denzel he is a man of morals at least until he says fuck it I guess and gets in even bigger doodoo but hey its DENZEL man denzel he can handle it denzel has the tact and quirk and panache denzel can handle a story going in four different directions on a whim cuz denzel he man denzel he is ACTING when you think of someone like that it is denzel we need to nominate a denzel so let's get denzel denzel he knows his classic jazz i was gonna tear up if his ipod was gonna get stolen but then omfg how is this from the same guy as Nightcrawler
Molly's Game (Aaron Sorkin) (2017) ⋆⋆1/2
No real surprise that Sorkin sticks to his writing patterns and mannerisms (yet also with a sensible air of incorrigibility, especially after the very mixed and preachy quality of his show The Newsroom), proficient in adapting a theme, topic or bio and churn it into silver-tongued, sharp, moralizing, conversant trivia, patois, drama, talkfest and whatnot - if squeezing a bit the life out of it in the process. No real surprise, either, that his directorial debut doesn't have any other distinguished virtues. The leads entertain a solid rapport, though even here one might sense more lines being delivered or chewed than acting. As for much of what else Sorkin pens, there's just no suppleness or fun to it. If you can get past the first five minutes, with the protagonist recollecting in whirlwind, overflowing, technical detail a life-changing sports injury, then you'll probably deem the rest watchable. I actually grew disconnected the more the story shifted into high gear - probably around when it was decided there's guidance required, graphics and all, on how hands rank in poker. The brief inserts of jokes or highbrow banter had a bit of cringe in them, as per usual when Sorkin is straining to write them in. The characters, at one point, explain to each other a long foreshadowed intellectual pun (the Salem bit). Psychological closure is written into an on-screen dialogue, heavens forbid it be left for the viewer to discern or hypothesize. The courtroom resolution to the whole judicial part of the movie made me want to reach for the memoir, just to check if the judge's speech is annotated in there or was righteously concocted by Sorkin. Far be it from me to wish to devalue a comprehensive story of grand successes and failures of a strong (and strongly performed) woman, but this was a nothingburger of a movie, really.
P.S.: You might actually enjoy Michael Cera in this. In case you usually don't, I mean. (No, Twin Peaks doesn't count, shush.)
Phantom Thread (Paul Thomas Anderson) (2017) ⋆⋆⋆1/2 bordering on ⋆⋆⋆⋆, but probably not quite
If there was ever one growing concern as I tripped along with each of PTA's movies, it was that his very peculiar, profound and currently near unequalled style and mannerisms would skid off into sheer eccentricity and an untranslatable, unrelatable kind of auteur-ishness - something that felt averted, if nearly so, with his arguably most demanding and complex The Master, only to then finally collapse, soufflé style, with his pynchonian off-the-wall caprice Inherent Vice.
There is relief, then, in Phantom Thread being a toned down, poised return, while its elegance, polish and shipshape subject approach are all still in spades. Similarly, regardless whether it will prove his final role or not, DDL's (not our) performance is less the resounding, clangorous type that one might expect - sometimes getting overshadowed by Vicki Kripes (just as strong-minded) and Leslie Manville (near unreadable in her true thoughts and considerations) - yet still minute and transposed into this difficult, stilted, inflexible character, influencing the others even when seemingly less present. With this being set to evoke the fashion artistry of London's 50s, you can expect PTA to summon all the powdered, refined designs and visuals he can think of - Greenwood's score being also very fine and adequate, if not quite of the highest order (though it did made me go dust off my Schubert and Brahms) - still, it all boils down to an artist-muse relationship turned somehow on its head and a wicked tale of love that goes to such lengths, that others would surely abandon it halfway through or file it under corny, overwrought conflict. The character development and performances are ultimately central and supreme, with ripples of The Master's similar display of power dynamics (some even bring up the oddball, atypical romance from Punch Drunk Love, though I honestly found less of that). There were at least a handful of scenes that mesmerized the eye beyond any rationale (a sort of balletic prologue during the first five minutes, a ghostly parley towards the middle and a finale that took a sec, but actually bloody works). Perhaps not the most relevant topic to make a movie about or indulge in, in what might surely count as PTA's least fanciful and ambitious movie in a while, but with so many things impressively done.
- Wed Mar 07, 2018 10:35 am
- Forum: Tinsel Town
- Topic: Rate the last movie you've seen
- Replies: 274
- Views: 31928
Re: Rate the last movie you've seen
Search found 5 matches (including yours): banalDharmaHelper wrote: ↑Wed Mar 07, 2018 1:57 am Also I come to this thread almost exclusively to count how many times Rico uses the word banal in his reviews.
Searched query: banal
One time too many in my last post, I'll grant you that.
- Sat Feb 03, 2018 7:54 pm
- Forum: Tinsel Town
- Topic: Rate the last movie you've seen
- Replies: 274
- Views: 31928
Re: Rate the last movie you've seen
I've transitioned to Letterboxd for the past month and a half to rate and write diary entries, notes, ramblings, mini-reviews, but I suppose I could keep posting some roundups in here as well, even though it's a thread used by only one other member (and occasionally timmer). The star and half-star rating on Letterboxd match a 1 to 10 scale (for instance, ⋆⋆1/2 being 5 and ⋆⋆⋆ being 6).
mother! (Darren Aronofsky) (2017) ⋆⋆1/2
To watch this and then just put it away would be the best action I could think of, because otherwise I, for one, don't get why Aronofsky's works should keep getting validation, when they're not even the right kind of edgy and twisted. Certainly not here, where his ain't-them-clever allegories couldn't be lazier and about as cheeky as me having put this on during Christmas Eve. I mean, is this less daft than Noah? Sure. Is it a better dark fantasy than his last I truly bothered with, Black Swan? I'd say it isn't. I found both Bardem's and Lawrence's performances pretty subdued, intentionally or not - definitely no giant arthouse leap for Lawrence, compared to all the diva acting in O'Russell's movies; meanwhile, Harris and Pfeiffer score looser, more middling, menacing performances, but of course they're in no way relatable, since they're purely designed as agents of chaos. Is there virtuosity in this big unfold of madness? Sure - its big babel-esque act feeling, in fact, just short in ambition of having been accomplished all in one-shot - yet, for all its praised dementedness, I felt more quease out of two short shots of a toilet and a bloodied hole in a floor than during the whole pandemoniacal culmination. Madman filmmaking aside, this movie simply can't register when so hamfisted and banal in its intended higher purport.
Mamma Roma (Pier Paolo Pasolini) (1962) ⋆⋆⋆1/2
Complete Pasolini neophyte without any notion of how this stacks up compared to his others, still at first viewing there were a handful of enthralling scenes, most if not all due to Anna Magnani's puissant performance, interpreting her struggles with a mix of emotion and chilling hysteria. Also at first reaction, an opening scene for the books. Story also evolves into a tale of motherhood, as Magnani's character tries to (re)connect with her son and ward him off the dangers of gang life or the temptations of facile affairs of the heart. Only drawback for the time being I could note would be that I felt the mother's story to be more compelling than the son's own coming-of-age-like side.
Mudbound (Dee Rees) (2017) ⋆⋆1/2
Hardly a bad drama to watch, but its overstretched narrative and spelled-out, mirror-holding thematic delivery make it more difficult to boost it with praise. By the half point, it's made clear who you're supposed to be rooting for (i.e. every underpriviledged character not qualifying as "white male"), yet that's preceded by a novellistic desire to create an overarching convergence of multiple backstories, dramas and fates. Harshly historical and realistic as it may be - plus with intent to signal racial realities of the present - sitting through the movie becomes - due to a rather uninspired intro sequence triggering a flashback device for the rest of the movie - a mere exercise of embracing the tragedy to unfold and even at that taking quite some time. Overall, it's quite telling when the heavy use of multiple voiceovers (feeding off a mix of faulknerian stream-of-consciousness and morrisonian knifelike frankness) counts as the least of this movie's problems.
Les deux amis (Two Friends) (Louis Garrell) (2015) ⋆⋆⋆
A tale of crazed, infelicitous, toxic romance and even friendship, despite what the title may allude to, its progression into a messy love triangle being likely the most commonplace aspect of the story. Interestingly we are drive right into the agitation, with little amount of backstory, certainly not for how Farahani's and Macaigne's characters ever got so entangled in the first place (a few quick scenes between them early on make it unclear whether they're flashbacks or current - though in the end I'd think it's the former case). Rather liked what the two of them attempted in terms of unhinged performing (standout weird, loose dance scene in her case, incessant display of miserable lovesickness in his); less to note about Garrel's presence, who, even as a director and writer, seems to constantly push himself into a corner of rigid portrayal of a mumbling, somber, mopey and (in this case; or is it always the case?) arrogantly promiscuous as well lover. Pretty flat moviemaking in addition, but overall I'll give it an extra half star for its inexplicable "folie".
Battle of the Sexes (Jonathan Dayton, Valerie Faris) (2017) ⋆⋆1/2
Light, conventional, timely done and marketed (in light of the new wave of struggles against male chauvinism and abuse, a certain presidential stand-off, plus I can assure you internet troll talks about why female tennis players should get the same prize money as male ones are still going strong, especially when Grand Slam matches end with a whitewash on the ladies' side, while the men carry five-hour classic battles). You can sense that it's a 2-hour stretch of its subject, every bit of it an orderly yet (again) conventional build up to a main event, while other plots are crammed in but ultimately half-assed (King's affair and its impact, the King-Court feud extending beyond on-court rivalry or any other female athletes not-named-King ever fitting into the picture). Certain token characters tie up with Mudbound's Pappy for chewing discriminatory, written-so-hard-the-pencil-snapped lines, just to get the message across. This movie is political and feminist first, sporting third, to which end I was mixed on its match scenes, sort of capturing the sense of a real broadcast, still filmed from such distance and little focus, that it never felt immersive, nor did I believe much Stone and Carell to have filmed anything besides reaction shots in between points. Don't sense either of them put too much method into their portrayals, but mostly enjoyed Stone's performance nevertheless.
Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (Martin McDonagh) (2017) ⋆⋆⋆1/2
An overall welcomed return to form (and to his strengths) for McDonagh (not necessarily a given for me, considering his purposelessly slapstick previous Seven Psychopaths). Stark drama, gushing violence, crude cussing and neurotic comedy were never too strong of a cup (In Bruges), but as the scale tips towards moral over drollery this time, the humor here might prove too uncomfortable at times, just like certain scenes made me question, mid-watch, whether it wasn't all becoming increasingly sadistical. Otherwise, what looks on paper (and at least during the first act) to be a movie about revenge, police inefficiency or social rancor with a certain zeitgeist vibe to it might not prove so straightforward in terms of situation, characters and our perceiving of them (particularly challenging a narrative and empathetic flip-flop on a certain character's own turnaround - which fwiw I think it kiiiiinda works, given certain factors). Make no mistake, the lecturing tone is present, but isn't quite the movie's forte (take for instance the heavy brushstrokes on racism backfiring due to directorial deafness). That rather leaves us with a more universal kind of message on hatred begetting hatred, delivered in sheer ignitable cinematic form.
I, Tonya (Craig Gillespie) (2017) ⋆⋆⋆
As far as Oscarbait goes, wouldn't deny it had a pretty solid first half for its sharp exercise in watching human awfulness, plus with a not-too-unfamiliar manic paced, zippy, metanarrative, mockdrama style in case you've seen stuff previous years like American Hustle, The Big Short or this moviemaker called Scorsese. Sadly the second hour slogs once becoming absorbed in its assiduous recreation of "the incident". Other turnoffs included the overdose jukebox score or Bobby Cannavale's entire plot unimportance. Peculiar but honest approach on a life story in which turmoil and controversy trumped every other detail, at the same time orbiting around the source interviews and leaving you to decide what to believe or emphatize with (if, at times, anything at all), while still carving a portrait out of Harding herself and her trials. If controversies and hard life stories sell, this movie is no less gainful from it. With so much style, montage gloss and brash, sensationalist tone put into it, the movie's heavier topics might end up skated over (pun intended), such as trauma, the issue of beating talent into top-class performance or the sports industry itself (as someone mixed on judge-ruled sports in general, one parking lot scene almost made me think the movie would tackle the biased, image-oriented side of figure skating competitions, but then nope). As mentioned early on, the least you could get out of this movie is two hours' worth of watching (mostly) truly shitty people, the great level of performances (mostly) across the board certainly of help in that regard.
Lady Bird (Greta Gerwig) (2017) ⋆⋆⋆1/2
Wondrously enough, I thought this movie matured alongside its protagonist's coming-of-(or rather snapping-out-of)-age, past a first 15-minute or so stretch that risked being frown-inducing and an all too familiar Juno-like brand of mumblesmug. Probably the best, most grounded, relatable and endearing mother character in Metcalf since Boyhood's Arquette and best, most grounded, relatable mother-daughter rocky relationship since I don't even know; would have rather liked Tracy Letts' character to be less one note as Mr. Fatherly Fathersome Father, but enjoyed him a bit all the same. Some plotlines are pushed to no real surprise, but such is life, one could say, and "such was my life", the author wants to say, and "such could be / have been yours", the movie could say. Really the surprise is how little overdone and pretentious the drama pans out. Some rightful recognition for Gerwig for the retro vibe of the visuals and just helming something out of experience and turning it into an endearing project. Does this comprehensively need to be pitched as the most lauded, awardable and perfect movie of 2017? Likely not, but such types of movies won't ever not beguile this industry.
The Shape of Water (Guillermo del Toro) (2017) ⋆⋆
Inclined, oddly enough, to draw connection between Aronofsky and del Toro, both of whom desired this year to prove they can still come up with a great one (and both, at least critically, seem to have mostly pulled it off). Yet if a new egomaniacal trip from the former was not something I had ever set my hopes up for, I did still long, deep down, for another dark fantasy epic to come del Toro's way. It's beginning to look past any hope, though, since this was absolute corn and the most I've squirmed at a movie from the 2017 season (thus far). Monsters and effects were never going to be lacking, but by God was I stunned by this banal alembication of retrofitted period piece, old cinema nostalgia and poorly inserted themes of Cold War drama, transcending romance and whatnot. Sally Hawkins can't elevate it that much (and even one particular scene with her did throw me into despair), when every other character is more of a cartoon than fish lad. One of the most cheesily and thinly written and envisioned movies of the year, of those taking themselves artistically serious. I'm even more hateful at it having made the "at least Crimson Peak's goth schlock was passable" thought ever come to my mind, during this watch.
The Disaster Artist (James Franco) (2017) ⋆⋆1/2
Truly the most benign movie from this year's (American, at the very least) awards rosters - nothing to get up in arms about (particularly if aware of Franco's modest, unnoteworthy directorial skills), but neither an experience you couldn't get some hearty chuckles out of. Franco's performance, evocation and engrossment is, for what it's worth, a bit impressive (the "ha ha ha"s especially catching me off guard each time and proving frolicsome), but sure, there is also narcissism and a sense of pet project in (t)his approach, with faux pas when giving weight to mere reenactments or a groundless window dressing of its final act. I just don't see the worth of exploring it critically, once I've had my fun watching it. It has already and will eventually fade away past this movie season as something Franco, perhaps of all people, couldn't have passed up the chance on making. It could have been improved, but I do not feel invested in the discussion on how exactly.
Call Me By Your Name (Luca Guadagnino) (2017) ⋆⋆⋆ / ⋆⋆⋆1/2
Constantly improving since 2009's Io sono l'amore, which I still dread recalling in its pretentious and overblown dramatics (2015's A Bigger Splash having been a boisterous bourgeois spectacle - with ripples of that perhaps only in Armie Hammer's two dance scenes and assured vitality - though still short on relatable hollow characters), Call Me by Your Name would easily stand as Guadagnino's most pleasant movie I've seen thus far (if ever so slightly taxing in its two-hour-plus pace), plus more than likely ranking among (or as) the most pristinely styled, well-sculpted, well-acted out of all the main lauded, awarded movies this season. No real change of habit in Guadagnino shaping up well-off, sans souci characters, brimming of shapeliness and wisdom (the line "Is there anything you don't know" might count not only as banter, but as a tongue-in-cheek nod to potential viewer frustrations, having to digest casually flown parlances on architecture, history, philosophy, etymons and Busoni-on-Liszt-on-Bach improvisations), but even that might prove marginally persuasive, given the paradisiacal Italian settings. Of course, though, one might argue that within this gorgeous, polished sculpture may lie its inherent hollowness. I would by no means demand mundane tropes of romantic, sexual or familiar conflicts, as opposed to the elegant, natural and emotional presentation Guadagnino seems to be going for, yet, if the young protagonist's only worries lie in making sense of his desire or the inevitable dissipation of an idyll, in an otherwise fully sheltered, adonisian, benevolent environment, you might just sense a bit of vacuity. I intentionally postponed the writing for a few weeks to ponder whether the movie would stick with me and, apart from making me practice my Ravel once more, it has not.
All These Sleepless Nights (Michal Marczak) (2015) ⋆⋆1/2
Rather more impressionistic in its execution than meant to mirror the troubles, inertia and loss of bearing of the (Polish) youth, this provides scenes of music and dance that made me reminisce about Mia Hansen-Løve's Eden and stuff taken almost out of the Terence Malick style glossary of daze, aimlessness and spleen, yet I must confess having drifted out of this movie way more often than in sync with it.
Beach Rats (Eliza Hittman) (2017) ⋆⋆⋆
I realize Call Me by Your Name is supposed to be our benchmark this year in terms of gay romance (well, certainly not much of romance here) and sexual discovery, yet I honestly found more conflict, anxiety, maroon and real life issues on display than in whatever bohemian, desirous depiction the former set out for. May not strive for big drama (have a hard time, in fact, recalling in great detail how it concluded, apart from the fact that it simply did at a certain point) and everything and everyone apart from a mum, but understated main performance tends to fade out in memorability, nevertheless I enjoyed some of its set pieces and small urban scope.
The Darkest Hour (Joe Wright) (2017) ⋆⋆
Part of a neverending yearly cycle of works intent to cash in, with a serious historical or biographical topic, both as significant masterworks and having transformative, "Oscarworthy" major performances, Darkest Hour is the type of movie I've long grown tired of and disinclined to appreciate in the slightest. Not much against Oldman's well done, effortful evocation, though even here I'm feeling less animated than I would have liked him to win six years ago for Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. The rest, however, is so crass and unremarkable, not in the least skidding off into fantasy for cheap emotional punches. It might just attempt to nuance Churchill's portrayal so that it's not just sheer flattery, but also shows his many flaws, while his adamancy in the war paid off, still the tone varies so wildly between comedic, buffoonish and line-chewingly oratorical, the visuals looked odd and mucky (even considering that the quality of my ahem "screener" might have something to do with it) and the whole thing felt like a(nother) checkmark of a biopic, wasted in tedious fashion.
mother! (Darren Aronofsky) (2017) ⋆⋆1/2
To watch this and then just put it away would be the best action I could think of, because otherwise I, for one, don't get why Aronofsky's works should keep getting validation, when they're not even the right kind of edgy and twisted. Certainly not here, where his ain't-them-clever allegories couldn't be lazier and about as cheeky as me having put this on during Christmas Eve. I mean, is this less daft than Noah? Sure. Is it a better dark fantasy than his last I truly bothered with, Black Swan? I'd say it isn't. I found both Bardem's and Lawrence's performances pretty subdued, intentionally or not - definitely no giant arthouse leap for Lawrence, compared to all the diva acting in O'Russell's movies; meanwhile, Harris and Pfeiffer score looser, more middling, menacing performances, but of course they're in no way relatable, since they're purely designed as agents of chaos. Is there virtuosity in this big unfold of madness? Sure - its big babel-esque act feeling, in fact, just short in ambition of having been accomplished all in one-shot - yet, for all its praised dementedness, I felt more quease out of two short shots of a toilet and a bloodied hole in a floor than during the whole pandemoniacal culmination. Madman filmmaking aside, this movie simply can't register when so hamfisted and banal in its intended higher purport.
Mamma Roma (Pier Paolo Pasolini) (1962) ⋆⋆⋆1/2
Complete Pasolini neophyte without any notion of how this stacks up compared to his others, still at first viewing there were a handful of enthralling scenes, most if not all due to Anna Magnani's puissant performance, interpreting her struggles with a mix of emotion and chilling hysteria. Also at first reaction, an opening scene for the books. Story also evolves into a tale of motherhood, as Magnani's character tries to (re)connect with her son and ward him off the dangers of gang life or the temptations of facile affairs of the heart. Only drawback for the time being I could note would be that I felt the mother's story to be more compelling than the son's own coming-of-age-like side.
Mudbound (Dee Rees) (2017) ⋆⋆1/2
Hardly a bad drama to watch, but its overstretched narrative and spelled-out, mirror-holding thematic delivery make it more difficult to boost it with praise. By the half point, it's made clear who you're supposed to be rooting for (i.e. every underpriviledged character not qualifying as "white male"), yet that's preceded by a novellistic desire to create an overarching convergence of multiple backstories, dramas and fates. Harshly historical and realistic as it may be - plus with intent to signal racial realities of the present - sitting through the movie becomes - due to a rather uninspired intro sequence triggering a flashback device for the rest of the movie - a mere exercise of embracing the tragedy to unfold and even at that taking quite some time. Overall, it's quite telling when the heavy use of multiple voiceovers (feeding off a mix of faulknerian stream-of-consciousness and morrisonian knifelike frankness) counts as the least of this movie's problems.
Les deux amis (Two Friends) (Louis Garrell) (2015) ⋆⋆⋆
A tale of crazed, infelicitous, toxic romance and even friendship, despite what the title may allude to, its progression into a messy love triangle being likely the most commonplace aspect of the story. Interestingly we are drive right into the agitation, with little amount of backstory, certainly not for how Farahani's and Macaigne's characters ever got so entangled in the first place (a few quick scenes between them early on make it unclear whether they're flashbacks or current - though in the end I'd think it's the former case). Rather liked what the two of them attempted in terms of unhinged performing (standout weird, loose dance scene in her case, incessant display of miserable lovesickness in his); less to note about Garrel's presence, who, even as a director and writer, seems to constantly push himself into a corner of rigid portrayal of a mumbling, somber, mopey and (in this case; or is it always the case?) arrogantly promiscuous as well lover. Pretty flat moviemaking in addition, but overall I'll give it an extra half star for its inexplicable "folie".
Battle of the Sexes (Jonathan Dayton, Valerie Faris) (2017) ⋆⋆1/2
Light, conventional, timely done and marketed (in light of the new wave of struggles against male chauvinism and abuse, a certain presidential stand-off, plus I can assure you internet troll talks about why female tennis players should get the same prize money as male ones are still going strong, especially when Grand Slam matches end with a whitewash on the ladies' side, while the men carry five-hour classic battles). You can sense that it's a 2-hour stretch of its subject, every bit of it an orderly yet (again) conventional build up to a main event, while other plots are crammed in but ultimately half-assed (King's affair and its impact, the King-Court feud extending beyond on-court rivalry or any other female athletes not-named-King ever fitting into the picture). Certain token characters tie up with Mudbound's Pappy for chewing discriminatory, written-so-hard-the-pencil-snapped lines, just to get the message across. This movie is political and feminist first, sporting third, to which end I was mixed on its match scenes, sort of capturing the sense of a real broadcast, still filmed from such distance and little focus, that it never felt immersive, nor did I believe much Stone and Carell to have filmed anything besides reaction shots in between points. Don't sense either of them put too much method into their portrayals, but mostly enjoyed Stone's performance nevertheless.
Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (Martin McDonagh) (2017) ⋆⋆⋆1/2
An overall welcomed return to form (and to his strengths) for McDonagh (not necessarily a given for me, considering his purposelessly slapstick previous Seven Psychopaths). Stark drama, gushing violence, crude cussing and neurotic comedy were never too strong of a cup (In Bruges), but as the scale tips towards moral over drollery this time, the humor here might prove too uncomfortable at times, just like certain scenes made me question, mid-watch, whether it wasn't all becoming increasingly sadistical. Otherwise, what looks on paper (and at least during the first act) to be a movie about revenge, police inefficiency or social rancor with a certain zeitgeist vibe to it might not prove so straightforward in terms of situation, characters and our perceiving of them (particularly challenging a narrative and empathetic flip-flop on a certain character's own turnaround - which fwiw I think it kiiiiinda works, given certain factors). Make no mistake, the lecturing tone is present, but isn't quite the movie's forte (take for instance the heavy brushstrokes on racism backfiring due to directorial deafness). That rather leaves us with a more universal kind of message on hatred begetting hatred, delivered in sheer ignitable cinematic form.
I, Tonya (Craig Gillespie) (2017) ⋆⋆⋆
As far as Oscarbait goes, wouldn't deny it had a pretty solid first half for its sharp exercise in watching human awfulness, plus with a not-too-unfamiliar manic paced, zippy, metanarrative, mockdrama style in case you've seen stuff previous years like American Hustle, The Big Short or this moviemaker called Scorsese. Sadly the second hour slogs once becoming absorbed in its assiduous recreation of "the incident". Other turnoffs included the overdose jukebox score or Bobby Cannavale's entire plot unimportance. Peculiar but honest approach on a life story in which turmoil and controversy trumped every other detail, at the same time orbiting around the source interviews and leaving you to decide what to believe or emphatize with (if, at times, anything at all), while still carving a portrait out of Harding herself and her trials. If controversies and hard life stories sell, this movie is no less gainful from it. With so much style, montage gloss and brash, sensationalist tone put into it, the movie's heavier topics might end up skated over (pun intended), such as trauma, the issue of beating talent into top-class performance or the sports industry itself (as someone mixed on judge-ruled sports in general, one parking lot scene almost made me think the movie would tackle the biased, image-oriented side of figure skating competitions, but then nope). As mentioned early on, the least you could get out of this movie is two hours' worth of watching (mostly) truly shitty people, the great level of performances (mostly) across the board certainly of help in that regard.
Lady Bird (Greta Gerwig) (2017) ⋆⋆⋆1/2
Wondrously enough, I thought this movie matured alongside its protagonist's coming-of-(or rather snapping-out-of)-age, past a first 15-minute or so stretch that risked being frown-inducing and an all too familiar Juno-like brand of mumblesmug. Probably the best, most grounded, relatable and endearing mother character in Metcalf since Boyhood's Arquette and best, most grounded, relatable mother-daughter rocky relationship since I don't even know; would have rather liked Tracy Letts' character to be less one note as Mr. Fatherly Fathersome Father, but enjoyed him a bit all the same. Some plotlines are pushed to no real surprise, but such is life, one could say, and "such was my life", the author wants to say, and "such could be / have been yours", the movie could say. Really the surprise is how little overdone and pretentious the drama pans out. Some rightful recognition for Gerwig for the retro vibe of the visuals and just helming something out of experience and turning it into an endearing project. Does this comprehensively need to be pitched as the most lauded, awardable and perfect movie of 2017? Likely not, but such types of movies won't ever not beguile this industry.
The Shape of Water (Guillermo del Toro) (2017) ⋆⋆
Inclined, oddly enough, to draw connection between Aronofsky and del Toro, both of whom desired this year to prove they can still come up with a great one (and both, at least critically, seem to have mostly pulled it off). Yet if a new egomaniacal trip from the former was not something I had ever set my hopes up for, I did still long, deep down, for another dark fantasy epic to come del Toro's way. It's beginning to look past any hope, though, since this was absolute corn and the most I've squirmed at a movie from the 2017 season (thus far). Monsters and effects were never going to be lacking, but by God was I stunned by this banal alembication of retrofitted period piece, old cinema nostalgia and poorly inserted themes of Cold War drama, transcending romance and whatnot. Sally Hawkins can't elevate it that much (and even one particular scene with her did throw me into despair), when every other character is more of a cartoon than fish lad. One of the most cheesily and thinly written and envisioned movies of the year, of those taking themselves artistically serious. I'm even more hateful at it having made the "at least Crimson Peak's goth schlock was passable" thought ever come to my mind, during this watch.
The Disaster Artist (James Franco) (2017) ⋆⋆1/2
Truly the most benign movie from this year's (American, at the very least) awards rosters - nothing to get up in arms about (particularly if aware of Franco's modest, unnoteworthy directorial skills), but neither an experience you couldn't get some hearty chuckles out of. Franco's performance, evocation and engrossment is, for what it's worth, a bit impressive (the "ha ha ha"s especially catching me off guard each time and proving frolicsome), but sure, there is also narcissism and a sense of pet project in (t)his approach, with faux pas when giving weight to mere reenactments or a groundless window dressing of its final act. I just don't see the worth of exploring it critically, once I've had my fun watching it. It has already and will eventually fade away past this movie season as something Franco, perhaps of all people, couldn't have passed up the chance on making. It could have been improved, but I do not feel invested in the discussion on how exactly.
Call Me By Your Name (Luca Guadagnino) (2017) ⋆⋆⋆ / ⋆⋆⋆1/2
Constantly improving since 2009's Io sono l'amore, which I still dread recalling in its pretentious and overblown dramatics (2015's A Bigger Splash having been a boisterous bourgeois spectacle - with ripples of that perhaps only in Armie Hammer's two dance scenes and assured vitality - though still short on relatable hollow characters), Call Me by Your Name would easily stand as Guadagnino's most pleasant movie I've seen thus far (if ever so slightly taxing in its two-hour-plus pace), plus more than likely ranking among (or as) the most pristinely styled, well-sculpted, well-acted out of all the main lauded, awarded movies this season. No real change of habit in Guadagnino shaping up well-off, sans souci characters, brimming of shapeliness and wisdom (the line "Is there anything you don't know" might count not only as banter, but as a tongue-in-cheek nod to potential viewer frustrations, having to digest casually flown parlances on architecture, history, philosophy, etymons and Busoni-on-Liszt-on-Bach improvisations), but even that might prove marginally persuasive, given the paradisiacal Italian settings. Of course, though, one might argue that within this gorgeous, polished sculpture may lie its inherent hollowness. I would by no means demand mundane tropes of romantic, sexual or familiar conflicts, as opposed to the elegant, natural and emotional presentation Guadagnino seems to be going for, yet, if the young protagonist's only worries lie in making sense of his desire or the inevitable dissipation of an idyll, in an otherwise fully sheltered, adonisian, benevolent environment, you might just sense a bit of vacuity. I intentionally postponed the writing for a few weeks to ponder whether the movie would stick with me and, apart from making me practice my Ravel once more, it has not.
All These Sleepless Nights (Michal Marczak) (2015) ⋆⋆1/2
Rather more impressionistic in its execution than meant to mirror the troubles, inertia and loss of bearing of the (Polish) youth, this provides scenes of music and dance that made me reminisce about Mia Hansen-Løve's Eden and stuff taken almost out of the Terence Malick style glossary of daze, aimlessness and spleen, yet I must confess having drifted out of this movie way more often than in sync with it.
Beach Rats (Eliza Hittman) (2017) ⋆⋆⋆
I realize Call Me by Your Name is supposed to be our benchmark this year in terms of gay romance (well, certainly not much of romance here) and sexual discovery, yet I honestly found more conflict, anxiety, maroon and real life issues on display than in whatever bohemian, desirous depiction the former set out for. May not strive for big drama (have a hard time, in fact, recalling in great detail how it concluded, apart from the fact that it simply did at a certain point) and everything and everyone apart from a mum, but understated main performance tends to fade out in memorability, nevertheless I enjoyed some of its set pieces and small urban scope.
The Darkest Hour (Joe Wright) (2017) ⋆⋆
Part of a neverending yearly cycle of works intent to cash in, with a serious historical or biographical topic, both as significant masterworks and having transformative, "Oscarworthy" major performances, Darkest Hour is the type of movie I've long grown tired of and disinclined to appreciate in the slightest. Not much against Oldman's well done, effortful evocation, though even here I'm feeling less animated than I would have liked him to win six years ago for Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. The rest, however, is so crass and unremarkable, not in the least skidding off into fantasy for cheap emotional punches. It might just attempt to nuance Churchill's portrayal so that it's not just sheer flattery, but also shows his many flaws, while his adamancy in the war paid off, still the tone varies so wildly between comedic, buffoonish and line-chewingly oratorical, the visuals looked odd and mucky (even considering that the quality of my ahem "screener" might have something to do with it) and the whole thing felt like a(nother) checkmark of a biopic, wasted in tedious fashion.
- Thu Feb 01, 2018 4:47 am
- Forum: Tinsel Town
- Topic: Rate the last movie you've seen
- Replies: 274
- Views: 31928
Re: Rate the last movie you've seen
I should resume watching Rohmers. Started them in chronological order years ago, but only kept the pace with the first ten or so.
- Wed Jan 31, 2018 1:00 pm
- Forum: Tinsel Town
- Topic: Rate the last movie you've seen
- Replies: 274
- Views: 31928
Re: Rate the last movie you've seen
Okja was absolute cringe and Mudbound was wasted by banal, sprawling epic narrative flavor.
- Fri Jan 19, 2018 9:09 am
- Forum: Tinsel Town
- Topic: Rate the last movie you've seen
- Replies: 274
- Views: 31928
Re: Rate the last movie you've seen
I rewatch it every three years on Easter, so the timing seems perfect. 
- Tue Oct 31, 2017 10:38 am
- Forum: Tinsel Town
- Topic: Rate the last movie you've seen
- Replies: 274
- Views: 31928
Re: Rate the last movie you've seen
So as mentioned a couple of times, last weekend I went to a three-day screening fest of recent Cannes movies, but I guess I didn't find the time nor the mood to report on them until now. Considering I've now seen 9 out of the 19 movies that competed for the Palme - as well as half of those that did end up receiving official awards - and that most of the remaining 10 were uniformly rated at the low end, I think I can say we're looking at a shaky year. Still holding some hope for the new Lanthimos (The Lobster, Dogtooth) and for Lynne Ramsay's (We Need to Talk About Kevin) You Were Never Really Here (even if this last one was seen already in my capital by critics and movie-goers I follow and was deemed the epitomy of style-over-substance), plus Zvyagintsev's Loveless will probably be the usual dose of chest-emptying dread - but otherwise... myeah.
As far as tendencies go, I sensed too much of a "going in the same direction previous Festival award-grabbers did" vibe, which is less than ideal, of course, in terms of actually promoting original, cutting edge or forward-thinking works. Oh look, auteurs who are sticking to their tropes and thus repeating themselves (Haneke, Baumbach, presumably Zvyagintsev as well)! Oh look, a liberal gay drama (Blue is the Warmest Color was only four years ago winkwinkwinkwink)! Oh look, a refugees drama! Oh look, self-congratulatory arthouse pretentiousness! Oui, ouiii, oh là là, c'est Cannes! I must be coming off strong by the tone of this, but this is probably the first year I've grown wary of these movies being more about pushing a certain agenda in search for laurels rather than crafting a potent message.
But anyway, let me now be even more verbose by going into the actual individual reviews.
A (10)/A- (9) / B+ (8) / B (7) / B- (6) / C (5) / D (3-4) / F (1-2) / No rating
Day One
The Square (link) - Palme d'Or 2017 - this movie is in a really weird spot, I'd say, since it's neither a top notch work to remember in five years' time as a Palme winner, but seeing its competition thus far, you could very well scratch your head in trying to answer "what else could / would / should have..." If some of you may be well familiar with the term "Oscarbait" and with the type of movies that may attain such a derogatory tag each year, well, this one may well be considered proper Cannesbait. I mean, it's not awful by any means and pulls off some absurd, cringe comedic stunts, but upon drawing the line, it also felt comprehensively shallow and insignificant.
Oh right, context. This was by Swedish director Robin Östlund, whose previous big work, Force Majeure, was also a critical hit (taking Cannes' Jury Prize in the Un Certain Regard - the small league - category). I appreciated that one to a certain degree, especially for creating a total potboiler of a psychological family drama out of a very small, triggering event, whilst also coating it with some alpine scenery, musical cues that are cheeky by default (Vivaldi's Seasons) and a merry dose of satirizing humor. Östlund's taste for satire carries over in full swing on this new movie, centered on a contemporary museum curator who sort of lives in his own bubble, both trying to organize an exhibition that's as elementary in its presentation as it is highfaluting in its message and experiencing within this line of work and prestige a high-bourgeois disconnection from real, pedestrian human living, only to then be shaken up by a real, pedestrian event that sends him into doing the stupidest shit, worthy of a Mr. Bean episode. This movie seriously throws its satirical themes right at you - art as a medium for snotty, vainglorious pomposity; social media appetite for shocking value and controversy; increasingly prefunctory human connections; yadda yadda - but also executes everything in a way that, with each step, it wants to scream "that's the joke". Hence turning into a movie holding the mirror to high art pretentiousness, whilst also proving itself high-art pretentiousness - cause "that's the point tee hee". Again, this had some decent levels of absurd comedy - with some bits reminiscent of Roy Andersson's own gaga works - and a delirious party scene (hinted at in the trailer) that invites cult delight, and yet it makes you none the wiser, nor does it fully earn an acknowledgement towards being something truly serious.
Day Two
Good Time (link) - competing 2017 - the only thing I could say against this movie is that it failed to knock my socks off or anything. Otherwise, this created some rave at the festival and outside it, not being hard to see why. This is a new work by indie newcomers Safdie Brothers (Heaven Knows What, which I've yet to actually see) who don't shy away or sugarcoat anything in the process of bringing some grimy, suburban stories on the screen, as verité as possible, but also with some cinematic flair. This one's premise is as mild as a heist-gone-wrong for two brothers, one of them being mentally challenged and ending up imprisoned (Ben Safdie, interestingly casting himself in the role), while the other (Robert Pattison) goes then a limb to try everything in his powers (outside the law, biensur) to snatch his brother back. This caper is then delivered in an edgy fashion - extreme close-ups; joyless situations and cynical human interactions; rugged characters that give less the impression of actors playing roles than real life people. Slight adornment comes with a retro synth soundtrack offered by Oneohtrix Point Never and with different locations shot at their distinct visual potential - from the squalor of darkly lit households to wide-shot drone flybys of cars speeding on highways to the nocturnal neons in an amusement park. Pattison's acting was praised as growing into full method and, sure, he does a tight, fully invested job. This movie doesn't try by any means to be shocking or unsettling, but it does depict with subtle trepidation and dizziness someone's obsessive goals and trials in the name of brotherhood.
Jupiter's Moon (link) - competing 2017 - didn't go into this one with much expectations, because during the festival I had read mostly deriding reactions towards it. Just like Östlund above, Hungarian director Kornél Mundruczó stepped up to Palme competition tier after winning the Un Certain Regard with his previous movie, White God, one hard to explain (or even remember nowadays) except for the narrative and technical audacity of stray dogs storming through and wrecking havoc on the streets of Budapest. A clear element of technical wizardry from Mundruczó persists, as this new movie can at least treat you with a dazzling one shot intro of immigrants fleeing arrest through plains, swamps and forests, a 360°spin and destruction of an apartment chamber, a dizzy chase scene through a crowded subway station and, of course, magical scenes of human flight - as the premise is about a young Syrian refugee who gets mercilessly shot at the border only to awaken levitation abilities. Thereafter, a disgraced doctor tries to both protect him and take advantage of his powers, whilst the border police force embark themselves on a good old manhunt. Unfortunately, the movie otherwise dives into convoluted, multi-genred messiness - aiming to be a sympathetic refugee drama, a potential dissent towards the Hungarian government's border enforcement and alarming authoritarian undertones, a downcast dystopian brew strongly emulating Children of Men, a murky character study of empathy, solidarity or malevolence and some kind of "magic-realistic" superhero bolt. I even watched afterwards the press conference with this movie's crew and didn't get the sense Mundruczó can send a focused, rigurous message across; nor is he a polished stylist through and through. I even had some issues with the dialogues, as they seemed eerily and heavily overdubbed. This movie had perhaps the spark, even for such an audacious, mesmerizing concept, yet got bogged down by hardboiled cliches and weak narrative flows. This was Will Smith's favorite movie from the jury, so there you go.
BPM / 120 Battements par minute / 120 Beats per minute - Grand Prix (runner-up) 2017, but for a while the hot favorite, especially considering LGBT-favoring Almodovar was chairman of the jury - directed by Robin Campillo, who wrote the screenplay of a previous Palme d'Or winner Entre les murs / The Class (I've seen some confuse him as having also directed that one). Now, The Class was a fairly atypical Palme winner itself, yet, if it didn't reveal any special cinematic qualities, it still had great flow, dynamic and tension in its dialogues between a large group of actors - which is a direct nod to the screenplay. Well then, this one chronicles the French branch of the advocacy group ACT UP and its activity during the early 90s to get proper legal policies, medical transparency and better social awareness about the AIDS pandemic, and the movie's best parts rely, once more, in the screenwriter's virtue to create collective dialogues, debates, confrontations etc. that feel genuine, alert, emotional and interesting. Less fortunately, Campillo also decided to build a proper drama around a standout person from this group (the one in the poster, played by Nahuel Pérez Biscayart) and his life putting his heart out with the group, whilst struggling with the disease, something that's shown, in great lengths, through all its predictable phases - and it sure takes its sweet ass time; the last 30 minutes felt interminable. There is also explicit gay romance (well, maybe not entirely explicit; showing female genitalia is ok, but showing dongs is still a no-no, apparently) that, honestly, as I've hinted, rivaled with Blue Is the Warmest Color in terms of pure buzz value - though one scene in particular was of such unerotic context, it came off impressive in its depiction; there is also a penchant for a lot of discotheque transitioning scenes in which the character would kinetically purge their bodies; there were also CGI scenes of molecules and cells, meant to come off poetic and Mallickian, but which served little purpose. Overall, I would say that the lack of "any special cinematic qualities" surfaced in the drama chapters, as it aimed for more outside its socio-politically charged scenes of collective campaigning and debate. Not a bad movie by any means, if you want an emotional melodrama, but it's hard not think of it as by the book, in that regard.
Day Three
Jim Jarmusch's Paterson - competing 2016 - was also screened, but I didn't go see it a third time, except for getting there on time to rewatch my favorite scene from it, towards the end. I've written about it twice here, I don't need to expand upon what a subtle, humble gen I found it to be.
Happy End (link) - competing 2017 - this was... frustrating; it had what felt like a perfect finish during its last 15 minutes, but before that, for roughly an hour, I could almost feel my skin peel off. And I'm not saying this out of any naïveté of not being aware how much Michael Haneke can suck the soul out of you with his movies. In a way, everything he does here is as clinical, formalist and so-alike-him as in the past: the ensemble acting is great (including a 12-year old Fantine Harduin acting well beyond her age), although at the same time all the storylines were hella fragmented (purposefully so, one could say, but still); the realism is classy as always; he even incorporates Snapchat or Messaging in a way that's resourceful, plot relevant and sardonically delivered - yet it also felt like a minor chamber piece, with a lot of rehashed ideas of his, bafflingly so on occasion - I mean Jean-Louis Trintignant plays again an old widower who went through a certain experience with his wife that seems copy-effing-pasted out of Amour! So, really, there is nothing surprising in Haneke putting you through another story with a rich-people-are-awful moral of a rotten-to-its-core, big high-class family in which everyone's messed up in some way and, gradually, you'll find less motive to root for anyone in particular; but there was also little of great vision, this time around - or at least so it felt. I see that we're also supposed to believe this movie addresses in some way the refugee crisis, since it's shot at Calais and features some African refugees, even though those additions felt hamfisted in a "gee, rich white priviledge, shocker" way, plus Haneke downplayed it as Calais having been a mere pleasant or convenient location choice. Like, huh...?
Krotkaya / A Gentle Creature - competing 2017 - fatigue probably got to me with this last full-length feature of the festival, which required another two hours and a half to sit through. Directed by Sergei Loznitsa, with whom I was unfamiliar, and loosely adapted from an eponymous short by Dostoyevsky, this proved that, in stark contrast to Western cineasts mentioned above, self-absorbed in creating realism that's mostly just in their head, Eastern cinema (as I'm sure Zvyaginstev himself will prove once more) is absorbed in realism that still hits so bitterly close to home. Story is about a married woman with a faceless, nameless and ultimately "seen-less" husband serving time, who one day finds out the packages she's been sending to him were rejected and returned, with no official explanation. She then embarks on a journey to see his husband in prison, only to face the same bureaucratic and inhumane wall, not to mention expose herself to the dangers of a remote village with no real friendly face in sight. The woman's uncanny stoicism only deepens the miserable, vile world surrounding her, aching to be described as kafkaesque or to be seen as... well, y'know... Russia. Anyway, gossip I picked at the venue, plus a few local critics I read reacted positively to this woeful rural tale, that's so hyperrealistic in its ugly, depressing depiction of what seems like a genuine circle of hell, but I have to say I found it tough to endure. And for an hour and 45 minutes, it was purely that - but then, the director considered one final trick and pushed the narrative into the realm of magic realism, including a long-winded scene that seemed to satirize old communist congressional speeches, only to finally crash this fantasy itself into more dreariness. This was not really miserabilist cinema, but more like a morose, desolate fable. I just couldn't or didn't have energy left to resonate with it.
Unrelated to Cannes, but in connection with Loznitsa's movie, we were also treated with a Moldavian short film, Chers amis (this doesn't even have an IMDb page), directed by one of the actors from A Gentle Creature, Valeriu Andriuță. Running for 20 minutes, it's shot like a bottle episode of a TV drama, in which the teachers of a derelict school sit in the staffroom, each one invested with some stereotypical traits, sharing their woes as they face bitter winter and little resources, only to shortly be emboldened by an implausible donation/charity letter received all the way from France. The movie is meant as a bittersweet comedy, with its harsh reality sure to resonate deep not only in Moldova, but Romania as well, plus its humor translated well, too, at least for us, since at least half of the audience cracked up big time.
Addendum
Lastly, I could add to this bunch the fact that I've watched The Meyerowitz Stories (New and Selected) (link) in private - it got released on Netflix, afaik, if not also in theaters - which is the new Noah Baumbach movie. Personally, I'm not a Baumbach devotee by any means; each new movie of his either resonates with me to some degree or flies by. Whenever it's not mumblecore or hipster-esque, it's sure to still come off as something of a bittersweet, dysfunctional drama, which is the case here as well. I'm going to leave this one unrated for now, but sure, this is like a better Woodyallen-esque story than Woody Allen cares to conceive anymore these days and I could acknowledge that both Ben Stiller and Adam Sandler are steered into giving solid, quality performances as sons in a not-very-rewarding relationship with their loony, self-centered and difficult father, played by Dustin Hoffman. This was also referenced as a spiritual sequel to The Squid and the Whale, since it deals with pressuring relationships within a family of artists, bound to think too highly of themselves - but I remember not having enjoyed that movie one bit, and that must have been at an age in which I was still too young to even develop critical thinking, that's how little I must have enjoyed it. Also reminded me of The Savages for a good stretch of it. It was ok, savorful and maddening in its father-sons interactions, but again, you'll mostly get a shrug from me at the end of any Baumbach viewing.
As far as tendencies go, I sensed too much of a "going in the same direction previous Festival award-grabbers did" vibe, which is less than ideal, of course, in terms of actually promoting original, cutting edge or forward-thinking works. Oh look, auteurs who are sticking to their tropes and thus repeating themselves (Haneke, Baumbach, presumably Zvyagintsev as well)! Oh look, a liberal gay drama (Blue is the Warmest Color was only four years ago winkwinkwinkwink)! Oh look, a refugees drama! Oh look, self-congratulatory arthouse pretentiousness! Oui, ouiii, oh là là, c'est Cannes! I must be coming off strong by the tone of this, but this is probably the first year I've grown wary of these movies being more about pushing a certain agenda in search for laurels rather than crafting a potent message.
But anyway, let me now be even more verbose by going into the actual individual reviews.
A (10)/A- (9) / B+ (8) / B (7) / B- (6) / C (5) / D (3-4) / F (1-2) / No rating
Day One
The Square (link) - Palme d'Or 2017 - this movie is in a really weird spot, I'd say, since it's neither a top notch work to remember in five years' time as a Palme winner, but seeing its competition thus far, you could very well scratch your head in trying to answer "what else could / would / should have..." If some of you may be well familiar with the term "Oscarbait" and with the type of movies that may attain such a derogatory tag each year, well, this one may well be considered proper Cannesbait. I mean, it's not awful by any means and pulls off some absurd, cringe comedic stunts, but upon drawing the line, it also felt comprehensively shallow and insignificant.
Oh right, context. This was by Swedish director Robin Östlund, whose previous big work, Force Majeure, was also a critical hit (taking Cannes' Jury Prize in the Un Certain Regard - the small league - category). I appreciated that one to a certain degree, especially for creating a total potboiler of a psychological family drama out of a very small, triggering event, whilst also coating it with some alpine scenery, musical cues that are cheeky by default (Vivaldi's Seasons) and a merry dose of satirizing humor. Östlund's taste for satire carries over in full swing on this new movie, centered on a contemporary museum curator who sort of lives in his own bubble, both trying to organize an exhibition that's as elementary in its presentation as it is highfaluting in its message and experiencing within this line of work and prestige a high-bourgeois disconnection from real, pedestrian human living, only to then be shaken up by a real, pedestrian event that sends him into doing the stupidest shit, worthy of a Mr. Bean episode. This movie seriously throws its satirical themes right at you - art as a medium for snotty, vainglorious pomposity; social media appetite for shocking value and controversy; increasingly prefunctory human connections; yadda yadda - but also executes everything in a way that, with each step, it wants to scream "that's the joke". Hence turning into a movie holding the mirror to high art pretentiousness, whilst also proving itself high-art pretentiousness - cause "that's the point tee hee". Again, this had some decent levels of absurd comedy - with some bits reminiscent of Roy Andersson's own gaga works - and a delirious party scene (hinted at in the trailer) that invites cult delight, and yet it makes you none the wiser, nor does it fully earn an acknowledgement towards being something truly serious.
Day Two
Good Time (link) - competing 2017 - the only thing I could say against this movie is that it failed to knock my socks off or anything. Otherwise, this created some rave at the festival and outside it, not being hard to see why. This is a new work by indie newcomers Safdie Brothers (Heaven Knows What, which I've yet to actually see) who don't shy away or sugarcoat anything in the process of bringing some grimy, suburban stories on the screen, as verité as possible, but also with some cinematic flair. This one's premise is as mild as a heist-gone-wrong for two brothers, one of them being mentally challenged and ending up imprisoned (Ben Safdie, interestingly casting himself in the role), while the other (Robert Pattison) goes then a limb to try everything in his powers (outside the law, biensur) to snatch his brother back. This caper is then delivered in an edgy fashion - extreme close-ups; joyless situations and cynical human interactions; rugged characters that give less the impression of actors playing roles than real life people. Slight adornment comes with a retro synth soundtrack offered by Oneohtrix Point Never and with different locations shot at their distinct visual potential - from the squalor of darkly lit households to wide-shot drone flybys of cars speeding on highways to the nocturnal neons in an amusement park. Pattison's acting was praised as growing into full method and, sure, he does a tight, fully invested job. This movie doesn't try by any means to be shocking or unsettling, but it does depict with subtle trepidation and dizziness someone's obsessive goals and trials in the name of brotherhood.
Jupiter's Moon (link) - competing 2017 - didn't go into this one with much expectations, because during the festival I had read mostly deriding reactions towards it. Just like Östlund above, Hungarian director Kornél Mundruczó stepped up to Palme competition tier after winning the Un Certain Regard with his previous movie, White God, one hard to explain (or even remember nowadays) except for the narrative and technical audacity of stray dogs storming through and wrecking havoc on the streets of Budapest. A clear element of technical wizardry from Mundruczó persists, as this new movie can at least treat you with a dazzling one shot intro of immigrants fleeing arrest through plains, swamps and forests, a 360°spin and destruction of an apartment chamber, a dizzy chase scene through a crowded subway station and, of course, magical scenes of human flight - as the premise is about a young Syrian refugee who gets mercilessly shot at the border only to awaken levitation abilities. Thereafter, a disgraced doctor tries to both protect him and take advantage of his powers, whilst the border police force embark themselves on a good old manhunt. Unfortunately, the movie otherwise dives into convoluted, multi-genred messiness - aiming to be a sympathetic refugee drama, a potential dissent towards the Hungarian government's border enforcement and alarming authoritarian undertones, a downcast dystopian brew strongly emulating Children of Men, a murky character study of empathy, solidarity or malevolence and some kind of "magic-realistic" superhero bolt. I even watched afterwards the press conference with this movie's crew and didn't get the sense Mundruczó can send a focused, rigurous message across; nor is he a polished stylist through and through. I even had some issues with the dialogues, as they seemed eerily and heavily overdubbed. This movie had perhaps the spark, even for such an audacious, mesmerizing concept, yet got bogged down by hardboiled cliches and weak narrative flows. This was Will Smith's favorite movie from the jury, so there you go.
BPM / 120 Battements par minute / 120 Beats per minute - Grand Prix (runner-up) 2017, but for a while the hot favorite, especially considering LGBT-favoring Almodovar was chairman of the jury - directed by Robin Campillo, who wrote the screenplay of a previous Palme d'Or winner Entre les murs / The Class (I've seen some confuse him as having also directed that one). Now, The Class was a fairly atypical Palme winner itself, yet, if it didn't reveal any special cinematic qualities, it still had great flow, dynamic and tension in its dialogues between a large group of actors - which is a direct nod to the screenplay. Well then, this one chronicles the French branch of the advocacy group ACT UP and its activity during the early 90s to get proper legal policies, medical transparency and better social awareness about the AIDS pandemic, and the movie's best parts rely, once more, in the screenwriter's virtue to create collective dialogues, debates, confrontations etc. that feel genuine, alert, emotional and interesting. Less fortunately, Campillo also decided to build a proper drama around a standout person from this group (the one in the poster, played by Nahuel Pérez Biscayart) and his life putting his heart out with the group, whilst struggling with the disease, something that's shown, in great lengths, through all its predictable phases - and it sure takes its sweet ass time; the last 30 minutes felt interminable. There is also explicit gay romance (well, maybe not entirely explicit; showing female genitalia is ok, but showing dongs is still a no-no, apparently) that, honestly, as I've hinted, rivaled with Blue Is the Warmest Color in terms of pure buzz value - though one scene in particular was of such unerotic context, it came off impressive in its depiction; there is also a penchant for a lot of discotheque transitioning scenes in which the character would kinetically purge their bodies; there were also CGI scenes of molecules and cells, meant to come off poetic and Mallickian, but which served little purpose. Overall, I would say that the lack of "any special cinematic qualities" surfaced in the drama chapters, as it aimed for more outside its socio-politically charged scenes of collective campaigning and debate. Not a bad movie by any means, if you want an emotional melodrama, but it's hard not think of it as by the book, in that regard.
Day Three
Jim Jarmusch's Paterson - competing 2016 - was also screened, but I didn't go see it a third time, except for getting there on time to rewatch my favorite scene from it, towards the end. I've written about it twice here, I don't need to expand upon what a subtle, humble gen I found it to be.
Happy End (link) - competing 2017 - this was... frustrating; it had what felt like a perfect finish during its last 15 minutes, but before that, for roughly an hour, I could almost feel my skin peel off. And I'm not saying this out of any naïveté of not being aware how much Michael Haneke can suck the soul out of you with his movies. In a way, everything he does here is as clinical, formalist and so-alike-him as in the past: the ensemble acting is great (including a 12-year old Fantine Harduin acting well beyond her age), although at the same time all the storylines were hella fragmented (purposefully so, one could say, but still); the realism is classy as always; he even incorporates Snapchat or Messaging in a way that's resourceful, plot relevant and sardonically delivered - yet it also felt like a minor chamber piece, with a lot of rehashed ideas of his, bafflingly so on occasion - I mean Jean-Louis Trintignant plays again an old widower who went through a certain experience with his wife that seems copy-effing-pasted out of Amour! So, really, there is nothing surprising in Haneke putting you through another story with a rich-people-are-awful moral of a rotten-to-its-core, big high-class family in which everyone's messed up in some way and, gradually, you'll find less motive to root for anyone in particular; but there was also little of great vision, this time around - or at least so it felt. I see that we're also supposed to believe this movie addresses in some way the refugee crisis, since it's shot at Calais and features some African refugees, even though those additions felt hamfisted in a "gee, rich white priviledge, shocker" way, plus Haneke downplayed it as Calais having been a mere pleasant or convenient location choice. Like, huh...?
Krotkaya / A Gentle Creature - competing 2017 - fatigue probably got to me with this last full-length feature of the festival, which required another two hours and a half to sit through. Directed by Sergei Loznitsa, with whom I was unfamiliar, and loosely adapted from an eponymous short by Dostoyevsky, this proved that, in stark contrast to Western cineasts mentioned above, self-absorbed in creating realism that's mostly just in their head, Eastern cinema (as I'm sure Zvyaginstev himself will prove once more) is absorbed in realism that still hits so bitterly close to home. Story is about a married woman with a faceless, nameless and ultimately "seen-less" husband serving time, who one day finds out the packages she's been sending to him were rejected and returned, with no official explanation. She then embarks on a journey to see his husband in prison, only to face the same bureaucratic and inhumane wall, not to mention expose herself to the dangers of a remote village with no real friendly face in sight. The woman's uncanny stoicism only deepens the miserable, vile world surrounding her, aching to be described as kafkaesque or to be seen as... well, y'know... Russia. Anyway, gossip I picked at the venue, plus a few local critics I read reacted positively to this woeful rural tale, that's so hyperrealistic in its ugly, depressing depiction of what seems like a genuine circle of hell, but I have to say I found it tough to endure. And for an hour and 45 minutes, it was purely that - but then, the director considered one final trick and pushed the narrative into the realm of magic realism, including a long-winded scene that seemed to satirize old communist congressional speeches, only to finally crash this fantasy itself into more dreariness. This was not really miserabilist cinema, but more like a morose, desolate fable. I just couldn't or didn't have energy left to resonate with it.
Unrelated to Cannes, but in connection with Loznitsa's movie, we were also treated with a Moldavian short film, Chers amis (this doesn't even have an IMDb page), directed by one of the actors from A Gentle Creature, Valeriu Andriuță. Running for 20 minutes, it's shot like a bottle episode of a TV drama, in which the teachers of a derelict school sit in the staffroom, each one invested with some stereotypical traits, sharing their woes as they face bitter winter and little resources, only to shortly be emboldened by an implausible donation/charity letter received all the way from France. The movie is meant as a bittersweet comedy, with its harsh reality sure to resonate deep not only in Moldova, but Romania as well, plus its humor translated well, too, at least for us, since at least half of the audience cracked up big time.
Addendum
Lastly, I could add to this bunch the fact that I've watched The Meyerowitz Stories (New and Selected) (link) in private - it got released on Netflix, afaik, if not also in theaters - which is the new Noah Baumbach movie. Personally, I'm not a Baumbach devotee by any means; each new movie of his either resonates with me to some degree or flies by. Whenever it's not mumblecore or hipster-esque, it's sure to still come off as something of a bittersweet, dysfunctional drama, which is the case here as well. I'm going to leave this one unrated for now, but sure, this is like a better Woodyallen-esque story than Woody Allen cares to conceive anymore these days and I could acknowledge that both Ben Stiller and Adam Sandler are steered into giving solid, quality performances as sons in a not-very-rewarding relationship with their loony, self-centered and difficult father, played by Dustin Hoffman. This was also referenced as a spiritual sequel to The Squid and the Whale, since it deals with pressuring relationships within a family of artists, bound to think too highly of themselves - but I remember not having enjoyed that movie one bit, and that must have been at an age in which I was still too young to even develop critical thinking, that's how little I must have enjoyed it. Also reminded me of The Savages for a good stretch of it. It was ok, savorful and maddening in its father-sons interactions, but again, you'll mostly get a shrug from me at the end of any Baumbach viewing.
- Sun Oct 22, 2017 3:34 pm
- Forum: Tinsel Town
- Topic: Rate the last movie you've seen
- Replies: 274
- Views: 31928
- Sat Oct 21, 2017 3:04 am
- Forum: Tinsel Town
- Topic: Rate the last movie you've seen
- Replies: 274
- Views: 31928
Re: Rate the last movie you've seen
Ah. I always try to remember that island's name as The Mascara.
- Thu Oct 19, 2017 7:10 pm
- Forum: Tinsel Town
- Topic: Rate the last movie you've seen
- Replies: 274
- Views: 31928
Re: Rate the last movie you've seen
Dropping a few more until I dive into my Cannes screenings' weekend overdose. Although, ugh, I think I've spent this whole week writing about goddamn movies and TV.
A (10)/A- (9) / B+ (8) / B (7) / B- (6) / C (5) / D (3-4) / F (1-2) / No rating
Killer of Sheep (link) - one of two older movies (see following one as the second) that I picked up as African American Cinema recommendations on The New Yorker FB Movie Group by the publication's chief critic Richard Brody. A 1978 obscure one directed by Charles Burnett, with a pocket-sized budget, that even failed to get released back then because it couldn't pay royalties for a quite insane number of songs used. It's been described as non-narrative and structureless, whilst stylistically likened to neo-realism, as it solemnly presents scattered and bluesy moments from the life of a working man, dealing with his dissatisfaction, woes and pains of being at work, at home, in his collective and all that. It's the kind that takes a mood to be in no particular mood to see it, still it has some degree of verité, loose and intimate filming.
Nothing But a Man (link) - an earlier movie this one, from 1964; not directed by an African American, but Michael Roemer took apparently inspiration not only from experiencing persecution himself in Germany and the Southern States as a Jew, but also from spending extensive research time within black communities. Has a more traditional storyline, but still packs a pretty tense and potent drama (although I'm chuckling a bit at giving such a verdict, considering I was in an imperfect disposition that led me to dose off a bit during some of its fragments). May also seem relevant in historical context of those years of rights and racial emancipation.
Spider-Man: Homecoming (link) - well I ain't gonna rant about a second capemovie twice in a week. The main ideas it tries to act smart with include scrapping a lot of the usual origin story melodrama, grounding the action from its "save the world" usual sternness (even the villain-of-the-movie having a decent backstory that merely makes him an anti-Avengers vigilante at best) and partying hard with its "schoolboy x superhero" thematic. Out of everything scheduled in between the previous and upcoming garguantuan and hyper-pretentious Avengers chapters, this is likely to remain the one that takes itself the least seriously - including Spidey acting his age and being on actual path of discovery, instead of an established, accomplished caper who just has to face some new obstacles. Alas, its Marvelian moviemaking signature is reaching beyond peak "flatitude" and a lot of it felt like one "gotta solve smth / fight smb, but also make it in time for chem class" scene after the next. I also cannot even express how little I care about this redeeming the Spiderman series and such (the first Reimi was the only good one, anyway... *runs*). I put this on precisely to simply have something on screen and in that regard it was an exemplary background movie.
Panic in the Needle Park (link) - ill-fated romance during the hazy days and in the heart of New York's drug dealing and needle sticking quartier between junkies played with feral range by Al Pacino and Kitty Winn (awarded as Best Actress at Cannes for this). The drama unfolds with all the fleeting highs and severe lows one can expect, plus with a veridic vibe that could have equally spun out of Burroughs's novels, quickies by Fante or the Beat writers or Patti Smith's memoirs. The performances are mercurial (especially with Pacino at the beginning of his imposing, blustery methods), with a whole repertoire from street-smart adrenaline to vegetative tripping. Really the kind of movie that goes on and on (especially considering its two-hour running time), without any real resolution, its characters just stuck spinning in circles in their addiction and misery.
The Beguiled (link) - technically a Cannes movie, since it saw Sofia Coppola making a return, incite critical attention once more and get a Best Director award in the process. Her latest counts as a remake of Don Siegel's 1971 movie starring Clint Eastwood, if not an actual reinterpretation, since if the original is considered (have not seen it [yet]) a crossbreed of Peckinpah pulp, gothic drama and mysogynistic undertones, Coppola reformulates the story in her own tactful, tiffany ways, turning it to eleventy feminist. Nothing surprising in this, since at least four of her movies focus on girl power, with just two others dealing with deeper human interactions (LiT) or utter detachment from (Somewhere). Not without its own controversy, Coppola apparently removed (and thus whitewashed, considering the cast) a slave girl from the original story, to which reading her rebuttal was either totally confusing or a bit befuddling. Anyway, basic synopsis still frames this as a period piece back in the Civil War, when a wounded Union soldier is sheltered at an all-women boarding school, which destabilizes their inner sanctum as well as their emotional grip. From what I understand, Coppola dispels much of the manipulative and exploitative tone of the original source, prefering gallantry and shades of duplicity in the dialogues and minute character developments. This has screened in my capital's Cannesfest and I've already read a couple of local minds dissing it as yet another shallow exercise from Coppola - and while the visuals are all in pristine shape (the sound design even going as far as to have outdoor ambiental sounds - such as crickets - constantly in the back of your ear) and the performances show control, restraint and tenuity, one could also wonder if Coppola hasn't encassed it all into a mere globe of a fantasy piece. Personally, not ready to say how great of a movie this is or not, but I can honestly say it was one after a very long time that didn't wholly feel like her fooling around and wasting her talent. It invites a great amount of interpretation, for sure, as to the extent of what she accomplishes or does right here.
A (10)/A- (9) / B+ (8) / B (7) / B- (6) / C (5) / D (3-4) / F (1-2) / No rating
Killer of Sheep (link) - one of two older movies (see following one as the second) that I picked up as African American Cinema recommendations on The New Yorker FB Movie Group by the publication's chief critic Richard Brody. A 1978 obscure one directed by Charles Burnett, with a pocket-sized budget, that even failed to get released back then because it couldn't pay royalties for a quite insane number of songs used. It's been described as non-narrative and structureless, whilst stylistically likened to neo-realism, as it solemnly presents scattered and bluesy moments from the life of a working man, dealing with his dissatisfaction, woes and pains of being at work, at home, in his collective and all that. It's the kind that takes a mood to be in no particular mood to see it, still it has some degree of verité, loose and intimate filming.
Nothing But a Man (link) - an earlier movie this one, from 1964; not directed by an African American, but Michael Roemer took apparently inspiration not only from experiencing persecution himself in Germany and the Southern States as a Jew, but also from spending extensive research time within black communities. Has a more traditional storyline, but still packs a pretty tense and potent drama (although I'm chuckling a bit at giving such a verdict, considering I was in an imperfect disposition that led me to dose off a bit during some of its fragments). May also seem relevant in historical context of those years of rights and racial emancipation.
Spider-Man: Homecoming (link) - well I ain't gonna rant about a second capemovie twice in a week. The main ideas it tries to act smart with include scrapping a lot of the usual origin story melodrama, grounding the action from its "save the world" usual sternness (even the villain-of-the-movie having a decent backstory that merely makes him an anti-Avengers vigilante at best) and partying hard with its "schoolboy x superhero" thematic. Out of everything scheduled in between the previous and upcoming garguantuan and hyper-pretentious Avengers chapters, this is likely to remain the one that takes itself the least seriously - including Spidey acting his age and being on actual path of discovery, instead of an established, accomplished caper who just has to face some new obstacles. Alas, its Marvelian moviemaking signature is reaching beyond peak "flatitude" and a lot of it felt like one "gotta solve smth / fight smb, but also make it in time for chem class" scene after the next. I also cannot even express how little I care about this redeeming the Spiderman series and such (the first Reimi was the only good one, anyway... *runs*). I put this on precisely to simply have something on screen and in that regard it was an exemplary background movie.
Panic in the Needle Park (link) - ill-fated romance during the hazy days and in the heart of New York's drug dealing and needle sticking quartier between junkies played with feral range by Al Pacino and Kitty Winn (awarded as Best Actress at Cannes for this). The drama unfolds with all the fleeting highs and severe lows one can expect, plus with a veridic vibe that could have equally spun out of Burroughs's novels, quickies by Fante or the Beat writers or Patti Smith's memoirs. The performances are mercurial (especially with Pacino at the beginning of his imposing, blustery methods), with a whole repertoire from street-smart adrenaline to vegetative tripping. Really the kind of movie that goes on and on (especially considering its two-hour running time), without any real resolution, its characters just stuck spinning in circles in their addiction and misery.
The Beguiled (link) - technically a Cannes movie, since it saw Sofia Coppola making a return, incite critical attention once more and get a Best Director award in the process. Her latest counts as a remake of Don Siegel's 1971 movie starring Clint Eastwood, if not an actual reinterpretation, since if the original is considered (have not seen it [yet]) a crossbreed of Peckinpah pulp, gothic drama and mysogynistic undertones, Coppola reformulates the story in her own tactful, tiffany ways, turning it to eleventy feminist. Nothing surprising in this, since at least four of her movies focus on girl power, with just two others dealing with deeper human interactions (LiT) or utter detachment from (Somewhere). Not without its own controversy, Coppola apparently removed (and thus whitewashed, considering the cast) a slave girl from the original story, to which reading her rebuttal was either totally confusing or a bit befuddling. Anyway, basic synopsis still frames this as a period piece back in the Civil War, when a wounded Union soldier is sheltered at an all-women boarding school, which destabilizes their inner sanctum as well as their emotional grip. From what I understand, Coppola dispels much of the manipulative and exploitative tone of the original source, prefering gallantry and shades of duplicity in the dialogues and minute character developments. This has screened in my capital's Cannesfest and I've already read a couple of local minds dissing it as yet another shallow exercise from Coppola - and while the visuals are all in pristine shape (the sound design even going as far as to have outdoor ambiental sounds - such as crickets - constantly in the back of your ear) and the performances show control, restraint and tenuity, one could also wonder if Coppola hasn't encassed it all into a mere globe of a fantasy piece. Personally, not ready to say how great of a movie this is or not, but I can honestly say it was one after a very long time that didn't wholly feel like her fooling around and wasting her talent. It invites a great amount of interpretation, for sure, as to the extent of what she accomplishes or does right here.
- Tue Oct 17, 2017 11:22 am
- Forum: Tinsel Town
- Topic: Rate the last movie you've seen
- Replies: 274
- Views: 31928
Re: Rate the last movie you've seen
Decided to stick to this format, after all. Too much of a hassle to record myself and I'm supposed to have less free time for such things - *cough* phdhell *cough*.
A (10)/A- (9) / B+ (8) / B (7) / B- (6) / C (5) / D (3-4) / F (1-2) / No rating
Wonder Woman (link) - surprised director Patti Jenkins hasn't done any other feature film in between this one and Monster (with that Oscar-grabbing performance from Charlize Theron), alllll the way back in 2003; she only directed a few TV series' episodes instead. Anyway, this serves as a pre-Justice League standalone origin story, going back to Wonder Woman's (Gal Gadot) childhood on the island of... whatever, revealing what makes her so demi-godly powerful and all that, plus building a sort of power fantasy around her aiding a British intelligence spy, played by Chris Pine, and thus getting involved in defeating some baddies during the Great War, or as we know it now, World War I.
To cut to the chase, it pains me to say that, with all its relevancy - not only counting as a first female lead superhero movie, but also a first DCU movie not to suck - I still found it incredibly boring and by-the-numbers altogether, even for capemovies' standards. There was not an ounce of filmmaking or writing to strike me as special, original - or, to put it another way, not tailored for the masses. The visual palette was either brightened for some paradisiac island scenes or set on dusky for the war scenes - most likely a marketable move, to take the DCU franchise out of the murky hellhole of Batman v Superman or the spasmodic joke that was Suicide Squad; it's more than decent and adequate, but nothing else. More strong female actresses (Connie Nielsen, Robin Wright) are brought in, yet then wasted on screen time and script. Elena Ayana's villainess role takes a backseat to, well, more of the same forgettable (male) villains (the war was lead by generals and freaks, after all). Its first, expository act was crafted about as poorly as it can be imagined, in a cram-it-all-in-there style, and the final fight arc breaks all illusion of superior quality by deploying all the FX chaos and maddening pyrotechny Man of Steel or BvS thsemvles had. Plus the DCU style of action coreography continues to irk me to no end, cutting in between punches to WW flinging her hair back, smirking, throwing a line, doing something else in slo-mo. By all means, no different than Marvel's halt action to deliver quips and punchlines MO, still it feels like a bloody video game. All this leaves a mid act in which the chemistry and banter between Gadot and Pine was praised, as was a sort of "fish out of water" trope of humour and coated jab at women's place in past societies, yet the former was just regular quips and the latter was one "oh wow WW discovers male chauvinism, who would have thunk it" scene after the next.
Again, this was beyond decent compared to anything DCU-related thus far and I get it the world was in need of a fun fantasy of emancipation, but the end result still felt to me head-numbing and banal.
I myself have finally seen Baby Driver (link) and it was pree fun. What I have yet to see is anything else by Edgar Wright, besides Scott Pilgrim, which at least evolved throughout time from a "I hate this adaptation so much" to "I'm still hissy at it overall" - yet even it had that glimmer of Wright's ingenuity to do something creative, or at least flashy and gimmicky. Which at least happens here as well, in a movie that could have otherwise be plainly tagged #heist, #hipster and #mixtape. It's the story of me, constantly listening to music on the streets and trying to match it with daily activities, except for the part where I'm not a mad-skilled driver, involved (or hired) in criminal activities, nor do I have auditory issues - or a cute girlfriend... But for real, it like takes most of Drive's concept (the silentious skilled protagonist, the ramp up in shit-going-wrong action style), drops the batshitness from it, and add instead teen romance, thug banter and two gigabytes of musical cues, all walking a fine line between diegetic and non-diegetic, used in sync with the situation, action and pacing in the movie (with the gimmick that our hero does that on purpose). The director and cast didn't even tiptoe around the fact that most of the scenes were shot to intentionally fit the soundtrack. I'm both cheerful and fearful to report that Focus' Hocus Pocus is used in a grand way. The selection is half pleb, half hipster, half decent, it's really up to anyone's tastes - just like the movie itself might prove, either candy bait or something fun to make your day. What I will say is that the pacing is particularly on point, the performances are sharp, the story is delectable even if with a healthy injection of belief suspension, much zaniness towards its end and a rather corny finale. There was talk that the romance / teen chemistry in the plot doesn't hold water, but I was actually fine with it. There was even more talk about Jamie Foxx hamming it hard, yet I also found him doing this thing and just that. Anyway, exciting personal, whimsical if also head-on gimmicky experiment from Wright and I'd rate this as super enjoyable above anything else.
A Ghost Story (link) - a movie with Sundance rave this year, that extended into being a sweet spot for many critics thus far; a light, twee concept from David Lowery (Pete's Dragon), starring Rooney Mara and Casey Affleck (recast by Lowery from a previous film of his, Ain't Them Bodies Saints), that I haven't seen) as a couple whose home seems disturbed by an unseen presence. Horror simple premise thus far, except what it turns into - without revealing any other major context - is an actual story told from the POV of a ghostly presence... complete with using a "traditional" bedsheet representation of said presence. This could invite hilarity, yet the stakes set are emotional and meditational with a very delicate directorial hand. The whole movie is shot in academic ratio, with the corners bent a bit to make it seem like a slideshow or something and there are slow takes up to and including a one shot of eating half of a pie that would make new wave minimalists fawn, visuals are soft and pastoral and then ghost design took some careful manipulation, from what I've read. It kinda spells out big-lettered messages on themes such as loss, grief, yearning, coping, remembrance, represented from intimate to time-traversing broad. Its final stretch almost had some "holy what" turns, but then it's wrapped up with such a bow tie, that it almost makes sense and pays off. It didn't have me hooked on all the time, yet as far as indie artsy curios go this year, this might be on the right lane.
First They Killed My Father: A Daughter of Cambodia Remembers (link) - a biographical story, directed by Angelina Jolie, inspired by Cambodian activist Loung Ung's memoir on her family and life being torn apart by the coming of the Khmer Rouge regime and her time spent in labor camps - literally the killing fields. Shot and told mostly from the reflections and perspective of her 7-year-old self, there is material to be empathetic towards, the depiction of blind propaganda and regime enforcement can be bone-chilling at times and it doesn't shy away from some gritty depictions, yet with an emphasis put more on sentimental depiction rather than documentary distance, there are limitation to Jolie's style.
Roight... with that out of the way, let's touch upon you-know-which-movie.
I rewatched Blade Runner (link) a day ahead of the main event, like the nerd that I am - The Final Cut, I should specify (and thank god I didn't mindlessly picked the theatrical version, with Ford's killjoy voiceover - though this one still retains that headscratching unicorn insert, but hey, #Ridley-is-pretty-dumb-nowadays-anyway). I remember having openly disliked this one the first time - yet I don't have it written down on my logs, which date back to 2012, so I must have been even younger, hence stupider; I certainly recall having openly disliked Vangelis' OST in context of his entire discography (and I still maintain it's not too much of a big deal, overall). But y'kno, this time around, I enjoyed most of it. I still have the urge to describe some set pieces as... "uninteresting" - and that's despite understanding what they goe for. I probably like most of all the flow of it, every scene feels fat free and serving its purpose; the movie is two hours, yet gets down to business almost right away and feels like it's wrapped up in an hour. The visuals and production design are obviously cinematic bookmarks, although even here I feel most of those shots only had an "establishing shot" quality; I can totally see how it influenced something like Ghost in the Shell's cityscapes, but I don't feel out of breath seeing them here. I can see its worthy elements that make it cult and deep, although one has to wonder how fortuitously Scott ended up creating them - plus its ultimate, most popular riddle is something for which "let the mystery be" is the only right answer. Sorry, Scott, but you're an ass for having tried to push things in a particular direction.
Now, Blade Runner 2049 (link) was taken over by Denis Villeneuve, a director who artistically earned a carte blanche with anything he's done thus far, even as he visibly moved towards the Hollywoodian commercial epicentrum (Incendies, Enemy, Sicario, Arrival - eff Prisoners, tho) - although Ridley Scott retained producer rights and sometimes you can almost sense his presence, especially knowing how [poorly] invested he's been lately in blowing up his own cult standalone movies into mythology-jacked sequels or prequels. Cells. For better or worse, there is both stuff that is recognizably Villeneuve's vision and stuff that inadvertedly links back to the source movie, whether in tributary or plain sequel fashion, and stuff demanded by its blockbuster / action format. Interlinked. For better or worse, there is a grandiose approach taken in this movie, from the technically modernized aspects to everything set in motion to push a story of old and new forward. Cells. If the original could be described as succintly as "neon noir in pissing rain with a subtle existential thematic core", this new one is in no way minimal anything, transporting you from the same-old-rainy LA to other dusky, toxic, wintery landscapes, all seemingly fitted in their own globe, plus picking that existential core to weave further synapses out of it. Cells. Without actually spoiling anything, it can be safely said this movie is has neo-neon-noir, cyber romance, tech and existential dystopia with a Chosen-One / Great-Things-Destined narrative, all in the same bowl. Interlinked.
I went to see this movie in theaters twice, which is quite a rare thing in my practice, but I feel I did it for the sake of more clarity rather than anything else. Cells. There are things in it that work (and many such things, in fact), but also things I came out of internally battling with how I felt about them. Cells. It is done with a superior sense of vision, skill, detail (Villeneuve, Roger Deakins - I mean, com'on), with a patience and pace uncommon to contemporary demands and standards - for which the movie will no doubt tank, because of how putridly low and spectacle-avid the world has set the bar for its blockbusters these days - but I also won't be the person to say that it is perfect in every way. Cells. It can earn its right to be called a superior sequel - especially in, again, this hellish climate of sequels and reboots and remakes - but it doesn't entirely purify its sequel code from specific nostalgic-driven or throwback-oriented traits. Cells. Blade Runner was, either consciously or unknowingly, influential to a lot of other movies, set on their own path. Cells. Art is rightly influential when it pushes new artists to create something themselves out of an idea they're influenced by, not just try to achieve a similar with that idea. Cells. Modern popular cinema has gone far too deep into sequel- and remake-mania. Cells. And while Villeneuve is unquestionably smarter than the average bear, Blade Runner 2049 is not profoundly something new and it has that drive not to trascend its source material, but to get interlinked with it. Interlinked. Within cells interlinked. Within cells interlinked. Within cells interlinked.
While I don't consider that I'll be using anything but minor hints and cues from the movie, I'll nevertheless honor the rule and put the following few more thoughts under the spoiler tab.
A (10)/A- (9) / B+ (8) / B (7) / B- (6) / C (5) / D (3-4) / F (1-2) / No rating
Wonder Woman (link) - surprised director Patti Jenkins hasn't done any other feature film in between this one and Monster (with that Oscar-grabbing performance from Charlize Theron), alllll the way back in 2003; she only directed a few TV series' episodes instead. Anyway, this serves as a pre-Justice League standalone origin story, going back to Wonder Woman's (Gal Gadot) childhood on the island of... whatever, revealing what makes her so demi-godly powerful and all that, plus building a sort of power fantasy around her aiding a British intelligence spy, played by Chris Pine, and thus getting involved in defeating some baddies during the Great War, or as we know it now, World War I.
To cut to the chase, it pains me to say that, with all its relevancy - not only counting as a first female lead superhero movie, but also a first DCU movie not to suck - I still found it incredibly boring and by-the-numbers altogether, even for capemovies' standards. There was not an ounce of filmmaking or writing to strike me as special, original - or, to put it another way, not tailored for the masses. The visual palette was either brightened for some paradisiac island scenes or set on dusky for the war scenes - most likely a marketable move, to take the DCU franchise out of the murky hellhole of Batman v Superman or the spasmodic joke that was Suicide Squad; it's more than decent and adequate, but nothing else. More strong female actresses (Connie Nielsen, Robin Wright) are brought in, yet then wasted on screen time and script. Elena Ayana's villainess role takes a backseat to, well, more of the same forgettable (male) villains (the war was lead by generals and freaks, after all). Its first, expository act was crafted about as poorly as it can be imagined, in a cram-it-all-in-there style, and the final fight arc breaks all illusion of superior quality by deploying all the FX chaos and maddening pyrotechny Man of Steel or BvS thsemvles had. Plus the DCU style of action coreography continues to irk me to no end, cutting in between punches to WW flinging her hair back, smirking, throwing a line, doing something else in slo-mo. By all means, no different than Marvel's halt action to deliver quips and punchlines MO, still it feels like a bloody video game. All this leaves a mid act in which the chemistry and banter between Gadot and Pine was praised, as was a sort of "fish out of water" trope of humour and coated jab at women's place in past societies, yet the former was just regular quips and the latter was one "oh wow WW discovers male chauvinism, who would have thunk it" scene after the next.
Again, this was beyond decent compared to anything DCU-related thus far and I get it the world was in need of a fun fantasy of emancipation, but the end result still felt to me head-numbing and banal.
I myself have finally seen Baby Driver (link) and it was pree fun. What I have yet to see is anything else by Edgar Wright, besides Scott Pilgrim, which at least evolved throughout time from a "I hate this adaptation so much" to "I'm still hissy at it overall" - yet even it had that glimmer of Wright's ingenuity to do something creative, or at least flashy and gimmicky. Which at least happens here as well, in a movie that could have otherwise be plainly tagged #heist, #hipster and #mixtape. It's the story of me, constantly listening to music on the streets and trying to match it with daily activities, except for the part where I'm not a mad-skilled driver, involved (or hired) in criminal activities, nor do I have auditory issues - or a cute girlfriend... But for real, it like takes most of Drive's concept (the silentious skilled protagonist, the ramp up in shit-going-wrong action style), drops the batshitness from it, and add instead teen romance, thug banter and two gigabytes of musical cues, all walking a fine line between diegetic and non-diegetic, used in sync with the situation, action and pacing in the movie (with the gimmick that our hero does that on purpose). The director and cast didn't even tiptoe around the fact that most of the scenes were shot to intentionally fit the soundtrack. I'm both cheerful and fearful to report that Focus' Hocus Pocus is used in a grand way. The selection is half pleb, half hipster, half decent, it's really up to anyone's tastes - just like the movie itself might prove, either candy bait or something fun to make your day. What I will say is that the pacing is particularly on point, the performances are sharp, the story is delectable even if with a healthy injection of belief suspension, much zaniness towards its end and a rather corny finale. There was talk that the romance / teen chemistry in the plot doesn't hold water, but I was actually fine with it. There was even more talk about Jamie Foxx hamming it hard, yet I also found him doing this thing and just that. Anyway, exciting personal, whimsical if also head-on gimmicky experiment from Wright and I'd rate this as super enjoyable above anything else.
A Ghost Story (link) - a movie with Sundance rave this year, that extended into being a sweet spot for many critics thus far; a light, twee concept from David Lowery (Pete's Dragon), starring Rooney Mara and Casey Affleck (recast by Lowery from a previous film of his, Ain't Them Bodies Saints), that I haven't seen) as a couple whose home seems disturbed by an unseen presence. Horror simple premise thus far, except what it turns into - without revealing any other major context - is an actual story told from the POV of a ghostly presence... complete with using a "traditional" bedsheet representation of said presence. This could invite hilarity, yet the stakes set are emotional and meditational with a very delicate directorial hand. The whole movie is shot in academic ratio, with the corners bent a bit to make it seem like a slideshow or something and there are slow takes up to and including a one shot of eating half of a pie that would make new wave minimalists fawn, visuals are soft and pastoral and then ghost design took some careful manipulation, from what I've read. It kinda spells out big-lettered messages on themes such as loss, grief, yearning, coping, remembrance, represented from intimate to time-traversing broad. Its final stretch almost had some "holy what" turns, but then it's wrapped up with such a bow tie, that it almost makes sense and pays off. It didn't have me hooked on all the time, yet as far as indie artsy curios go this year, this might be on the right lane.
First They Killed My Father: A Daughter of Cambodia Remembers (link) - a biographical story, directed by Angelina Jolie, inspired by Cambodian activist Loung Ung's memoir on her family and life being torn apart by the coming of the Khmer Rouge regime and her time spent in labor camps - literally the killing fields. Shot and told mostly from the reflections and perspective of her 7-year-old self, there is material to be empathetic towards, the depiction of blind propaganda and regime enforcement can be bone-chilling at times and it doesn't shy away from some gritty depictions, yet with an emphasis put more on sentimental depiction rather than documentary distance, there are limitation to Jolie's style.
Roight... with that out of the way, let's touch upon you-know-which-movie.
I rewatched Blade Runner (link) a day ahead of the main event, like the nerd that I am - The Final Cut, I should specify (and thank god I didn't mindlessly picked the theatrical version, with Ford's killjoy voiceover - though this one still retains that headscratching unicorn insert, but hey, #Ridley-is-pretty-dumb-nowadays-anyway). I remember having openly disliked this one the first time - yet I don't have it written down on my logs, which date back to 2012, so I must have been even younger, hence stupider; I certainly recall having openly disliked Vangelis' OST in context of his entire discography (and I still maintain it's not too much of a big deal, overall). But y'kno, this time around, I enjoyed most of it. I still have the urge to describe some set pieces as... "uninteresting" - and that's despite understanding what they goe for. I probably like most of all the flow of it, every scene feels fat free and serving its purpose; the movie is two hours, yet gets down to business almost right away and feels like it's wrapped up in an hour. The visuals and production design are obviously cinematic bookmarks, although even here I feel most of those shots only had an "establishing shot" quality; I can totally see how it influenced something like Ghost in the Shell's cityscapes, but I don't feel out of breath seeing them here. I can see its worthy elements that make it cult and deep, although one has to wonder how fortuitously Scott ended up creating them - plus its ultimate, most popular riddle is something for which "let the mystery be" is the only right answer. Sorry, Scott, but you're an ass for having tried to push things in a particular direction.
Now, Blade Runner 2049 (link) was taken over by Denis Villeneuve, a director who artistically earned a carte blanche with anything he's done thus far, even as he visibly moved towards the Hollywoodian commercial epicentrum (Incendies, Enemy, Sicario, Arrival - eff Prisoners, tho) - although Ridley Scott retained producer rights and sometimes you can almost sense his presence, especially knowing how [poorly] invested he's been lately in blowing up his own cult standalone movies into mythology-jacked sequels or prequels. Cells. For better or worse, there is both stuff that is recognizably Villeneuve's vision and stuff that inadvertedly links back to the source movie, whether in tributary or plain sequel fashion, and stuff demanded by its blockbuster / action format. Interlinked. For better or worse, there is a grandiose approach taken in this movie, from the technically modernized aspects to everything set in motion to push a story of old and new forward. Cells. If the original could be described as succintly as "neon noir in pissing rain with a subtle existential thematic core", this new one is in no way minimal anything, transporting you from the same-old-rainy LA to other dusky, toxic, wintery landscapes, all seemingly fitted in their own globe, plus picking that existential core to weave further synapses out of it. Cells. Without actually spoiling anything, it can be safely said this movie is has neo-neon-noir, cyber romance, tech and existential dystopia with a Chosen-One / Great-Things-Destined narrative, all in the same bowl. Interlinked.
I went to see this movie in theaters twice, which is quite a rare thing in my practice, but I feel I did it for the sake of more clarity rather than anything else. Cells. There are things in it that work (and many such things, in fact), but also things I came out of internally battling with how I felt about them. Cells. It is done with a superior sense of vision, skill, detail (Villeneuve, Roger Deakins - I mean, com'on), with a patience and pace uncommon to contemporary demands and standards - for which the movie will no doubt tank, because of how putridly low and spectacle-avid the world has set the bar for its blockbusters these days - but I also won't be the person to say that it is perfect in every way. Cells. It can earn its right to be called a superior sequel - especially in, again, this hellish climate of sequels and reboots and remakes - but it doesn't entirely purify its sequel code from specific nostalgic-driven or throwback-oriented traits. Cells. Blade Runner was, either consciously or unknowingly, influential to a lot of other movies, set on their own path. Cells. Art is rightly influential when it pushes new artists to create something themselves out of an idea they're influenced by, not just try to achieve a similar with that idea. Cells. Modern popular cinema has gone far too deep into sequel- and remake-mania. Cells. And while Villeneuve is unquestionably smarter than the average bear, Blade Runner 2049 is not profoundly something new and it has that drive not to trascend its source material, but to get interlinked with it. Interlinked. Within cells interlinked. Within cells interlinked. Within cells interlinked.
While I don't consider that I'll be using anything but minor hints and cues from the movie, I'll nevertheless honor the rule and put the following few more thoughts under the spoiler tab.
Spoiler: show
- Fri Oct 13, 2017 9:23 am
- Forum: Tinsel Town
- Topic: Rate the last movie you've seen
- Replies: 274
- Views: 31928
Re: Rate the last movie you've seen
Speaking of Cannes, it's time for a new edition of hot screenings, next weekend. They're doing a much ampler "Les films de Cannes" in the capital, yet we'll also be blessed with three days and seven movies. Thankfully, I won't have to sit in the Philharmonic hall until six in the morning this time.
I'll be seeing the 2016 Palme d'Or, the Grand Prix, Haneke's Happy End, the Safdie Brothers' Good Time and, should I truly wish to rewatch, Jarmusch's Paterson, which was one of my faves from last year.
*assumes fetal position*
I'll be seeing the 2016 Palme d'Or, the Grand Prix, Haneke's Happy End, the Safdie Brothers' Good Time and, should I truly wish to rewatch, Jarmusch's Paterson, which was one of my faves from last year.
*assumes fetal position*
- Wed Oct 11, 2017 5:48 pm
- Forum: Tinsel Town
- Topic: Rate the last movie you've seen
- Replies: 274
- Views: 31928
Re: Rate the last movie you've seen
For realz, thoDharmaHelper wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2017 5:31 pmMy favorite film of all time is Hook.Ricochet wrote: ↑Wed Oct 11, 2017 9:59 am What's your favorite film of all time?
===
Preemptive question: would the readers (assuming there are any) of my usual ramblings here be interested in listening 10 minutes to me speak about movies or, as before, in 10 minutes of reading my scribblings - assuming, again, that you'd normally spend any such amount of time on this. In light of some minor tech upgrades in my shed, I could switch to audio (but not full video, the way I'm doing SAWs - that's beyond exhausting).
- Wed Oct 11, 2017 5:01 pm
- Forum: Tinsel Town
- Topic: Rate the last movie you've seen
- Replies: 274
- Views: 31928
Re: Rate the last movie you've seen
I'm glad my question to Dharma invited answers from other people not Dharma.
What's F for Fake? :o
lol @ Gman. We don't have to fight it out. Just take it with a grain (or, if you want, a box in my case) of salt, much like you'd watch or read any other vlogger / YT reviewer / newspaper article / gossip commenter.
Plus, you've said you hardly manage to watch a movie on an occasion, so I don't think you'll be in tune with 90% of my updates.
What's F for Fake? :o
lol @ Gman. We don't have to fight it out. Just take it with a grain (or, if you want, a box in my case) of salt, much like you'd watch or read any other vlogger / YT reviewer / newspaper article / gossip commenter.
Plus, you've said you hardly manage to watch a movie on an occasion, so I don't think you'll be in tune with 90% of my updates.
- Wed Oct 11, 2017 9:59 am
- Forum: Tinsel Town
- Topic: Rate the last movie you've seen
- Replies: 274
- Views: 31928
Re: Rate the last movie you've seen
What's your favorite film of all time?
===
Preemptive question: would the readers (assuming there are any) of my usual ramblings here be interested in listening 10 minutes to me speak about movies or, as before, in 10 minutes of reading my scribblings - assuming, again, that you'd normally spend any such amount of time on this. In light of some minor tech upgrades in my shed, I could switch to audio (but not full video, the way I'm doing SAWs - that's beyond exhausting).
===
Preemptive question: would the readers (assuming there are any) of my usual ramblings here be interested in listening 10 minutes to me speak about movies or, as before, in 10 minutes of reading my scribblings - assuming, again, that you'd normally spend any such amount of time on this. In light of some minor tech upgrades in my shed, I could switch to audio (but not full video, the way I'm doing SAWs - that's beyond exhausting).
- Sun Sep 17, 2017 3:29 am
- Forum: Tinsel Town
- Topic: Rate the last movie you've seen
- Replies: 274
- Views: 31928
Re: Rate the last movie you've seen
So I know it's cheesy RIP-ing, at least to my standards - plus, one can certainly go way deeper into Harry Dean Stanton's filmography - but I've rewatched Paris, Texas yesterday (third time, which is already special territory for me) and I'll be bumping it to a full 10. No clue why I had it at 9 thus far, the open space cinematography and color scheme is superb, the acting is contained and great (save perhaps for Aurore Clement's English that never manages to connect me to a veritable character), the opening and closing 30 minutes mirror each other in having me hooked on, watching every detail, every gesture, every word (if any, that is), the story is so simple, yet unfolds in a way that feels more epic.
- Fri Sep 01, 2017 10:32 am
- Forum: Tinsel Town
- Topic: Rate the last movie you've seen
- Replies: 274
- Views: 31928
Re: Rate the last movie you've seen
Wrapped up my August with both a few revisits and a couple new movies
A (10)/A- (9) / B+ (8) / B (7) / B- (6) / C (5) / D (3-4) / F (1-2) / No rating
Wanted to give both Kaili Blues and Notes on Blindness the viewing they deserved, after I had flimsily watched and reviewed them here a while ago. Given this debut of his, Chinese director Bi Gan should be worth keeping an eye out, even if, as I've said the first time, he's moving thus far within an arthouse, rural-picturesque, minimalist range rather than anything more plot-heavy or exciting. The most I got, for now, was from his skillful aesthetics and technical ambition (a 30-minute-plus one-shot sequence choreographing several characters travelling by bike, car or boat at various times or intermingling on labyrinthine streets) and the touch of poetic storytelling. Didn't get much more out of Notes on Blindness than the first time, but again, if you want to see something that could have been a straightforward slideshow & interview documetary, yet was instead beautifully stylised and crafted with voice acting, or in the mood for something meditative and profound given theologian John Hull's musings on his condition and life, then you should give this a try.
Also wanted to enjoy Jarmusch's Paterson one more time - and it's definitely going in the shelves and staying up there as one of my faves from last year.
On to the new, two movies provided bizarre, if mostly rewarding experiences (unlike the last batch of Dutch-libertine bawdiness or indie edginess...)
Picked up Raw (link) as a fairly hyped French horror film from last year. The trailer and the IMDb page seem to go subtle on what the main ingredient of horror here is, but plenty other sites, uhm, sink right into it (pun intended), so not sure how one can avoid not being spoiled in this aspect prior to seeing it (as was my case). The thinnest possible synopsis is that it's about a young student following in her parents' and sister's footsteps by going at vet school; the entire family is established as strictly vegetarian, but then the initial phase of the school's crazy, campy, frat-like initiation rituals push the protagonist past her limits, (spoiler) This being a French movie, viewers should probably know what they're getting into in terms of shock value and wild cinematic fantasy, as the movie nonchalantly hits no breaks on its doses of gore and debauchery, the protagonist both seemingly corrupted by and willfully losing herself into crazed behaviour. There are also thick enough undertones on themes of coming-of-age, self-discovery, social inclusion, sisterhood and such, that add value past the queasiness. There are a few spots of predictability, nevertheless with some decent twists and quick stuns along the way. I'd be lying if I'd say this wasn't entertaining: there's a slick, Refn-esque style to the visuals and a giallo tinge to an uninvasive yet loud when it matters score, plus the story and tension ramped up very well without tipping over.
Also, To the Bone (link), an equally discomforting topical movie, this time on the opposite extreme - eating disorders. For me, it felt a bit weird to get back into this subject, after just having read this year a book by Sofi Oksanen that mostly builds on such a theme, but at least with the little knowledge I have following this, I'd imagine this movie did hit some right notes on depicting the struggles with such disorders, therapies and their limitations when it all boils down to the battle with your self, stigmas and social or parental difficulties and so on. There's a sense of honest research put into the depiction, plus of transposing personal experiences, coming both from the director, Marti Noxon (formerly a writer and producer on shows such as Buffy or Glee) and the main actress, Lily Collins - doing her most significant role to date as far as I can recall, at times so focused and hard to fathom she went this deep into her role, especially considering her own prior experiences. Anyway, while the subject and the considerate treatment of it make the most impression, I couldn't help feeling the movie, in its style, is nonetheless fairly lightweight. Maybe there's something to the Netflix recipe that makes them pick up bold subjects, but either crank them up to eleventy stupid (Ojka, Death Note) or play it safe. Past the acting, the thematic hard facts and the unsettling tensity of the story, there was nothing too transformative, transcendent, which is a shame.
A (10)/A- (9) / B+ (8) / B (7) / B- (6) / C (5) / D (3-4) / F (1-2) / No rating
Wanted to give both Kaili Blues and Notes on Blindness the viewing they deserved, after I had flimsily watched and reviewed them here a while ago. Given this debut of his, Chinese director Bi Gan should be worth keeping an eye out, even if, as I've said the first time, he's moving thus far within an arthouse, rural-picturesque, minimalist range rather than anything more plot-heavy or exciting. The most I got, for now, was from his skillful aesthetics and technical ambition (a 30-minute-plus one-shot sequence choreographing several characters travelling by bike, car or boat at various times or intermingling on labyrinthine streets) and the touch of poetic storytelling. Didn't get much more out of Notes on Blindness than the first time, but again, if you want to see something that could have been a straightforward slideshow & interview documetary, yet was instead beautifully stylised and crafted with voice acting, or in the mood for something meditative and profound given theologian John Hull's musings on his condition and life, then you should give this a try.
Also wanted to enjoy Jarmusch's Paterson one more time - and it's definitely going in the shelves and staying up there as one of my faves from last year.
On to the new, two movies provided bizarre, if mostly rewarding experiences (unlike the last batch of Dutch-libertine bawdiness or indie edginess...)
Picked up Raw (link) as a fairly hyped French horror film from last year. The trailer and the IMDb page seem to go subtle on what the main ingredient of horror here is, but plenty other sites, uhm, sink right into it (pun intended), so not sure how one can avoid not being spoiled in this aspect prior to seeing it (as was my case). The thinnest possible synopsis is that it's about a young student following in her parents' and sister's footsteps by going at vet school; the entire family is established as strictly vegetarian, but then the initial phase of the school's crazy, campy, frat-like initiation rituals push the protagonist past her limits, (spoiler)
Spoiler: show
Also, To the Bone (link), an equally discomforting topical movie, this time on the opposite extreme - eating disorders. For me, it felt a bit weird to get back into this subject, after just having read this year a book by Sofi Oksanen that mostly builds on such a theme, but at least with the little knowledge I have following this, I'd imagine this movie did hit some right notes on depicting the struggles with such disorders, therapies and their limitations when it all boils down to the battle with your self, stigmas and social or parental difficulties and so on. There's a sense of honest research put into the depiction, plus of transposing personal experiences, coming both from the director, Marti Noxon (formerly a writer and producer on shows such as Buffy or Glee) and the main actress, Lily Collins - doing her most significant role to date as far as I can recall, at times so focused and hard to fathom she went this deep into her role, especially considering her own prior experiences. Anyway, while the subject and the considerate treatment of it make the most impression, I couldn't help feeling the movie, in its style, is nonetheless fairly lightweight. Maybe there's something to the Netflix recipe that makes them pick up bold subjects, but either crank them up to eleventy stupid (Ojka, Death Note) or play it safe. Past the acting, the thematic hard facts and the unsettling tensity of the story, there was nothing too transformative, transcendent, which is a shame.
- Sat Aug 26, 2017 12:09 pm
- Forum: Tinsel Town
- Topic: Rate the last movie you've seen
- Replies: 274
- Views: 31928
Re: Rate the last movie you've seen
Well, while at it, I might as well write an update on my last sequence of viewings (sometime after returning from Amsterdam, two weeks ago, till present day), which was mostly... ech, rough.
A (10)/A- (9) / B+ (8) / B (7) / B- (6) / C (5) / D (3-4) / F (1-2) / No rating
War Machine (link) - also of Netflix distribution, something apparently timed as "we haven't had another war satire in a while", although it sure ain't no Dr. Strangelove. It adaptes the nonfiction book The Operators and fictionalizes the activities of former US Army General, ISAF and Afghanistan Forces Commander Stanley McChrystal; Brad Pitt portrays his film version, as a competent General, strong willed and dedicated to taking more decisive steps in gathering more troops and securing victory in the conflict, while also getting carried away by his resolute vision and having his patience tested by the bureaucratic strings necessary to be pulled to gain allied support or wishy-washy stances of other officials. Or... something in that vein. Anyway, problem is the movie is kind of a two-hour uneven slug and whatever satirical effect it aimed for (apart from more or less veiled anti-war criticism and stab at McChrystal's missteps and undoing), it felt neither witty or smirk-inducing enough. Pitt carries the movie with some mimic- and discourse-virtuous acting, while most of the ensemble cast is completely non-descript, save for maybe Ben Kingsley playing a buffoon of an Afghan leader and Tilda Swinton doing a German accent as a meddling reporter. I don't see why this subject couldn't have been approached via a more straightforward documentary, but that's how it is. Entertaining, this was not.
Wiener-Dog (link) - something that must have landed on someone's end-of-year lists, otherwise there'd be no real explanation why I picked this up. Don't remember having watched any of this director's - Todd Solondz - previous stuff, either. The simplest way to summarize it is also the easiest way to make it sound utterly silly, as it's basically about a dachshund ending up with various owners, which establishes the frame for a cycle of vignettes around different people with different woes. The overall tone of the movie is a blend of dark or absurd comedy, indie and mumblecore, dysfunctional drama, stuff that may seem taken at times from a Wes Anderson or Coens' scrapbook, yet I kinda cringed at the whole thing. If you haven't seen Danny DeVito in a while (in movies at least), I guess it may be worth briefly seeing him as a mopey disillusioned writer, but the rest of the ensemble cast (Julie Delpy, Greta Gerwig, Kieran Culkin) has been more frequent on screen and this isn't significant stuff from any of them.
Bad Boy Bubby (link) - what proved the most testing thing to sit through, however, was this Rolf de Heer movie, something I had prepared for my Amsterdam trip but never found the time to watch - I was familiar already with his way more delightful Ten Canoes aboriginal docu-film or docu-drama. This one, however, concerns a 35-year-old manchild, confined by his mother all his life in a small, filthy apartment until circumstances make it that he finally steps outside and, even more audaciously, despite his social inexperience and mentally unstable character, somehow connects with the people he meets and converts them to be in sync with his theatrics. Anyway, while the movie deliberately experimented with the sound design (everything manipulated to seem like it's from the perspective of what the main character is hearing) and switching between dozens of director of photography styles to reference the kaleidoscopic, hectic outside world the character encounters, it's still drenched in so black, scabrous and unpalatable of a humor, visuals and storytelling, it's hard to defend even in the name of ugly aestheticism. I asked a Dutch friend why I found de Heer's movie so atrocious and he simply replied "because it's Dutch".
Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (link) - *sigh*... well, they tried at least, I guess? or did they? Thing is, my most prevalent feeling after watching this was that, in a clear attempt to cash in on the first movie's wild, smart success, they tried to stay smart and not botch a sequel out of this recipe - and yet they kinda botched it, anyway, as it feels like an overdose on everything: the quipkino, the mindless galactic adventures, the jukebox cues, the spacenova visuals, the tension-less bulletproof superpowers of the characters. What they did strive and somewhat achieved to do was finding some pace and disposition to outline more character development (it's at least what every critic has been praising, so who am I to disagree) - though even here it's uneven, it's mostly about Starlord or Rocket or Yondu stealing the show at times - while toning down the same Marvellian variation on a "save the world/galaxy" situation and flimsy, unmemorable antagonists (who in turn become either comic relief or aid in a main character's further development). Still, it felt like a cheesy exaggeration of the first movie's swag. The plot could have filled the length of a Star Trek episodic adventure rather than another capekino bucket-of-money-making chapter. I laughed or chuckled zero times. All the Guardians felt like growing into a caricature of themselves.
Keetje (Katie) Tippel (link) - a more agreeable Dutch movie this time, also something prepared for my Amsterdam trip but never watched during it, one of Paul Verhoeven's early movies, though slightly flourishing the touches of explicit, loose style and sleazy drama he'd fully affirm himself with later on (RoboCop, Starship Troopers, Showgirls, Black Book, last year's Elle). The story follows a young woman, relocating to Amsterdam with her poverty-stricken family, after which she's tempted into everything ranging from doing manual labor, prostitution, being the concubine of artists and climbing the social ladder towards couture bourgeoisie. As stated, there's room for some Verhoevean drops of explicit, libertine content, but the overall style is nevertheless solid enough to make for an enjoyable, soapy, syrupy 70s melodrama.
Death Note (link) - and lastly, whether you've read the stuff above in spoilers or not, I'll recap that this, for me, proved an insubstantial and hardly worthwhile adaptation of a cult manga/anime, pinning down some of the original's iconic lore and elements (resorting moreover to cues rather than working with them), while not bothering too much with the deeper ethical and moral themes. There is visual gore that may satisfy the way watching a supercut of Final Destination death scenes might, yet there is little development that sticks and isn't superficial and the story turns into half-nonsensical, painful chaos halfway through. It's a sloppy, low on quality result to validate the pursuit to adapt Death Note into an American version of mope, teenage edge and playing God.
A (10)/A- (9) / B+ (8) / B (7) / B- (6) / C (5) / D (3-4) / F (1-2) / No rating
War Machine (link) - also of Netflix distribution, something apparently timed as "we haven't had another war satire in a while", although it sure ain't no Dr. Strangelove. It adaptes the nonfiction book The Operators and fictionalizes the activities of former US Army General, ISAF and Afghanistan Forces Commander Stanley McChrystal; Brad Pitt portrays his film version, as a competent General, strong willed and dedicated to taking more decisive steps in gathering more troops and securing victory in the conflict, while also getting carried away by his resolute vision and having his patience tested by the bureaucratic strings necessary to be pulled to gain allied support or wishy-washy stances of other officials. Or... something in that vein. Anyway, problem is the movie is kind of a two-hour uneven slug and whatever satirical effect it aimed for (apart from more or less veiled anti-war criticism and stab at McChrystal's missteps and undoing), it felt neither witty or smirk-inducing enough. Pitt carries the movie with some mimic- and discourse-virtuous acting, while most of the ensemble cast is completely non-descript, save for maybe Ben Kingsley playing a buffoon of an Afghan leader and Tilda Swinton doing a German accent as a meddling reporter. I don't see why this subject couldn't have been approached via a more straightforward documentary, but that's how it is. Entertaining, this was not.
Wiener-Dog (link) - something that must have landed on someone's end-of-year lists, otherwise there'd be no real explanation why I picked this up. Don't remember having watched any of this director's - Todd Solondz - previous stuff, either. The simplest way to summarize it is also the easiest way to make it sound utterly silly, as it's basically about a dachshund ending up with various owners, which establishes the frame for a cycle of vignettes around different people with different woes. The overall tone of the movie is a blend of dark or absurd comedy, indie and mumblecore, dysfunctional drama, stuff that may seem taken at times from a Wes Anderson or Coens' scrapbook, yet I kinda cringed at the whole thing. If you haven't seen Danny DeVito in a while (in movies at least), I guess it may be worth briefly seeing him as a mopey disillusioned writer, but the rest of the ensemble cast (Julie Delpy, Greta Gerwig, Kieran Culkin) has been more frequent on screen and this isn't significant stuff from any of them.
Bad Boy Bubby (link) - what proved the most testing thing to sit through, however, was this Rolf de Heer movie, something I had prepared for my Amsterdam trip but never found the time to watch - I was familiar already with his way more delightful Ten Canoes aboriginal docu-film or docu-drama. This one, however, concerns a 35-year-old manchild, confined by his mother all his life in a small, filthy apartment until circumstances make it that he finally steps outside and, even more audaciously, despite his social inexperience and mentally unstable character, somehow connects with the people he meets and converts them to be in sync with his theatrics. Anyway, while the movie deliberately experimented with the sound design (everything manipulated to seem like it's from the perspective of what the main character is hearing) and switching between dozens of director of photography styles to reference the kaleidoscopic, hectic outside world the character encounters, it's still drenched in so black, scabrous and unpalatable of a humor, visuals and storytelling, it's hard to defend even in the name of ugly aestheticism. I asked a Dutch friend why I found de Heer's movie so atrocious and he simply replied "because it's Dutch".
Guardians of the Galaxy Vol. 2 (link) - *sigh*... well, they tried at least, I guess? or did they? Thing is, my most prevalent feeling after watching this was that, in a clear attempt to cash in on the first movie's wild, smart success, they tried to stay smart and not botch a sequel out of this recipe - and yet they kinda botched it, anyway, as it feels like an overdose on everything: the quipkino, the mindless galactic adventures, the jukebox cues, the spacenova visuals, the tension-less bulletproof superpowers of the characters. What they did strive and somewhat achieved to do was finding some pace and disposition to outline more character development (it's at least what every critic has been praising, so who am I to disagree) - though even here it's uneven, it's mostly about Starlord or Rocket or Yondu stealing the show at times - while toning down the same Marvellian variation on a "save the world/galaxy" situation and flimsy, unmemorable antagonists (who in turn become either comic relief or aid in a main character's further development). Still, it felt like a cheesy exaggeration of the first movie's swag. The plot could have filled the length of a Star Trek episodic adventure rather than another capekino bucket-of-money-making chapter. I laughed or chuckled zero times. All the Guardians felt like growing into a caricature of themselves.
Keetje (Katie) Tippel (link) - a more agreeable Dutch movie this time, also something prepared for my Amsterdam trip but never watched during it, one of Paul Verhoeven's early movies, though slightly flourishing the touches of explicit, loose style and sleazy drama he'd fully affirm himself with later on (RoboCop, Starship Troopers, Showgirls, Black Book, last year's Elle). The story follows a young woman, relocating to Amsterdam with her poverty-stricken family, after which she's tempted into everything ranging from doing manual labor, prostitution, being the concubine of artists and climbing the social ladder towards couture bourgeoisie. As stated, there's room for some Verhoevean drops of explicit, libertine content, but the overall style is nevertheless solid enough to make for an enjoyable, soapy, syrupy 70s melodrama.
Death Note (link) - and lastly, whether you've read the stuff above in spoilers or not, I'll recap that this, for me, proved an insubstantial and hardly worthwhile adaptation of a cult manga/anime, pinning down some of the original's iconic lore and elements (resorting moreover to cues rather than working with them), while not bothering too much with the deeper ethical and moral themes. There is visual gore that may satisfy the way watching a supercut of Final Destination death scenes might, yet there is little development that sticks and isn't superficial and the story turns into half-nonsensical, painful chaos halfway through. It's a sloppy, low on quality result to validate the pursuit to adapt Death Note into an American version of mope, teenage edge and playing God.
- Sat Aug 26, 2017 3:41 am
- Forum: Tinsel Town
- Topic: Rate the last movie you've seen
- Replies: 274
- Views: 31928
Re: Rate the last movie you've seen
Well that was me in simple fanboy rant mode more than pertinent criticism, but I can go more in depth, I suppose.Epignosis wrote: ↑Sat Aug 26, 2017 1:37 amRicochet wrote: ↑Fri Aug 25, 2017 5:46 pm Was gonna rant about the Netflix Death Note, but then I suddenly found no energy whatsoever to pursue this in serious fashion. D for dumb. Not a travesty, still dumb.
...
Actually, I changed my mind. Get mildly spoiled below only if you've seen it or do not care about seeing it (which is the better mindset of the two, fwiw).
Spoiler: showSpoiler: show
Spoiler: show
- Fri Aug 25, 2017 5:47 pm
- Forum: Tinsel Town
- Topic: Rate the last movie you've seen
- Replies: 274
- Views: 31928
Re: Rate the last movie you've seen
- Fri Aug 25, 2017 5:46 pm
- Forum: Tinsel Town
- Topic: Rate the last movie you've seen
- Replies: 274
- Views: 31928
Re: Rate the last movie you've seen
Was gonna rant about the Netflix Death Note, but then I suddenly found no energy whatsoever to pursue this in serious fashion. D for dumb. Not a travesty, still dumb.
...
Actually, I changed my mind. Get mildly spoiled below only if you've seen it or do not care about seeing it (which is the better mindset of the two, fwiw).
...
Actually, I changed my mind. Get mildly spoiled below only if you've seen it or do not care about seeing it (which is the better mindset of the two, fwiw).
Spoiler: show
- Fri Aug 25, 2017 4:57 pm
- Forum: Tinsel Town
- Topic: Rate the last movie you've seen
- Replies: 274
- Views: 31928
- Sun Aug 13, 2017 7:32 pm
- Forum: Tinsel Town
- Topic: Rate the last movie you've seen
- Replies: 274
- Views: 31928
Re: Rate the last movie you've seen
I haven't watched any new movies while on holiday.
- Tue Aug 01, 2017 7:04 pm
- Forum: Tinsel Town
- Topic: Rate the last movie you've seen
- Replies: 274
- Views: 31928
Re: Rate the last movie you've seen
Carol and Safe have nothing in common. More like Carol and Far from Heaven.
Place Beyond was turd.
Place Beyond was turd.
- Tue Aug 01, 2017 3:17 pm
- Forum: Tinsel Town
- Topic: Rate the last movie you've seen
- Replies: 274
- Views: 31928
Re: Rate the last movie you've seen
Well I figured I'd wait until the end of the month to post some new reviews, so here it is
A (10)/A- (9) / B+ (8) / B (7) / B- (6) / C (5) / D (3-4) / F (1-2) / No rating
L'Odyssee (The Odyssey) (link) - bland and by-the-numbers biopic on legendary nature explorer and filmmaker Jacques Cousteau, the type of effigy building that is empty at its core about capturing the personality, also with the sinful ambition of covering as much of his significant lifespan as possible, from the ex-marine turning his diving passion into a business, his fight to manage, expand and maintain public and commercial interest, his marital and familial conflicts (particularly with one of his sons, who gets his own kind of B-story). For a French movie, the style is moreover trying to pander to Hollywood expectations and it's all very 101 in stereotypes and biopic tropes. I guess some of the wildlife shotmaking is good, but even that starts feeling NatGeo-ish, once in synergy with a schmaltz of a movie.
Logan (link) - a no doubt inspired, if still way overdue (considering how much they took their sweet time milking the image of the most iconic of X-Men into one shitty action movie after another) quality Wolverine solo movie, timing it with a proper send-off to Hugh Jackman. The austere superhero build (think you can actually count the full-grown mutants on one hand) and gritty R-rated action offer some liberties in regards to focusing on the story and rising the stakes; both Jackman's Wolvie and Stewart's Xavier are shown in their late, post-glorious, ailing phase, which allows to care more about them; plus the prodigy child character, while kinda sketched to bank on the same magnetic appeal as say Eleven from Stranger Things, has a buddy-up connection with Wolvie that works; the villans are corporate stock, but not annoying etc. etc. So technically there's a lot to like (the story, the meaningful action, the feels), yet I remain agnostic to the fact that one out of 10 capemovies working against the trend of Marvel's factory bland style or DC's spectacle of shooting itself in the face repeatedly is meant to earn instant praise. There's still a whole universe outside this capeuniverse, compared to which Logan, just like Guardians or Deadpool before that, still doesn't quite stack up to or is in any way perfect. The flow of the movie, for instance, is not devoid of predictable, not spectacularly new set pieces and I can't say the use of a "superior Wolverine clone" trope as an element of tension, danger and "underdoggery" blew me away.
Lu bian ye can (Kaili Blues) (link) - not much I can say about this right now, on account of having done a poor watching of it. On surface level, seemed like the kind of lo-fi, plot-light, slow 'n' pensive arthouse, plus I remember having had an impressive 30-minute or so long take. So good chops for a debut, but I just wasn't in an attentive mood that evening.
Notes on Blindness (link) - what could have easily been a biopic or even an interview slash album photos doc is instead a documentary that uses theologian John Hull's audio diaries on his blindness and converts them in recreated scenes using actors. A delicately modeled, stylistically lavish movie, heavy on musings and recollections from which the core message is trying to actively understand your life as an existential mechanism.
Okja (link) - UGH. Bong Joon-ho is an acclaimed director of Korean horror (Mother, The Host), but once he transitioned to English mainstream movies, I still consider him to be struggling in producing a levelheaded work out of his bonker, outlandish ideas. Did not join the hype wagon with the Oldboy meets Orwell meets Matrix pastiche that was Snowpiercer and I feel even worse about this one. In essence, it's meant to be a sharp satire on ecological woes and Western corporations, but the end product is risibly off the wall. Thing is, it could have been an idyllic, funny, exciting and moralizing movie - heck, in small doses, it even is - but it's almost like it went for deliberately retarded instead. Tilda Swinton does an only-for-fanboys role, just like in Snowpiercer and Jake Gyllenhaal puts on the most absurd, imbecilic comedic hat, a role that I think even Rob Schneider would have had the dignity to pass. Also notable that this is the movie that stirred controversy at Cannes over the eligibility of Netflix screenings, but I couldn't care less now considering that its content doesn't hold up to its merits.
Lovesong (link) - as the title suggests, a simple kind of indie vignette in which a young mother (Riley Keough), whose own marriage becomes strained, almost becomes involved in a relationship with her best friend (Jena Malone). Years later, as her friend is getting married, their reuniting also becomes an occasion to reconcile with what could have been or even what might still be between them. Soft-spoken, emotionally charged framing and performances, but ech, nothing particularly special.
Sieranevada (link) - meanwhile on the Romanian front, nothing new, as New Wave eminence Cristi Puiu goes as deep and implacable as always with his hyper-realistic ways, trying to capture for nearly three hours the "nothing-happens-ness" of a family gathering in an apartment to commemorate the recent passing of the protagonist's father. Of course, aside from the technical goals for minimalistic, long-take shotmaking and seamless, incredible montage within a small, crammed space for filming (all achieved with excellence), Puiu's ambition must certainly be to create a fresco of family and human interactions. To us, it hits very much home to see these scenes of randomness, small talk and animosities at a family gathering - for the rest of the world, though, idk; I suppose it could appeal to American fans of Osage County? Anyway, I've dreaded a bit to actually watch this movie - it created, as expected, an even bigger rift between critics who lick it with praise for its utter big-lettered Cinema and those who are fed up with New Wave's incorrigible style and thus mocked it as "three hours of waiting for the pastor to arrive, so the family can have the memorial service and then finally sit down to eat borscht". At Cannes, the reviews were positive, but the jury ultimately went with some laurels towards Mungiu's Graduation, although I think this one is somewhat better. Its screening time did not prove such an issue, the three hours flew by and at times I was genuinely amused or enchanted by this bitter comedy of manners.
Sobache serdtse (Heart of a Dog) (link) - a TV two-part adaptation of one of Bulgakov's novels. As a moderate fan of Bulgakov's anti-bolshevic satirical works (Master and Margaret, Fatal Eggs), I found the style both recognizable and a bit too plainly transposed on screen - though some credit to the acting, to the old movie sense of sepia-tinged visuals and especially to finding a dog who can act depressed.
Split (link) - well then, dare we hope for an "M. Night Shayamalanaissace", as this is his first decent movie in fucking forever? The movie's premise remains wacky and precarious to handle, having "batshit" and "exploitative" written all over it, as James McAvoy plays a man with 23 split personalities who abducts three female teenagers as an offering for an emerging dark, ominous 24th personality. And yet the movie is solid enough, McAvoy carries the movie's difficulty and prevents it from plunging into derision (he doesn't perform all 23 splits, don't worry) and I have to credit Anya Taylor-Joy as well, who follows up her role in The VVitch with the same mix of pure and troubled horror damsel aura. Not bereft of some clunk in its treatment of mental dysfunction or in some flashbacks serving as blunt exposition and has a "tweeeest" that links the movie with a previous Shyamalan (good) oeuvre, but still, well beyond decent - which is saying something, in this case.
T2 Trainspotting (link) - also on the "colour me impressed, this didn't suck" list, Danny Boyle's sequel to his cult, magnificent (at least IMO) 90s movie. Not that the world desperately needed a Trainspotting 2 - then again, there was pre-existing material for this, as Irvine Welsh has a taste for sequels himself (what I'm saying is that this movie adapts his book Porno in some degree). Boyle applies his usual modern-day style, much like you might have seen on Slumdog Millionaire or Trance, especially with the fast-paced dialogue and zappy montage. Not an essential, relevant movie by any movies, but still a nice view on the characters returning 20 years later to muse on their aging life, following their fucked-up teenage days. Some of the slur-heavy, Scot-argotic humor holds up about as hysterically well as on the original, too.
Dunkirk (link) - so bona fide Nolan-esque, it was both going to be hard to disappoint and yet there's room for letting you down a bit. Mainly it's the thing that I'm not sure Nolan can evolve past his incessant, ever-recurring tropes anymore (whether it's his fascination with time, his desire to create smart-mode blockbusters, his orchestral vision and large-scale meticulousness etc.). Somehow the Dunkirk subject was meant to fit like a glove on his approach (plus a chance for him to finally go back to making a bloody British movie), the only unique opportunity being for him to ease up on any Sci-Fi mindfuckery and hamfisted themes such as "love is the driving force of everything" - which he complies with, to the point of sacrificing any deep characterization (the Private-Ryan-esque aim to empathise with your heroes' struggles and goals) for a technically masterful and aptly grandiose depiction of war. So as a symphony of filmic structure, sprinkled with attention to historical fidelity, Dunkirk is a safe accomplishment. Like Jay argued, I'm not sure myself if we needed or not another war movie - I'll add I never went in with the expectation of Nolan delivering the never-seen before, ultimate war movie experience. I'm even less concerned with how Dunkirk stacks up, considering I'm usually sold by Nolan's cinematic wizardry when watching it on the big theatre screen, but then feel gradually worse once time passes and I process it more - same thing happened with Interstellar and nowadays I can no longer rewatch that one with a straight face, tbh. And Dunkirk itself did not end without any penalty either. I for one was slightly irked by the explicit mention of the three timelines' duration - it's not like Nolan cared about that when fucking with our brains in Inception and Interstellar - though I get it that it's grounded in reality (the army was stranded for a week, the civilian boats took a day to carry rescue trips and RAF Spitfires could only carry hour-long missions). Plus, by the time all the themes in this "symphony" converge in the third act, one might well be struck, depending on their acquired knowledge of previous works, by either the familiarity or annoyance of Nolan's frame-swapping non-linearity. Still, this movie is Nolanesque through and through. But it is so both in good and ech ways.
The Bad Batch (link) - alas, I must conclude this briefing, as I conclude my month in movies, with quite a stinker. This is the second movie by Ana Lily Amirpour, who wowed indy audiences with her vampire glossy-shick debut A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night (that failed to impress me, however) and now seemingly wanted to flex her "I'd be able to direct a Mad Max sequel" muscles with a dystopian, Texan wasteland gritty story filled with canibals, damaged people and dog-eat-dog surviving skills. At first, the movie wastes little time with exposition or social commntary, lauching us straight into the feral setting and for a good 20 minutes it seems to go unflinchingly brutal and dark. But then it gets bogged down by stuff like introducing a carnaval-like cornucopia community, in which everyone is damaged good and Keanu Reeves plays a spiritual patriarch bullshitter, plus Jim freaking Carrey is a silent wacky roamer - the plot gets erratic and undecided between badland dystopia, Kill Bill-esque revenge story and Stockholm syndrome tinged weird-ass romance; the pacing becomes atrocious; all the performances are unconvincing or forcedly bonkers. It's sad and strange, but this was by far the hardest watch I had to sit through all month.
A (10)/A- (9) / B+ (8) / B (7) / B- (6) / C (5) / D (3-4) / F (1-2) / No rating
L'Odyssee (The Odyssey) (link) - bland and by-the-numbers biopic on legendary nature explorer and filmmaker Jacques Cousteau, the type of effigy building that is empty at its core about capturing the personality, also with the sinful ambition of covering as much of his significant lifespan as possible, from the ex-marine turning his diving passion into a business, his fight to manage, expand and maintain public and commercial interest, his marital and familial conflicts (particularly with one of his sons, who gets his own kind of B-story). For a French movie, the style is moreover trying to pander to Hollywood expectations and it's all very 101 in stereotypes and biopic tropes. I guess some of the wildlife shotmaking is good, but even that starts feeling NatGeo-ish, once in synergy with a schmaltz of a movie.
Logan (link) - a no doubt inspired, if still way overdue (considering how much they took their sweet time milking the image of the most iconic of X-Men into one shitty action movie after another) quality Wolverine solo movie, timing it with a proper send-off to Hugh Jackman. The austere superhero build (think you can actually count the full-grown mutants on one hand) and gritty R-rated action offer some liberties in regards to focusing on the story and rising the stakes; both Jackman's Wolvie and Stewart's Xavier are shown in their late, post-glorious, ailing phase, which allows to care more about them; plus the prodigy child character, while kinda sketched to bank on the same magnetic appeal as say Eleven from Stranger Things, has a buddy-up connection with Wolvie that works; the villans are corporate stock, but not annoying etc. etc. So technically there's a lot to like (the story, the meaningful action, the feels), yet I remain agnostic to the fact that one out of 10 capemovies working against the trend of Marvel's factory bland style or DC's spectacle of shooting itself in the face repeatedly is meant to earn instant praise. There's still a whole universe outside this capeuniverse, compared to which Logan, just like Guardians or Deadpool before that, still doesn't quite stack up to or is in any way perfect. The flow of the movie, for instance, is not devoid of predictable, not spectacularly new set pieces and I can't say the use of a "superior Wolverine clone" trope as an element of tension, danger and "underdoggery" blew me away.
Lu bian ye can (Kaili Blues) (link) - not much I can say about this right now, on account of having done a poor watching of it. On surface level, seemed like the kind of lo-fi, plot-light, slow 'n' pensive arthouse, plus I remember having had an impressive 30-minute or so long take. So good chops for a debut, but I just wasn't in an attentive mood that evening.
Notes on Blindness (link) - what could have easily been a biopic or even an interview slash album photos doc is instead a documentary that uses theologian John Hull's audio diaries on his blindness and converts them in recreated scenes using actors. A delicately modeled, stylistically lavish movie, heavy on musings and recollections from which the core message is trying to actively understand your life as an existential mechanism.
Okja (link) - UGH. Bong Joon-ho is an acclaimed director of Korean horror (Mother, The Host), but once he transitioned to English mainstream movies, I still consider him to be struggling in producing a levelheaded work out of his bonker, outlandish ideas. Did not join the hype wagon with the Oldboy meets Orwell meets Matrix pastiche that was Snowpiercer and I feel even worse about this one. In essence, it's meant to be a sharp satire on ecological woes and Western corporations, but the end product is risibly off the wall. Thing is, it could have been an idyllic, funny, exciting and moralizing movie - heck, in small doses, it even is - but it's almost like it went for deliberately retarded instead. Tilda Swinton does an only-for-fanboys role, just like in Snowpiercer and Jake Gyllenhaal puts on the most absurd, imbecilic comedic hat, a role that I think even Rob Schneider would have had the dignity to pass. Also notable that this is the movie that stirred controversy at Cannes over the eligibility of Netflix screenings, but I couldn't care less now considering that its content doesn't hold up to its merits.
Lovesong (link) - as the title suggests, a simple kind of indie vignette in which a young mother (Riley Keough), whose own marriage becomes strained, almost becomes involved in a relationship with her best friend (Jena Malone). Years later, as her friend is getting married, their reuniting also becomes an occasion to reconcile with what could have been or even what might still be between them. Soft-spoken, emotionally charged framing and performances, but ech, nothing particularly special.
Sieranevada (link) - meanwhile on the Romanian front, nothing new, as New Wave eminence Cristi Puiu goes as deep and implacable as always with his hyper-realistic ways, trying to capture for nearly three hours the "nothing-happens-ness" of a family gathering in an apartment to commemorate the recent passing of the protagonist's father. Of course, aside from the technical goals for minimalistic, long-take shotmaking and seamless, incredible montage within a small, crammed space for filming (all achieved with excellence), Puiu's ambition must certainly be to create a fresco of family and human interactions. To us, it hits very much home to see these scenes of randomness, small talk and animosities at a family gathering - for the rest of the world, though, idk; I suppose it could appeal to American fans of Osage County? Anyway, I've dreaded a bit to actually watch this movie - it created, as expected, an even bigger rift between critics who lick it with praise for its utter big-lettered Cinema and those who are fed up with New Wave's incorrigible style and thus mocked it as "three hours of waiting for the pastor to arrive, so the family can have the memorial service and then finally sit down to eat borscht". At Cannes, the reviews were positive, but the jury ultimately went with some laurels towards Mungiu's Graduation, although I think this one is somewhat better. Its screening time did not prove such an issue, the three hours flew by and at times I was genuinely amused or enchanted by this bitter comedy of manners.
Sobache serdtse (Heart of a Dog) (link) - a TV two-part adaptation of one of Bulgakov's novels. As a moderate fan of Bulgakov's anti-bolshevic satirical works (Master and Margaret, Fatal Eggs), I found the style both recognizable and a bit too plainly transposed on screen - though some credit to the acting, to the old movie sense of sepia-tinged visuals and especially to finding a dog who can act depressed.
Split (link) - well then, dare we hope for an "M. Night Shayamalanaissace", as this is his first decent movie in fucking forever? The movie's premise remains wacky and precarious to handle, having "batshit" and "exploitative" written all over it, as James McAvoy plays a man with 23 split personalities who abducts three female teenagers as an offering for an emerging dark, ominous 24th personality. And yet the movie is solid enough, McAvoy carries the movie's difficulty and prevents it from plunging into derision (he doesn't perform all 23 splits, don't worry) and I have to credit Anya Taylor-Joy as well, who follows up her role in The VVitch with the same mix of pure and troubled horror damsel aura. Not bereft of some clunk in its treatment of mental dysfunction or in some flashbacks serving as blunt exposition and has a "tweeeest" that links the movie with a previous Shyamalan (good) oeuvre, but still, well beyond decent - which is saying something, in this case.
T2 Trainspotting (link) - also on the "colour me impressed, this didn't suck" list, Danny Boyle's sequel to his cult, magnificent (at least IMO) 90s movie. Not that the world desperately needed a Trainspotting 2 - then again, there was pre-existing material for this, as Irvine Welsh has a taste for sequels himself (what I'm saying is that this movie adapts his book Porno in some degree). Boyle applies his usual modern-day style, much like you might have seen on Slumdog Millionaire or Trance, especially with the fast-paced dialogue and zappy montage. Not an essential, relevant movie by any movies, but still a nice view on the characters returning 20 years later to muse on their aging life, following their fucked-up teenage days. Some of the slur-heavy, Scot-argotic humor holds up about as hysterically well as on the original, too.
Dunkirk (link) - so bona fide Nolan-esque, it was both going to be hard to disappoint and yet there's room for letting you down a bit. Mainly it's the thing that I'm not sure Nolan can evolve past his incessant, ever-recurring tropes anymore (whether it's his fascination with time, his desire to create smart-mode blockbusters, his orchestral vision and large-scale meticulousness etc.). Somehow the Dunkirk subject was meant to fit like a glove on his approach (plus a chance for him to finally go back to making a bloody British movie), the only unique opportunity being for him to ease up on any Sci-Fi mindfuckery and hamfisted themes such as "love is the driving force of everything" - which he complies with, to the point of sacrificing any deep characterization (the Private-Ryan-esque aim to empathise with your heroes' struggles and goals) for a technically masterful and aptly grandiose depiction of war. So as a symphony of filmic structure, sprinkled with attention to historical fidelity, Dunkirk is a safe accomplishment. Like Jay argued, I'm not sure myself if we needed or not another war movie - I'll add I never went in with the expectation of Nolan delivering the never-seen before, ultimate war movie experience. I'm even less concerned with how Dunkirk stacks up, considering I'm usually sold by Nolan's cinematic wizardry when watching it on the big theatre screen, but then feel gradually worse once time passes and I process it more - same thing happened with Interstellar and nowadays I can no longer rewatch that one with a straight face, tbh. And Dunkirk itself did not end without any penalty either. I for one was slightly irked by the explicit mention of the three timelines' duration - it's not like Nolan cared about that when fucking with our brains in Inception and Interstellar - though I get it that it's grounded in reality (the army was stranded for a week, the civilian boats took a day to carry rescue trips and RAF Spitfires could only carry hour-long missions). Plus, by the time all the themes in this "symphony" converge in the third act, one might well be struck, depending on their acquired knowledge of previous works, by either the familiarity or annoyance of Nolan's frame-swapping non-linearity. Still, this movie is Nolanesque through and through. But it is so both in good and ech ways.
The Bad Batch (link) - alas, I must conclude this briefing, as I conclude my month in movies, with quite a stinker. This is the second movie by Ana Lily Amirpour, who wowed indy audiences with her vampire glossy-shick debut A Girl Walks Home Alone at Night (that failed to impress me, however) and now seemingly wanted to flex her "I'd be able to direct a Mad Max sequel" muscles with a dystopian, Texan wasteland gritty story filled with canibals, damaged people and dog-eat-dog surviving skills. At first, the movie wastes little time with exposition or social commntary, lauching us straight into the feral setting and for a good 20 minutes it seems to go unflinchingly brutal and dark. But then it gets bogged down by stuff like introducing a carnaval-like cornucopia community, in which everyone is damaged good and Keanu Reeves plays a spiritual patriarch bullshitter, plus Jim freaking Carrey is a silent wacky roamer - the plot gets erratic and undecided between badland dystopia, Kill Bill-esque revenge story and Stockholm syndrome tinged weird-ass romance; the pacing becomes atrocious; all the performances are unconvincing or forcedly bonkers. It's sad and strange, but this was by far the hardest watch I had to sit through all month.
- Mon Jul 17, 2017 6:54 pm
- Forum: Tinsel Town
- Topic: Rate the last movie you've seen
- Replies: 274
- Views: 31928
Re: Rate the last movie you've seen
Not much to report this week, apart from
A/A- / B+ / B / B- / C / D / F / No rating
Agonie (Agony) (link) - a German-language debut by Paraguayan director David Clay Diaz, in which its main idea of a shocking climax is taken away (or it's rather intended as a deconstruction of the typical thriller / murder drama) by being spoiled in synopses (as seen on IMDb) and even at the beginning of the movie. What remains are two stories, mixed but not intersected, of young adults experiencing interior turmoil in different environments; sketched are the profiles of, on one hand, the reclusive intellectual student type, shot in minimalistic brushstrokes and implacably sparse dialogue and characterisation, and on the other hand, the broken home street punk type, whose scenes seem moreover appropriate to burst out of a Xavier Dolan movie or British slum tales. Neat experimentation overall with this dual montage, interesting and serious approach on the subject youthful frailness, plus the foreshadowed shocking even filmed as unflinching and visceral as possible - and yet, not too much to keep this movie in mind for long, either.
Lady Macbeth (link) - not an actual spin-off on the famous Shakespearean anti-heroine - technically an adaptation of Nikolay Leskov's Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District (every art buff would, at this point, point out Shostakovich to have written an opera based on it, plus this not even being the first movie adaptation, considering Andrzej Wajda's 1961 work) - still, set in a vague Victorian rural setting, in which a young woman (Florence Pugh) is forced (sold, even) into marriage, finding herself stranded and treated as a commodity inside the most patriarchal stuck-up ménage possible. This is initially the setting for a rather tame period piece, filled with Flaubertian ennui, but soon her desire for gaining status and for adulterous carnal sweet releases turns up the "macbethian" knob. There is considerable depth and finesse into highlighting the protagonist in both sympathetic and questionable light - empowered and blinded by her cunningness at the same time - or showing class differences even among the subservient (particular props to Naomi Ackie, as the coloured servant) and the performances are downright impetous (not the first time I watch Florence Pugh in a movie and she is a wild young force, for sure).
A/A- / B+ / B / B- / C / D / F / No rating
Agonie (Agony) (link) - a German-language debut by Paraguayan director David Clay Diaz, in which its main idea of a shocking climax is taken away (or it's rather intended as a deconstruction of the typical thriller / murder drama) by being spoiled in synopses (as seen on IMDb) and even at the beginning of the movie. What remains are two stories, mixed but not intersected, of young adults experiencing interior turmoil in different environments; sketched are the profiles of, on one hand, the reclusive intellectual student type, shot in minimalistic brushstrokes and implacably sparse dialogue and characterisation, and on the other hand, the broken home street punk type, whose scenes seem moreover appropriate to burst out of a Xavier Dolan movie or British slum tales. Neat experimentation overall with this dual montage, interesting and serious approach on the subject youthful frailness, plus the foreshadowed shocking even filmed as unflinching and visceral as possible - and yet, not too much to keep this movie in mind for long, either.
Lady Macbeth (link) - not an actual spin-off on the famous Shakespearean anti-heroine - technically an adaptation of Nikolay Leskov's Lady Macbeth of the Mtsensk District (every art buff would, at this point, point out Shostakovich to have written an opera based on it, plus this not even being the first movie adaptation, considering Andrzej Wajda's 1961 work) - still, set in a vague Victorian rural setting, in which a young woman (Florence Pugh) is forced (sold, even) into marriage, finding herself stranded and treated as a commodity inside the most patriarchal stuck-up ménage possible. This is initially the setting for a rather tame period piece, filled with Flaubertian ennui, but soon her desire for gaining status and for adulterous carnal sweet releases turns up the "macbethian" knob. There is considerable depth and finesse into highlighting the protagonist in both sympathetic and questionable light - empowered and blinded by her cunningness at the same time - or showing class differences even among the subservient (particular props to Naomi Ackie, as the coloured servant) and the performances are downright impetous (not the first time I watch Florence Pugh in a movie and she is a wild young force, for sure).
- Mon Jul 10, 2017 11:31 am
- Forum: Tinsel Town
- Topic: Rate the last movie you've seen
- Replies: 274
- Views: 31928
Re: Rate the last movie you've seen
I'm back into watching movies. Remember movies??
A/A- / B+ / B / B- / C / D / F / No rating
A Cure for Wellness (link) - a sprawling experience with this babyfrankenstein of a movie by Gore Verbinski (hard to recommend on his own, since he spent the last decade making Pirates of the Caribbeans movies and... The Lone Ranger). I guess the trailer signaled some interesting, eery aesthetics, but then the reviews were all a turn off, so I delayed watching it until now. There is an air of homage/pastiche towards old gothic fantasy horrors or even Verhoevean body horror - including an appropriately unsettling lead cast of sickly-/creepy-looking Dane DeHaan and Mia Goth - and it does have a good dose of unadulterated batshit ideas, still it's not a great movie. It's incredibly long, overbloated and honky in its plot events and, after a while, I even had on just half of the screen, with a sense of dullness. Also surprised this isn't adapted from some kind of bestseller or fantasy franchise, because it felt like it could be Twilight for goths and the background music was as cheesily fitting as coming out of a Harry Potter movie.
Before the Rain (link) - was supposed to watch this during my trip in Macedonia, but oh well. Probably the most popular Macedonian movie - though more of a British-French-Macedonian co-production - having one the Golden Lion and nominated at the Oscars, crafting an intertwined tryptich of stories about human violence, ethnic tensions in that country and other drama, with a particular storyline gimmick about people can influence each other under certain circumstances. But its serious themes are about the best thing I feel I could point out about it, the approach otherwise was seriously melodramatic.
Get Out (link) - well then, this was a fairly dank surprise, that I enjoyed more than I expected. I don't watch Key & Peele, so I'm judging the movie on its own and for the most part, it was nice and refreshing to see a smart, balanced, cheeky type of horror comedy. Steady build up, quality tension at times, a few good (but not gratuitous) spooks. Also obviously also a lot of tropes, stereotypes and racial comment either used or turned on their head. A few details and plot nodes were still tad predictable, but it didn't detract much from the viewing.
Les fils de Joseph (The Son of Joseph) (link) - what might likely be my favorite movie of the week is the one I feel less decided what to say about or even how good of a grade to color it in. Alas, this is how it usually goes with Eugene Green's movies, whose earlier work The Portuguese Nun I've listed here as among my unranked favorites of the 2000s. His aesthetic style is unwavering with each new movie - arthouse yet still mostly accessible to the viewer's understanding; dialogue-heavy "a la Eric Rohmer" but also aseptic, in a way that the actors are forced to carry these dialogues facing the camera in close-ups, with hardly any kind of organic exchange between each other; heavy very literate and subtle themes (whether it's religion, art, history), yet boiling down to small story theatrics; quirky, dry, light humor etc. As the title suggests, there is some biblical allegory (although it's curiously centered more on Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac), while the narrative is about a boy wanting to find out the identity of his father and instead ending up, unknowingly, to bond with his uncle. I'd still say there's no real way to sell or recommend Green's movies, unless you come to appreciate them on their own, but as a mere "connoiseur", I'd rank this below The Portuguese Nun, but above the movie before this one, La Sapienza.
Life (link) - finally, a really indulgent and dumb-thrills space horror, ripping off just about whatever it needs from the likes of Alien or Gravity. While its core theme may be promising enough - that our optimism in searching for or making contact with extraterestrial life should be more reserved - its execution boils down to a plain monster movie with a small cast stranded in space getting dunked on. Everything in terms of plot, spooks, tension, twists and such should count as predictable to any afficionado.
A/A- / B+ / B / B- / C / D / F / No rating
A Cure for Wellness (link) - a sprawling experience with this babyfrankenstein of a movie by Gore Verbinski (hard to recommend on his own, since he spent the last decade making Pirates of the Caribbeans movies and... The Lone Ranger). I guess the trailer signaled some interesting, eery aesthetics, but then the reviews were all a turn off, so I delayed watching it until now. There is an air of homage/pastiche towards old gothic fantasy horrors or even Verhoevean body horror - including an appropriately unsettling lead cast of sickly-/creepy-looking Dane DeHaan and Mia Goth - and it does have a good dose of unadulterated batshit ideas, still it's not a great movie. It's incredibly long, overbloated and honky in its plot events and, after a while, I even had on just half of the screen, with a sense of dullness. Also surprised this isn't adapted from some kind of bestseller or fantasy franchise, because it felt like it could be Twilight for goths and the background music was as cheesily fitting as coming out of a Harry Potter movie.
Before the Rain (link) - was supposed to watch this during my trip in Macedonia, but oh well. Probably the most popular Macedonian movie - though more of a British-French-Macedonian co-production - having one the Golden Lion and nominated at the Oscars, crafting an intertwined tryptich of stories about human violence, ethnic tensions in that country and other drama, with a particular storyline gimmick about people can influence each other under certain circumstances. But its serious themes are about the best thing I feel I could point out about it, the approach otherwise was seriously melodramatic.
Get Out (link) - well then, this was a fairly dank surprise, that I enjoyed more than I expected. I don't watch Key & Peele, so I'm judging the movie on its own and for the most part, it was nice and refreshing to see a smart, balanced, cheeky type of horror comedy. Steady build up, quality tension at times, a few good (but not gratuitous) spooks. Also obviously also a lot of tropes, stereotypes and racial comment either used or turned on their head. A few details and plot nodes were still tad predictable, but it didn't detract much from the viewing.
Les fils de Joseph (The Son of Joseph) (link) - what might likely be my favorite movie of the week is the one I feel less decided what to say about or even how good of a grade to color it in. Alas, this is how it usually goes with Eugene Green's movies, whose earlier work The Portuguese Nun I've listed here as among my unranked favorites of the 2000s. His aesthetic style is unwavering with each new movie - arthouse yet still mostly accessible to the viewer's understanding; dialogue-heavy "a la Eric Rohmer" but also aseptic, in a way that the actors are forced to carry these dialogues facing the camera in close-ups, with hardly any kind of organic exchange between each other; heavy very literate and subtle themes (whether it's religion, art, history), yet boiling down to small story theatrics; quirky, dry, light humor etc. As the title suggests, there is some biblical allegory (although it's curiously centered more on Abraham's sacrifice of Isaac), while the narrative is about a boy wanting to find out the identity of his father and instead ending up, unknowingly, to bond with his uncle. I'd still say there's no real way to sell or recommend Green's movies, unless you come to appreciate them on their own, but as a mere "connoiseur", I'd rank this below The Portuguese Nun, but above the movie before this one, La Sapienza.
Life (link) - finally, a really indulgent and dumb-thrills space horror, ripping off just about whatever it needs from the likes of Alien or Gravity. While its core theme may be promising enough - that our optimism in searching for or making contact with extraterestrial life should be more reserved - its execution boils down to a plain monster movie with a small cast stranded in space getting dunked on. Everything in terms of plot, spooks, tension, twists and such should count as predictable to any afficionado.
- Sun Apr 16, 2017 6:22 am
- Forum: Tinsel Town
- Topic: Rate the last movie you've seen
- Replies: 274
- Views: 31928
Re: Rate the last movie you've seen
A/A- / B+ / B / B- / C / D / F / No rating
Das Leben der Anderen (The Lives of Others) (link), the well known and acclaimed, Oscar Foreign winning drama about the former Stasi's methods of infiltrating and surveilling the life of artists and people in East Berlin - focusing in the movie, on one hand, on such an artist, a playwright, and his life partner, an actress, believed but unproven to harbour dissident feelings (or, better yet, which higher officials of the regime just want to try to find some dirt on) and, on the other hand, on the secret agents on the side of ... the wall. While political in nature and very serious in tone, its plot is also fairly romanticised, as the protagonist, the Stasi agent in charge of the surveilling, begins to experience a turnaround. This is considered a distinct cult movie among those with the subject rooted in life under the Soviet regime in East Berlin, following more lighthearted takes such as Good Bye, Lenin! - although other dramas such as The Tunnel shouldn't perhaps be ignored either. This is a movie you will either have seen already or will need to pick it up eventually, the way I finally did; there's no other way around it, I'd say. It has some style and manner to reach out to your heartstrings and empathy buttons - in which regard it did catch me by surprise (but I'm also prone to be distressed by any story of oppression and human injustice). It's been said the portrayal of secret service machinations and the burdening social atmosphere of those times is incredibly faithful - something probably coming from the personal experience of the director and even of some of the actors - but there was also noted criticism about casting in a better light the work and character of a Stasi agent, to which my thoughts will be put into spoilers - read further only if familiar with the movie:
Fantastic Beasts and Where to Find Them (link) - it's pretty bad when you decide to watch a movie like this in a completely ironic way and non-committal mood and still it manages to irk you. This is basically J.K. Rowling's next idea and milking more millions out of the Harry Potter franchise (she contributed directly with the script here) and, in a way, its saving grace is that we get stuff set in the past, rather than any "Harry Potter forward in time, as an adult" nonsense. Eddie Reymayne continues to sport his extreme mumblecore, gestic-jerky act and Katherine Waterson either doesn't have too good of comedic chops or mishandles a fair bit a quirky, mousy role. The plot wants to be both lighthearted and insert elements of ominous, srs bzns danger and the imbalance of it is just something to facepalm yourself over. Let me know what was to truly like about this fan servicing, over-indulgent spin-off, because I sure couldn't detect.
Heart of a Dog (link) a documentary / art project made by musician Laurie Anderson, who is one of my favourite artists ever. As with mostly everything Anderson has done, it seems small in scope and oddball and... kooky in the way it's designed. Most of the times, it pans out the same way one of her albums would: filled with short, anecdotal, intertwined stories and musings. But the reward, also as always, is getting a sense of this artist's pure, emotional, philosophical perspective on both humane and spiritual aspects of life. The "documentary" side of this relates to the time spent with her terrier Lollabelle until she passed away, but if you know, for instance, that Anderson was married with Lou Reed, it's not hard to figure out that the movie ends up as a device for reflecting on dealing with loss, mortality, life reminiscences and treasured memories and such.
Sátántangó (link). My second time watching this 7-hour movie. What a beast. First time it was also on Holy Saturday, three years ago - which was in no way intended to relate to the Easter festivities, I just found myself being alone for the holiday and having the right amount of free time to attempt to watch it - and now it seems I'm keen to build it into a ritual.
Anyway, I have no real strength and impetus right now to sell you on why I believe this to be a masterpiece. It has, after all, some pretty outrageous elements that cannot be easily advocated towards a larger audience: it's seven hours long, it's a highlight of extremely slow cinema, with an intense mixture of long takes and minimalist action (or at times non-action) and it's supremely dark, depressing and desolate. But it is my personal belief that, if there is room in art for "the dark side", Bela Tarr is confidently ahead in line for me as the master of the pitch black. I've yet to expand past having seen this and The Turin Horse, but so far, I'll gladly watch him paint the apocalypse. In a way, he already has. There are scenes or entire chapters from this that will stick with me forever. If you could make room at least once during your lifetime for this kind of an experience, love it or hate it, I would say do it.
Das Leben der Anderen (The Lives of Others) (link), the well known and acclaimed, Oscar Foreign winning drama about the former Stasi's methods of infiltrating and surveilling the life of artists and people in East Berlin - focusing in the movie, on one hand, on such an artist, a playwright, and his life partner, an actress, believed but unproven to harbour dissident feelings (or, better yet, which higher officials of the regime just want to try to find some dirt on) and, on the other hand, on the secret agents on the side of ... the wall. While political in nature and very serious in tone, its plot is also fairly romanticised, as the protagonist, the Stasi agent in charge of the surveilling, begins to experience a turnaround. This is considered a distinct cult movie among those with the subject rooted in life under the Soviet regime in East Berlin, following more lighthearted takes such as Good Bye, Lenin! - although other dramas such as The Tunnel shouldn't perhaps be ignored either. This is a movie you will either have seen already or will need to pick it up eventually, the way I finally did; there's no other way around it, I'd say. It has some style and manner to reach out to your heartstrings and empathy buttons - in which regard it did catch me by surprise (but I'm also prone to be distressed by any story of oppression and human injustice). It's been said the portrayal of secret service machinations and the burdening social atmosphere of those times is incredibly faithful - something probably coming from the personal experience of the director and even of some of the actors - but there was also noted criticism about casting in a better light the work and character of a Stasi agent, to which my thoughts will be put into spoilers - read further only if familiar with the movie:
Spoiler: show
Heart of a Dog (link) a documentary / art project made by musician Laurie Anderson, who is one of my favourite artists ever. As with mostly everything Anderson has done, it seems small in scope and oddball and... kooky in the way it's designed. Most of the times, it pans out the same way one of her albums would: filled with short, anecdotal, intertwined stories and musings. But the reward, also as always, is getting a sense of this artist's pure, emotional, philosophical perspective on both humane and spiritual aspects of life. The "documentary" side of this relates to the time spent with her terrier Lollabelle until she passed away, but if you know, for instance, that Anderson was married with Lou Reed, it's not hard to figure out that the movie ends up as a device for reflecting on dealing with loss, mortality, life reminiscences and treasured memories and such.
Sátántangó (link). My second time watching this 7-hour movie. What a beast. First time it was also on Holy Saturday, three years ago - which was in no way intended to relate to the Easter festivities, I just found myself being alone for the holiday and having the right amount of free time to attempt to watch it - and now it seems I'm keen to build it into a ritual.
Anyway, I have no real strength and impetus right now to sell you on why I believe this to be a masterpiece. It has, after all, some pretty outrageous elements that cannot be easily advocated towards a larger audience: it's seven hours long, it's a highlight of extremely slow cinema, with an intense mixture of long takes and minimalist action (or at times non-action) and it's supremely dark, depressing and desolate. But it is my personal belief that, if there is room in art for "the dark side", Bela Tarr is confidently ahead in line for me as the master of the pitch black. I've yet to expand past having seen this and The Turin Horse, but so far, I'll gladly watch him paint the apocalypse. In a way, he already has. There are scenes or entire chapters from this that will stick with me forever. If you could make room at least once during your lifetime for this kind of an experience, love it or hate it, I would say do it.
- Tue Apr 11, 2017 5:44 pm
- Forum: Tinsel Town
- Topic: Rate the last movie you've seen
- Replies: 274
- Views: 31928
Re: Rate the last movie you've seen
A/A- / B+ / B / B- / C / D / F / No rating
Last week, I managed to watch just one movie, which constituted my focus in more ways than that, namely Georg Wilhelm Pabst's silent movie from 1929 Die Büchse der Pandora (Pandora's Box) (link), which was also played at my Philharmonic with live music, a project in which I was involved in the orchestra. This is based on Frank Wedekind's two "Lulu" plays, about an amoral and libertine temptress who spins the mind of every man around her, until it leads to dire consequences - a movie that happens to predate another adaptation, which was Alban Berg's opera Lulu, a work I have yet to fully grasp, yet find myself rewatching/relistening often with twisted pleasure. This movie is perhaps also notable for rising lead actress Louise Brooks to fame. While the source material seems like the perfect match for a fin-de-siecle, expressionistic style, I think the movie strays from the sharp, gritty format of earlier German cinema, instead embracing elements of flowing, dynamic, intense melodrama, while still having a gothic vibe to it. The most tense and dramatic scenes are perhaps the greatest, in ways I'd only spoil them by talking in detail about their visuals and flow. I'd say this movie has elements of a classic. I'd also like to mention that I grew fond of the new score that was performed in concert, composed by Dominik Schuster, so much that at home I matched the "bootleg" from the live performance with the movie; it is a clean and compelling soundtrack, with qualities of a coherent symphonical work in itself, not just fragments tailored for the scenes it accompanies.
Last week, I managed to watch just one movie, which constituted my focus in more ways than that, namely Georg Wilhelm Pabst's silent movie from 1929 Die Büchse der Pandora (Pandora's Box) (link), which was also played at my Philharmonic with live music, a project in which I was involved in the orchestra. This is based on Frank Wedekind's two "Lulu" plays, about an amoral and libertine temptress who spins the mind of every man around her, until it leads to dire consequences - a movie that happens to predate another adaptation, which was Alban Berg's opera Lulu, a work I have yet to fully grasp, yet find myself rewatching/relistening often with twisted pleasure. This movie is perhaps also notable for rising lead actress Louise Brooks to fame. While the source material seems like the perfect match for a fin-de-siecle, expressionistic style, I think the movie strays from the sharp, gritty format of earlier German cinema, instead embracing elements of flowing, dynamic, intense melodrama, while still having a gothic vibe to it. The most tense and dramatic scenes are perhaps the greatest, in ways I'd only spoil them by talking in detail about their visuals and flow. I'd say this movie has elements of a classic. I'd also like to mention that I grew fond of the new score that was performed in concert, composed by Dominik Schuster, so much that at home I matched the "bootleg" from the live performance with the movie; it is a clean and compelling soundtrack, with qualities of a coherent symphonical work in itself, not just fragments tailored for the scenes it accompanies.
- Mon Apr 03, 2017 3:38 am
- Forum: Tinsel Town
- Topic: Rate the last movie you've seen
- Replies: 274
- Views: 31928
Re: Rate the last movie you've seen
Needless to say, I did not have time for a full week of movie-watching and I also happen to have run out of fresh stuff to watch. If any of you reading this would like to recommend me some titles, new or old, feel free to do so.
A/A- / B+ / B / B- / C / D / F / No rating
I did see, though, White Girl (link), a pretty grim, trashy and loose look into how a teenager hooks up with a drug dealer, only to then, in a weird sympathetic way, to go to serious lenghts (which, considering the world of cocaine, promiscuous partying and sex she's spiraled into, gets quite "serious" indeed) to bail him out. Morgan Saylor, who a few years ago played Dana (Brody's daughter) in Homeland, if anyone (still) remembers that (period of the) show, goes kinda all in with her investment in her performance, which is commendable. The movie is not really moderate on its sleazy, unsettling, depraved and at times near-explicit content and could remind movie-watchers of stuff like Heaven Knows What or any of Harmony Korine's edgy movies. One thing left to debate is whether, since this is created partly out of the director's own experiences, it entitles this loose, licentious depiction to be seen in a better light. I think it was a fine, daring movie.
Also watched The Fits (link), a neat, short indie experiment which nevertheless let me a bit in a "huh" mood. Story takes place almost entirely at a gym / sports club sort of thing, with the protagonist as a young tomboyish girl, who would rather work out and box with her brother and the rest of the boys than join the girl's dance troupe. There's a strong sense of genre-divided and genre-specific, with the only interactions between the sides being, of course, flirtatious - with the exception of this girl being drawn in to both worlds. Then strange stuff start happening and affecting the group, which is an obvious source of mystery and genre-escaping magic, reminding me heavily of another Brit psychostrange drama, The Falling (probably reviewed it, too, somewhere in this thread). Didn't like that one much, wasn't enamoured with this one either. One thing to note, though, is the soundtrack provided by the same duo who created the one for Villeneuve's Enemy, Danny Bensi & Saunder Jurriaans - it's very experimental and eerie for regular tastes in film scores, but ups the sensations and vibes throughout the movie very well.
A/A- / B+ / B / B- / C / D / F / No rating
I did see, though, White Girl (link), a pretty grim, trashy and loose look into how a teenager hooks up with a drug dealer, only to then, in a weird sympathetic way, to go to serious lenghts (which, considering the world of cocaine, promiscuous partying and sex she's spiraled into, gets quite "serious" indeed) to bail him out. Morgan Saylor, who a few years ago played Dana (Brody's daughter) in Homeland, if anyone (still) remembers that (period of the) show, goes kinda all in with her investment in her performance, which is commendable. The movie is not really moderate on its sleazy, unsettling, depraved and at times near-explicit content and could remind movie-watchers of stuff like Heaven Knows What or any of Harmony Korine's edgy movies. One thing left to debate is whether, since this is created partly out of the director's own experiences, it entitles this loose, licentious depiction to be seen in a better light. I think it was a fine, daring movie.
Also watched The Fits (link), a neat, short indie experiment which nevertheless let me a bit in a "huh" mood. Story takes place almost entirely at a gym / sports club sort of thing, with the protagonist as a young tomboyish girl, who would rather work out and box with her brother and the rest of the boys than join the girl's dance troupe. There's a strong sense of genre-divided and genre-specific, with the only interactions between the sides being, of course, flirtatious - with the exception of this girl being drawn in to both worlds. Then strange stuff start happening and affecting the group, which is an obvious source of mystery and genre-escaping magic, reminding me heavily of another Brit psychostrange drama, The Falling (probably reviewed it, too, somewhere in this thread). Didn't like that one much, wasn't enamoured with this one either. One thing to note, though, is the soundtrack provided by the same duo who created the one for Villeneuve's Enemy, Danny Bensi & Saunder Jurriaans - it's very experimental and eerie for regular tastes in film scores, but ups the sensations and vibes throughout the movie very well.
- Sat Mar 25, 2017 12:50 pm
- Forum: Tinsel Town
- Topic: Rate the last movie you've seen
- Replies: 274
- Views: 31928
Re: Rate the last movie you've seen
A/A- / B+ / B / B- / C / D / F / No rating
So it seems I needed to trudge through about 50 movies, during two-three months worth of mostly 2016 movies to finally get to see some more interesting works. Too bad I watched most of the following with modest to very low attention span. But before I point them, there was...
Passengers (link) - I mean jesus, I had this intentionally running in the background and it still managed to draw grimaces from me. This is basically an either misguided, misconceived or just half-assed attempt of a love drama in space blockbuster, with two of perhaps the best known faces in Hollywood right now, Starlord (WHOOO) and JLaw. Don't know why Chris Pratt is pushed towards drama right now, because he surely couldn't sustain a near-solo performance during the first 30 minutes of this movie. And JLaw, I don't even know... it's not that I think she isn't a good actress, per se, but I've sort of lost belief in her craft for a long time now - and this movie again seems the perfect cheap, artificial, rigid medium in which she can limit herself. The chemistry between these two is pretty off, given the Titanic in Space allure it wants to give; the writing is bad; nothing truly interesting or exciting happens in the movie. The only tidbit that sparked interest about this movie was SPOILERS from now on if you haven't seen it, but you shouldn't see it so sorry not sorry about the moral choice Pratt makes that impacts JLaw's character (waking her up from her cryogenic sleep only so that he could have a companion, while sentencing her to the same lonely slow life he would be forced to experience) and how bizarrely, despite it all, the romance between these two is still pushed on. But seriously, I've written too much already about this one to launch into further debate... A movie you know will prove bad that still manages to tick you off is pretty much in a category of bad on its own.
Tanna (link), a movie shot on the eponymous island in Vanuatu with actual locals from the Yakel tribe, reenacting a true story about marriage customs and "heart vs tradition" conflicts. It's basically a sort of Romeo and Juliet, if rather Juliet and Romeo were in the same house, but the house would want to marry Juliet off to the other house. This was an Oscar Foreign nominee and, since I've now seen 4/5, I'd say it could rank second in preferences (I'm just not ready to drop my undying admiration for Farhadi's style of dramas). Then again, if you're fan of "indigenous kino", like say the recent Embrace of the Serpent or a bit older movie called Ten Canoes or documentary-drama duel flair of some Herzogian docuworks, you should very much enjoy this. I thought it struck a decent balance between authentic and heartfelt.
The Childhood of a Leader (link), an adaptation of Sartre's short story (part of his The Wall) and a debut directorial effort from Brady Corber, who might have been better known till now for his acting (Mysterious Skin, Funny Games, Simon Killer); one might say he proceeded with this to "steal" a bit of craft from directors he worked with such as Michael Haneke or Antonio Campos (previous week's Christine), since this seems a foremost stylish exercise, crafting a slow-paced, dark & brooding puritanical story about a child who will grow up, following a troubled childhood, to become an unnamed fascist leader (the parallels with history here are left unclear and irrelevant, the last portion of the movie wanting moreover to recreate a page out of 1984 more than anything else). But I called it a stylistic exercise - complete with a soundtrack from ya favorite DJ in da house SCOTT WALKER hello again - to highlight its diligent visual and artistic qualities, even if I have to admit the narrative might turn you away from calling it captivating.
Truman (link) or about the most straightforward heartfelt movie, about a terminally ill middle-aged man visited by his lifelong friend, just about when he contemplates "pulling the plug". Sounds somber and there is a typically Spanish looseness in, for instance, how said protagonist reflects on his plans or how humorous with bittersweet moments are combined during this bromantic reunion. And the movie seems both Almodovar super-light and typical mainstream dramedy, in a good way. Went on to sweep the Goyas, of course, two years ago.
And lastly, Under the Sun (link) which, whoa boy, I can barely wrap my head around how it was achieved. Technically, this was meant to be a propaganda movie, ordered by North Korean government, allowing a small Russian crew to film on location, except the Russian crew cheekily kept rolling past the intensely scripted and staged desired sequences, recorded it on a separate memory card and smuggled it out of the country. The result is pretty much the harsh reality we already knew about that country: everything is staged; every single part of their life is solid active brainwash. Both the most enlightening and harrowing parts of the movie are catching on the tape how the North Korean officials would insist on reshooting certain sequences, till everything looked spot on: down to the words people were saying, their degree of "comradery" and reverence towards the Great Leader(s) and so on. You'd definitely have to see it with your own eyes, but this is textbook cult of personality and propaganda coating, except on an infinitely cruder, heartless, life- and freedom-sapping level. Sure, this was probably bound to awaken my empathy levels, but I also thought it was a surprising, masterful execution overall.
So it seems I needed to trudge through about 50 movies, during two-three months worth of mostly 2016 movies to finally get to see some more interesting works. Too bad I watched most of the following with modest to very low attention span. But before I point them, there was...
Passengers (link) - I mean jesus, I had this intentionally running in the background and it still managed to draw grimaces from me. This is basically an either misguided, misconceived or just half-assed attempt of a love drama in space blockbuster, with two of perhaps the best known faces in Hollywood right now, Starlord (WHOOO) and JLaw. Don't know why Chris Pratt is pushed towards drama right now, because he surely couldn't sustain a near-solo performance during the first 30 minutes of this movie. And JLaw, I don't even know... it's not that I think she isn't a good actress, per se, but I've sort of lost belief in her craft for a long time now - and this movie again seems the perfect cheap, artificial, rigid medium in which she can limit herself. The chemistry between these two is pretty off, given the Titanic in Space allure it wants to give; the writing is bad; nothing truly interesting or exciting happens in the movie. The only tidbit that sparked interest about this movie was SPOILERS from now on if you haven't seen it, but you shouldn't see it so sorry not sorry about the moral choice Pratt makes that impacts JLaw's character (waking her up from her cryogenic sleep only so that he could have a companion, while sentencing her to the same lonely slow life he would be forced to experience) and how bizarrely, despite it all, the romance between these two is still pushed on. But seriously, I've written too much already about this one to launch into further debate... A movie you know will prove bad that still manages to tick you off is pretty much in a category of bad on its own.
Tanna (link), a movie shot on the eponymous island in Vanuatu with actual locals from the Yakel tribe, reenacting a true story about marriage customs and "heart vs tradition" conflicts. It's basically a sort of Romeo and Juliet, if rather Juliet and Romeo were in the same house, but the house would want to marry Juliet off to the other house. This was an Oscar Foreign nominee and, since I've now seen 4/5, I'd say it could rank second in preferences (I'm just not ready to drop my undying admiration for Farhadi's style of dramas). Then again, if you're fan of "indigenous kino", like say the recent Embrace of the Serpent or a bit older movie called Ten Canoes or documentary-drama duel flair of some Herzogian docuworks, you should very much enjoy this. I thought it struck a decent balance between authentic and heartfelt.
The Childhood of a Leader (link), an adaptation of Sartre's short story (part of his The Wall) and a debut directorial effort from Brady Corber, who might have been better known till now for his acting (Mysterious Skin, Funny Games, Simon Killer); one might say he proceeded with this to "steal" a bit of craft from directors he worked with such as Michael Haneke or Antonio Campos (previous week's Christine), since this seems a foremost stylish exercise, crafting a slow-paced, dark & brooding puritanical story about a child who will grow up, following a troubled childhood, to become an unnamed fascist leader (the parallels with history here are left unclear and irrelevant, the last portion of the movie wanting moreover to recreate a page out of 1984 more than anything else). But I called it a stylistic exercise - complete with a soundtrack from ya favorite DJ in da house SCOTT WALKER hello again - to highlight its diligent visual and artistic qualities, even if I have to admit the narrative might turn you away from calling it captivating.
Truman (link) or about the most straightforward heartfelt movie, about a terminally ill middle-aged man visited by his lifelong friend, just about when he contemplates "pulling the plug". Sounds somber and there is a typically Spanish looseness in, for instance, how said protagonist reflects on his plans or how humorous with bittersweet moments are combined during this bromantic reunion. And the movie seems both Almodovar super-light and typical mainstream dramedy, in a good way. Went on to sweep the Goyas, of course, two years ago.
And lastly, Under the Sun (link) which, whoa boy, I can barely wrap my head around how it was achieved. Technically, this was meant to be a propaganda movie, ordered by North Korean government, allowing a small Russian crew to film on location, except the Russian crew cheekily kept rolling past the intensely scripted and staged desired sequences, recorded it on a separate memory card and smuggled it out of the country. The result is pretty much the harsh reality we already knew about that country: everything is staged; every single part of their life is solid active brainwash. Both the most enlightening and harrowing parts of the movie are catching on the tape how the North Korean officials would insist on reshooting certain sequences, till everything looked spot on: down to the words people were saying, their degree of "comradery" and reverence towards the Great Leader(s) and so on. You'd definitely have to see it with your own eyes, but this is textbook cult of personality and propaganda coating, except on an infinitely cruder, heartless, life- and freedom-sapping level. Sure, this was probably bound to awaken my empathy levels, but I also thought it was a surprising, masterful execution overall.
- Sat Mar 18, 2017 12:04 pm
- Forum: Tinsel Town
- Topic: Rate the last movie you've seen
- Replies: 274
- Views: 31928
Re: Rate the last movie you've seen
A/A- / B+ / B / B- / C / D / F / No rating
American Pastoral (link). This is one of two Philip Roth adaptations that both appeared last year and it was signaled that, while both have issues in adapting the source material, AP would count as the worse attempt. I wouldn't say it is a dud, but since Ewan McGregor took the helm of directing this after the original director quit, he has come up with fairly mundane results. Even the main acting trio of McGregor - Connelly - (Dakota) Fanning is pulling an honest, if unremarkable job. If you aren't familiar with the story (I haven't read the book myself yet), it concerns how a seemingly picture-perfect family's dissolution, once their rebellious, Electra-complexed-like daughter turns into a violent anti-Nam radical, mirrors the turmoil of 60s-70s America. Thing is, all this is presented lineary in the movie, which drew criticism that it misses the point of the book's less linear approach.
Christine (link), the dramatization of 70s TV reporter Christine Chubbuck, her struggles with depression and conflicts within her station, that led her to commit suicide on live air in July 1974. A secondary theme inadvertedly covered here is also the early stages of sensationalism in news media in their crave for ratings - something that, if it sounds more familiar, inspired, just two years after this incident, the movie Network. Now given that this movie was pretty much DOA during the awards season, you might get the impression it is a more modest creation, apart from the topic and lead performance, yet you might be surprised (as I was) how virtuosic and assured the activity and interactions inside the news station are covered and the acting is pretty bang up across the board (maybe just Timothy Simons irks me a little, since he seems to pull the same style anywhere). Rebecca Hall herself is excellent and not in a showy, big lettered "I'M ACTING SO MUCH" manner - in a way that I think her and Amy Adams (for Arrival, less so for Nocturnal Animals) have proven this year that it's possible, even if getting ZERO recognition in the process. Even the directorial angle doesn't seem to crave just for overdramatic moments, but to truly scoop as much as possible from the story and the interactions. Good stuff, for sure.
Kong: Skull Island (link). Happy to report best friendo was mighty pleased with this and that he also spilled half of his popcorn even before the movie started. As for me, the effects are in such state, that you cannot even be contrarian about them, while the rest is a compilation of poor overused tropes we've been used to all this time: mad scientist in search to find and capture da big beast (literally pick your movie), nature vs da bad human (Avatar), revenge-thirsty army man is the real enemy (Avatar again) or another creature is the real enemy (new Godzilla, with which this movie is now linked), plus some billboard lead faces that get sucked into this and are destined to edge out in the ensuing survival game. Tom Hiddleston brings his blandest mode and Brie Larson, bless her heart... either she trolled her part, due to how underwritten she realized she was, she was high or, worst possibility of them all, gave a dud of a performance. Plus, you'll know it when/if you see it, but John C. Reilly also stepped in to totally break the camel's back - although, at the same time, it also had a weird now-I-surely-can't-take-any-of-this-seriously levity to it. I wasn't disappointed or infuriated by any of this, to be honest. I just ate my nachos, disconnected my brain and went on my way after two hours.
Les Cowboys (link) - about as hardboiled and PC-free as an odd European/French western-like movie can come, about a daughter who runs from her family and converts into a Muslim, prompting her father and brother (the movie eventually splits the narrative into two halves, for each of them) to search for her and come into a culture clash with the Muslim minority. At times, there is no tiptoeing in this movie regarding how much friction there is in said culture clash. Apt performances, gritty occasionally, little room for melodra- oh my god another John C. Reilly cameo are you freaking kidding meeee.
Mediterranea (link), an immigrants movie that, back to back with the movie above, made for a weird combo of sharp, no-BS depictions of minority life and social rift in Europe. This movie is what Palme d'Or '15 winner Dheepan and Golden Bear '16 winner Fuocoammare could have been, if more focused in their drama and documentary sections, respectively, and less obvious in trying to milk some politically-relevant attention and awards concession. I thought this was a typical solid movie that you will just feel interested in or not, less go into polemics regarding its movie qualities.
American Pastoral (link). This is one of two Philip Roth adaptations that both appeared last year and it was signaled that, while both have issues in adapting the source material, AP would count as the worse attempt. I wouldn't say it is a dud, but since Ewan McGregor took the helm of directing this after the original director quit, he has come up with fairly mundane results. Even the main acting trio of McGregor - Connelly - (Dakota) Fanning is pulling an honest, if unremarkable job. If you aren't familiar with the story (I haven't read the book myself yet), it concerns how a seemingly picture-perfect family's dissolution, once their rebellious, Electra-complexed-like daughter turns into a violent anti-Nam radical, mirrors the turmoil of 60s-70s America. Thing is, all this is presented lineary in the movie, which drew criticism that it misses the point of the book's less linear approach.
Christine (link), the dramatization of 70s TV reporter Christine Chubbuck, her struggles with depression and conflicts within her station, that led her to commit suicide on live air in July 1974. A secondary theme inadvertedly covered here is also the early stages of sensationalism in news media in their crave for ratings - something that, if it sounds more familiar, inspired, just two years after this incident, the movie Network. Now given that this movie was pretty much DOA during the awards season, you might get the impression it is a more modest creation, apart from the topic and lead performance, yet you might be surprised (as I was) how virtuosic and assured the activity and interactions inside the news station are covered and the acting is pretty bang up across the board (maybe just Timothy Simons irks me a little, since he seems to pull the same style anywhere). Rebecca Hall herself is excellent and not in a showy, big lettered "I'M ACTING SO MUCH" manner - in a way that I think her and Amy Adams (for Arrival, less so for Nocturnal Animals) have proven this year that it's possible, even if getting ZERO recognition in the process. Even the directorial angle doesn't seem to crave just for overdramatic moments, but to truly scoop as much as possible from the story and the interactions. Good stuff, for sure.
Kong: Skull Island (link). Happy to report best friendo was mighty pleased with this and that he also spilled half of his popcorn even before the movie started. As for me, the effects are in such state, that you cannot even be contrarian about them, while the rest is a compilation of poor overused tropes we've been used to all this time: mad scientist in search to find and capture da big beast (literally pick your movie), nature vs da bad human (Avatar), revenge-thirsty army man is the real enemy (Avatar again) or another creature is the real enemy (new Godzilla, with which this movie is now linked), plus some billboard lead faces that get sucked into this and are destined to edge out in the ensuing survival game. Tom Hiddleston brings his blandest mode and Brie Larson, bless her heart... either she trolled her part, due to how underwritten she realized she was, she was high or, worst possibility of them all, gave a dud of a performance. Plus, you'll know it when/if you see it, but John C. Reilly also stepped in to totally break the camel's back - although, at the same time, it also had a weird now-I-surely-can't-take-any-of-this-seriously levity to it. I wasn't disappointed or infuriated by any of this, to be honest. I just ate my nachos, disconnected my brain and went on my way after two hours.
Les Cowboys (link) - about as hardboiled and PC-free as an odd European/French western-like movie can come, about a daughter who runs from her family and converts into a Muslim, prompting her father and brother (the movie eventually splits the narrative into two halves, for each of them) to search for her and come into a culture clash with the Muslim minority. At times, there is no tiptoeing in this movie regarding how much friction there is in said culture clash. Apt performances, gritty occasionally, little room for melodra- oh my god another John C. Reilly cameo are you freaking kidding meeee.
Mediterranea (link), an immigrants movie that, back to back with the movie above, made for a weird combo of sharp, no-BS depictions of minority life and social rift in Europe. This movie is what Palme d'Or '15 winner Dheepan and Golden Bear '16 winner Fuocoammare could have been, if more focused in their drama and documentary sections, respectively, and less obvious in trying to milk some politically-relevant attention and awards concession. I thought this was a typical solid movie that you will just feel interested in or not, less go into polemics regarding its movie qualities.
- Sat Mar 11, 2017 1:17 pm
- Forum: Tinsel Town
- Topic: Rate the last movie you've seen
- Replies: 274
- Views: 31928
Re: Rate the last movie you've seen
Slowly getting back in the groove, after having taken a week off
A/A- / B+ / B / B- / C / D / F / No rating
20th Century Women (link) found me in a weird mood, half feeling like a chore to watch this, as a sort of post-Oscars leftovers (as indeed this received Globes movie & acting nominations, after which it only got a Screenplay nod and that was that). Part of it looks like "Let's Put Benning Back in the Limelight - The Movie", as she plays an emancipated single woman, that's nevertheless insecure in her upbringing ways of her pubescent son; her slight nostalgia and out-of-touch-ness with new trends - which appear to be synthesized and presented as "punk rock" and "Talking Heads" - are also additional traits, turned into running gags at times. Their living place is more of a boarding house, facilitating the presence of other supporting characters: Billy Crudup as the most light-macho and laidback male figure possible; Greta Gerwig as the most feminist (i.e. she's a feminist) and hipster (i.e. she's an artist) younger female figure possible; and Ella Fanning, as a stray cat teenager that bonds openly with the son in the story, flaring up his affection while friendzoning him hard at the same time. Despite the title, the movie doesn't seem decided in its presentation between an overt exposition of the three female figures' flawed and volatile personalities and a coming-of-age tale for the kid, as he receives a moral and sentimental education from each of the three women in his life. The director, Mike Mills (who also made Beginners 6 years ago, which I remember failing to connect with much) also seems to add a bit of WesAndersonian flavor to some of the narration cuts and editing style, to draw from the Noah Baumbach hipster-flavored dramatization textbook and maybe a bit from Cameron Crowe's Almost Famous, too, in regards to the mother-son bonding. At its worst, the movie has been described by critics as smug and explanatory, instead of naturalistic, in its themes of end-of-70s malaise, feminism and cultural period cues. At its best, I suppose Benning's duality in how she handles (and mishandles) arising tensions is a nice touch. There are some good moments and even some sparks of wicked humor, but I just couldn't feel determined to indulge much in this eccentric and quirky fusion of indie drama.
A Man Called Ove (link) which, by contrast, was a complete chore, given its inclusion in the Best Foreign Language final five, surely as a mere token towards Scandinavian (comedy-drama) flicks. If you've seen in the past and enjoyed movies with grumpy, stingy old grinches whose hearts grow three sizes under a new influence (whether it's a child, a family or a new random person they meet) and whose life stories open up (with flashbacks), you'll find it just as lighthearted and sentimental. Myself, as an eternal grinch, I was playing games on my tablet after the first half hour already. Nothing here surprised or elated me.
A Monster Calls (link), an intriguing and darkly toned fantasy film, developing a reclusive, sad boy's coping with his mother's terminal illness into a manifestation of a giant yew tree monster. Clear elements of folk stories, fables and fantasy mirroring reality are crafted pretty well for the genre and both the visual and acting skills are at full levels - plus, in a way, its resolute brooding tone reminded me a bit of Pan's Labyrinth, which is certainly a nice throwback. On the minus, the intensity of the drama is at times a tad too neurotic and there were moments when the CGI didn't wow me (or somehow the wow factor decreased). It's been also said that it may be slightly too dark if targeted as an actual children's tale, but I'm inclined never to buy into this argument. Fairy tales can be dark and ugly. Goody good, for all I care. So yeah, I enjoyed this on the whole.
After the Storm (Umi yori mo mada fukaku) (link), a relatively slow-paced and low-fi drama about a father who is trying to stay in touch with his son, against her ex-wife's hissy attitude towards him and plans to move on, while his own life is fairly unsatisfying and jumbled. There is simplicity in the narrative and some obvious allegories (the title, for instance, relates to a typhoon set to sweep the city, forcing the former family to have to stick together for a while), but I also thought the lead actor had a lot of gesture and expressive flair. This looked well made for a light drama, even if I don't have anything spectacular to note about it.
A/A- / B+ / B / B- / C / D / F / No rating
20th Century Women (link) found me in a weird mood, half feeling like a chore to watch this, as a sort of post-Oscars leftovers (as indeed this received Globes movie & acting nominations, after which it only got a Screenplay nod and that was that). Part of it looks like "Let's Put Benning Back in the Limelight - The Movie", as she plays an emancipated single woman, that's nevertheless insecure in her upbringing ways of her pubescent son; her slight nostalgia and out-of-touch-ness with new trends - which appear to be synthesized and presented as "punk rock" and "Talking Heads" - are also additional traits, turned into running gags at times. Their living place is more of a boarding house, facilitating the presence of other supporting characters: Billy Crudup as the most light-macho and laidback male figure possible; Greta Gerwig as the most feminist (i.e. she's a feminist) and hipster (i.e. she's an artist) younger female figure possible; and Ella Fanning, as a stray cat teenager that bonds openly with the son in the story, flaring up his affection while friendzoning him hard at the same time. Despite the title, the movie doesn't seem decided in its presentation between an overt exposition of the three female figures' flawed and volatile personalities and a coming-of-age tale for the kid, as he receives a moral and sentimental education from each of the three women in his life. The director, Mike Mills (who also made Beginners 6 years ago, which I remember failing to connect with much) also seems to add a bit of WesAndersonian flavor to some of the narration cuts and editing style, to draw from the Noah Baumbach hipster-flavored dramatization textbook and maybe a bit from Cameron Crowe's Almost Famous, too, in regards to the mother-son bonding. At its worst, the movie has been described by critics as smug and explanatory, instead of naturalistic, in its themes of end-of-70s malaise, feminism and cultural period cues. At its best, I suppose Benning's duality in how she handles (and mishandles) arising tensions is a nice touch. There are some good moments and even some sparks of wicked humor, but I just couldn't feel determined to indulge much in this eccentric and quirky fusion of indie drama.
A Man Called Ove (link) which, by contrast, was a complete chore, given its inclusion in the Best Foreign Language final five, surely as a mere token towards Scandinavian (comedy-drama) flicks. If you've seen in the past and enjoyed movies with grumpy, stingy old grinches whose hearts grow three sizes under a new influence (whether it's a child, a family or a new random person they meet) and whose life stories open up (with flashbacks), you'll find it just as lighthearted and sentimental. Myself, as an eternal grinch, I was playing games on my tablet after the first half hour already. Nothing here surprised or elated me.
A Monster Calls (link), an intriguing and darkly toned fantasy film, developing a reclusive, sad boy's coping with his mother's terminal illness into a manifestation of a giant yew tree monster. Clear elements of folk stories, fables and fantasy mirroring reality are crafted pretty well for the genre and both the visual and acting skills are at full levels - plus, in a way, its resolute brooding tone reminded me a bit of Pan's Labyrinth, which is certainly a nice throwback. On the minus, the intensity of the drama is at times a tad too neurotic and there were moments when the CGI didn't wow me (or somehow the wow factor decreased). It's been also said that it may be slightly too dark if targeted as an actual children's tale, but I'm inclined never to buy into this argument. Fairy tales can be dark and ugly. Goody good, for all I care. So yeah, I enjoyed this on the whole.
After the Storm (Umi yori mo mada fukaku) (link), a relatively slow-paced and low-fi drama about a father who is trying to stay in touch with his son, against her ex-wife's hissy attitude towards him and plans to move on, while his own life is fairly unsatisfying and jumbled. There is simplicity in the narrative and some obvious allegories (the title, for instance, relates to a typhoon set to sweep the city, forcing the former family to have to stick together for a while), but I also thought the lead actor had a lot of gesture and expressive flair. This looked well made for a light drama, even if I don't have anything spectacular to note about it.
- Sat Feb 25, 2017 9:29 am
- Forum: Tinsel Town
- Topic: Rate the last movie you've seen
- Replies: 274
- Views: 31928
Re: Rate the last movie you've seen
A/A- / B+ / B / B- / C / D / F / No rating
Rewatched Silence. Guess I could bump the grade, even though I still feel it's somehow far from the best thing Scorsese could have crafted. One aspect I picked on the second time is how much Christic parallels and undertones are put in - probably how they were put in the original novel, as well - sometimes not even in a particularly subtle way: without spoiling much, there is a literal Judas-like character, for instance. I suppose this still adds a degree of how much Scorsese wanted to polemise on issues of fanaticism and willful martyrdom, just like it does on issues of faith, "God's silence" (very Bergmanesque topic btw), etc.
Paterson (link) - "A-ha"
or
Jim Jarmusch's latest, who as always tends to pull something from his bag of tricks with each movie. His previous, Only Lovers Left Alive was a lavish, cult existential vampire flick - if a fusion like that can even sound legit - that could have been equally (and has been) accused of having a hollow swag, but which I nevertheless, for the most part, really liked. And this time, it almost feels like he wants to subvert expectations and meet them at the same time. This movie is a most intimite, urban drama whose minimalism, simplicity and "everyman-ness" couldn't be more on the nose: the protagonist is a bus driver (played by Adam... Driver) called Paterson who lives in... Paterson. He drives the bus every work day. He walks the dog and goes to have a drink at a bar in the evening. He also has a passion for poetry, writing daily inspired by the tiniest details in his activity - his poems walking the fine edge between plain & corny and holding up nicely once finished - and mostly keeping them for himself. He has a loving, beautiful wife who goes for a mix of hipster-at-heart creativity and joie de vivre and pretentious daydreaming or nagging. His ivory towel takes the shape of a very variationless routine in his life and marriage. So basically this movie pushes the idea of monotony and un-happening, while its more serious themes nevertheless surface in a more or less subtle way: the pop culture references, that Jarmusch can rarely shake off, are assured by the bar's bartender's hobby for Paterson-related memorabilia; there is inherent poetry and bohemy inside an austere, 8 to 5 work schedule or matrimonial activities; there is sadness and stoicism to how the protagonist sees his life and goals; you can sense ripples of great tension, yet Driver is directed to perform the most imperturbable, tenderhearted man possible. If you cannot already tell from how much I extracted out of a movie that was supposed to test my patience or prove simple or shallow, I ended up quite loving this.
Extra movie trivia: this movie also gave me the impression that it is the antithesis of a much darker, difficult movie, Bela Tarr's 2011 The Turin Horse (link). Over there, the sense of repetition and minimalism was an expression of life's burden and escathological strip of meaning. Jarmusch instead aims, apparently, for an ode to the common man and his endurance throughout life.
Rewatched Moonlight. Guess I could bump this one to a B as well. If there's an Oscar nomination that has more artistic flair to it and should be counted as above the rest, might as well be this one.
Rewatched L'avenir (Things to Come), the French philosophical, existential drama with Isabelle Huppert. Firmly staying in the top tier of this year. Just lovely.
La fille inconnue (The Unknown Girl) (link), a new movie by the Belgian Dardenne brothers, who have been releasing projects at a very steady pace during the last few years, all appearing to veer more and more into austere, anonymous social drama vignettes. Even their charm seems to be subduing - 2011's The Kid with a Bike was a nice coming-to-age tale; 2014's Two Days, One Night was a passable drama that reflected on middle-class issues. This one narrows the focus and tightens the frame even more, on a female doctor who proceeds to investigate the death of a young black woman, after she might have indirectly contributed to it due to a brief moment of indifference. This movie didn't caught on much at Cannes and elsewhere and I fear it didn't make a serious impression on me either. While I don't dislike Adele Haenel's frostier, more impassive acting, this felt like a bit stretchy and... pun intended... sterile procedural-like drama, that seriously made me "dose off" (as in start doing other things while watching) and even not pick up much on its who, what, how endgame. My bad on the latter, perhaps, but still, not the most memorable Dardenne effort - and, again, bit worrying it its austere, trivial stylistical direction.
Rewatched Jackie. Remains notable pretty much only for Portman's intense character study and the sense of slight directorial boost, coming from Pablo Larrain, who won't settle for the easy narrative path in anything.
Rewatched Silence. Guess I could bump the grade, even though I still feel it's somehow far from the best thing Scorsese could have crafted. One aspect I picked on the second time is how much Christic parallels and undertones are put in - probably how they were put in the original novel, as well - sometimes not even in a particularly subtle way: without spoiling much, there is a literal Judas-like character, for instance. I suppose this still adds a degree of how much Scorsese wanted to polemise on issues of fanaticism and willful martyrdom, just like it does on issues of faith, "God's silence" (very Bergmanesque topic btw), etc.
Paterson (link) - "A-ha"
or
Jim Jarmusch's latest, who as always tends to pull something from his bag of tricks with each movie. His previous, Only Lovers Left Alive was a lavish, cult existential vampire flick - if a fusion like that can even sound legit - that could have been equally (and has been) accused of having a hollow swag, but which I nevertheless, for the most part, really liked. And this time, it almost feels like he wants to subvert expectations and meet them at the same time. This movie is a most intimite, urban drama whose minimalism, simplicity and "everyman-ness" couldn't be more on the nose: the protagonist is a bus driver (played by Adam... Driver) called Paterson who lives in... Paterson. He drives the bus every work day. He walks the dog and goes to have a drink at a bar in the evening. He also has a passion for poetry, writing daily inspired by the tiniest details in his activity - his poems walking the fine edge between plain & corny and holding up nicely once finished - and mostly keeping them for himself. He has a loving, beautiful wife who goes for a mix of hipster-at-heart creativity and joie de vivre and pretentious daydreaming or nagging. His ivory towel takes the shape of a very variationless routine in his life and marriage. So basically this movie pushes the idea of monotony and un-happening, while its more serious themes nevertheless surface in a more or less subtle way: the pop culture references, that Jarmusch can rarely shake off, are assured by the bar's bartender's hobby for Paterson-related memorabilia; there is inherent poetry and bohemy inside an austere, 8 to 5 work schedule or matrimonial activities; there is sadness and stoicism to how the protagonist sees his life and goals; you can sense ripples of great tension, yet Driver is directed to perform the most imperturbable, tenderhearted man possible. If you cannot already tell from how much I extracted out of a movie that was supposed to test my patience or prove simple or shallow, I ended up quite loving this.
Extra movie trivia: this movie also gave me the impression that it is the antithesis of a much darker, difficult movie, Bela Tarr's 2011 The Turin Horse (link). Over there, the sense of repetition and minimalism was an expression of life's burden and escathological strip of meaning. Jarmusch instead aims, apparently, for an ode to the common man and his endurance throughout life.
Rewatched Moonlight. Guess I could bump this one to a B as well. If there's an Oscar nomination that has more artistic flair to it and should be counted as above the rest, might as well be this one.
Rewatched L'avenir (Things to Come), the French philosophical, existential drama with Isabelle Huppert. Firmly staying in the top tier of this year. Just lovely.
La fille inconnue (The Unknown Girl) (link), a new movie by the Belgian Dardenne brothers, who have been releasing projects at a very steady pace during the last few years, all appearing to veer more and more into austere, anonymous social drama vignettes. Even their charm seems to be subduing - 2011's The Kid with a Bike was a nice coming-to-age tale; 2014's Two Days, One Night was a passable drama that reflected on middle-class issues. This one narrows the focus and tightens the frame even more, on a female doctor who proceeds to investigate the death of a young black woman, after she might have indirectly contributed to it due to a brief moment of indifference. This movie didn't caught on much at Cannes and elsewhere and I fear it didn't make a serious impression on me either. While I don't dislike Adele Haenel's frostier, more impassive acting, this felt like a bit stretchy and... pun intended... sterile procedural-like drama, that seriously made me "dose off" (as in start doing other things while watching) and even not pick up much on its who, what, how endgame. My bad on the latter, perhaps, but still, not the most memorable Dardenne effort - and, again, bit worrying it its austere, trivial stylistical direction.
Rewatched Jackie. Remains notable pretty much only for Portman's intense character study and the sense of slight directorial boost, coming from Pablo Larrain, who won't settle for the easy narrative path in anything.
- Sat Feb 18, 2017 9:24 am
- Forum: Tinsel Town
- Topic: Rate the last movie you've seen
- Replies: 274
- Views: 31928
Re: Rate the last movie you've seen
My movie log points out I've apparently hit the 800 mark on unique movies watched. Started keeping this list four and half years ago.
A/A- / B+ / B / B- / C / D / F / No rating
Trois souvenirs de ma jeunesse (My Golden Days) (link), a 2015 movie by Arnaud Desplechin, which I believed for a while to be a solo story, but turns out it was a prequel conceived for an earlier 1996 movie of his, Comment je me suis disputé... (ma vie sexuelle) (My Sex Life... or How I Got Into an Argument) (link). So I just binged the both of them, on consecutive days - quite the binge, too, since they totaled five hours. The cinematic touch and style has also experienced visible changes between the 20-year span - more neutral, focused on the acting, in the 90s, more potent in its cinematography and chic-ness nowadays.
While my impressions evolved backwards, I'll try to present them now in chronological order. The 1996 movie presents the story of a middle aged man (played a very young looking Mathieu Amalric at that time, but just as idiosyncratic in his acting as always) who's stuck in a bit of an existential rut (overdue, unfinished doctorate in philosophy; unfulfilling teaching position where he must suddenly face an old foe; a 10-year long up and down relationship with main love-of-his-life figure Esther - played by Emmanuelle Devos - and numerous others love interests or hanky-pankies). Not only overly long (nearly three hours), but also fairly indulgent in its weaved narrative, this seems to be the usual bourgeois social drama the French usually do, with a lot of musings and ramblings, emotional or hormonal tantrums, humor and romance and such. I was either not patient enough or failed to detect any particular detail that sets Desplechin's way of doing it apart from others. Still, I liked a few moments and a couple of the actresses (Devos, as well as Marianne Denicourt, as a very passive-agressive secondary love interest). The new movie reintroduces the protagonist years later in his mid 40s, only to provide some semblance of narrative support for him to reflect back on his adolescence - literally three particular moments, the first two a bit short and flimsy (scenes from a trouble childhood and an escapade into Mother Russia, respectively), followed by the one that counts the most, mainly how he met and fell in love with the abovementioned Esther. Watching this without any knowledge of prequel shenanigans, I thought the three-story act was a bit disjointed and in the end I could still fault it with this. But even here there was a pretty solid choice in the actress playing the younger version of Emmanuelle Devos and a few sequences to like. I just didn't feel any depth to this drama-making, nor felt compelled by this overarching human saga. I'd color Trois souvenirs so and Comment je me suis dispute... so.
Câini (Dogs) (link), a new Romanian thriller/neo-western that screened at Cannes' Un Certain Regard and set itself apart this year for being just that: a Romanian movie in a genuine hardboiled thriller/neo-western style. The main anectode is that our so called New Wave, while getting its fair share of praises and awards year after year, is also criticised (mainly poor audience feedback) for being so shut-in in its realism, ultra-minimalist, ultra-aesthetic, heavy on long takes and dialogue and silences and 2deep4u psychological layers. Compared to which Dogs is indeed sort of refreshing: clear-cut, incisive and gritty, minimal but in a way it generates tension and sharp lines of dialogue, variegated in its crimson-ranged environmental nuances. A thriller of throbbing pulses at first that you just know will burst and spray all over later on (you can read the synopsis on IMDb, if you want, what's written there is basically it). It's not an unique recent experience, since there have been a few other thrillers or "newwave"-genre-evading attempts, even this director (Bogdan Mirică) having previously made a TV show for local HBO in the same vein, albeit with too much urban slum talk and realism in it. This movie has been broadly said to be taken almost from a Cormac McCarthy handbook, to the point of looking quite derivative - something I can't myself argue against, although, overall, it still felt valuable in its own way and refreshingly smart and composed in its realization.
Weiner (link), a recent documentary that covered the controversial political figure's sexting scandals and career downfall, mainly during his bid for resurrection during the 2013 NY mayoral campaign. Not sure how much depth I would say this feature has, given that it mostly chronicles the 2013 period, with direct focus on Weiner, his wife, his campaign staff, his detractors or the media, but since it appears that Weiner allowed consistent real time access and inquiry during the events, it almost fascinates me that this could have originally been a documentary meant to highlight Weiner's return to glory, only to go into trainwreck mode afterwards, changing thus the narrative halfway through. As for the story itself, while I was aware of some of the details (from watching the bulk of TV late show satirists), it was still pretty hard to fathom just how much of a foresight-less damaged doofus this man has been. Much of the heartbreak will probably be provided by seeing his wife, Huma Abedin, struggling through all of this shitstorm and wave after wave of betrayal and shock, following a period of reconciling and even pulling lobby strings to push Weiner back into office contention. Her entire body language in the documentary is "I cannot even".
And finally The Founder (link), the story of Ray Kroc who, as an early failing salesman, fortuitously discovered the McDonald brothers' small, but innovative and modern-thinking burger restaurant and struggled then succeeded to franchise the shit out of it. While aware that a more positive take on this movie has been written and mentioned here, I have to confess I couldn't have been more bored watching this after a third of it or so - even opened the Friday Chatzy to hang out there in the process. Part of this, I reckon, has to do with director John Lee Hancock, who has yet to show any sign of cinematic style highmark (though, technically, The Founder is his best yet). Really typical American Dream biopic framework. He directed before The Blind Side, which was a complete dud and an infuriating cheeseball awards-contender (earned Sandra Bullock that Oscar) and Saving Mr. Banks which... ergh. Interesting enough, both this and Mr. Banks seem to show Hancock's inclination for certain stories - and even period pieces of American history - both highlighting a visionary figure (Walt Disney / Ray Kroc) who nevertheless took questionable steps in bringing someone else's creation (P.L. Travers / McDonald brothers) towards a bigger audience (Mary Poppins / the food megachain that is today McDonalds), arguably corrupting a bit of its initial quality or standards in the process. As for The Founder, while, yes, it does highlight capitalist expansion and smart skilled booming at its finest, it also highlights the different stages of Kroc's driving ambition, perhaps not in a way that's ultimately on a moral high note. Maybe it was a naive viewing from my part, but towards the end Kroc become a fairly questionable, reprobate character. Keaton and Offerman in particular do a competent portrayal, but the rest of the script and settings felt like a no face, no substance basic filmmaking affair. From a movie viewpoint, this couldn't have felt more generic and Hollywood fodder in its chronicle of big moments, figures and such.
A/A- / B+ / B / B- / C / D / F / No rating
Trois souvenirs de ma jeunesse (My Golden Days) (link), a 2015 movie by Arnaud Desplechin, which I believed for a while to be a solo story, but turns out it was a prequel conceived for an earlier 1996 movie of his, Comment je me suis disputé... (ma vie sexuelle) (My Sex Life... or How I Got Into an Argument) (link). So I just binged the both of them, on consecutive days - quite the binge, too, since they totaled five hours. The cinematic touch and style has also experienced visible changes between the 20-year span - more neutral, focused on the acting, in the 90s, more potent in its cinematography and chic-ness nowadays.
While my impressions evolved backwards, I'll try to present them now in chronological order. The 1996 movie presents the story of a middle aged man (played a very young looking Mathieu Amalric at that time, but just as idiosyncratic in his acting as always) who's stuck in a bit of an existential rut (overdue, unfinished doctorate in philosophy; unfulfilling teaching position where he must suddenly face an old foe; a 10-year long up and down relationship with main love-of-his-life figure Esther - played by Emmanuelle Devos - and numerous others love interests or hanky-pankies). Not only overly long (nearly three hours), but also fairly indulgent in its weaved narrative, this seems to be the usual bourgeois social drama the French usually do, with a lot of musings and ramblings, emotional or hormonal tantrums, humor and romance and such. I was either not patient enough or failed to detect any particular detail that sets Desplechin's way of doing it apart from others. Still, I liked a few moments and a couple of the actresses (Devos, as well as Marianne Denicourt, as a very passive-agressive secondary love interest). The new movie reintroduces the protagonist years later in his mid 40s, only to provide some semblance of narrative support for him to reflect back on his adolescence - literally three particular moments, the first two a bit short and flimsy (scenes from a trouble childhood and an escapade into Mother Russia, respectively), followed by the one that counts the most, mainly how he met and fell in love with the abovementioned Esther. Watching this without any knowledge of prequel shenanigans, I thought the three-story act was a bit disjointed and in the end I could still fault it with this. But even here there was a pretty solid choice in the actress playing the younger version of Emmanuelle Devos and a few sequences to like. I just didn't feel any depth to this drama-making, nor felt compelled by this overarching human saga. I'd color Trois souvenirs so and Comment je me suis dispute... so.
Câini (Dogs) (link), a new Romanian thriller/neo-western that screened at Cannes' Un Certain Regard and set itself apart this year for being just that: a Romanian movie in a genuine hardboiled thriller/neo-western style. The main anectode is that our so called New Wave, while getting its fair share of praises and awards year after year, is also criticised (mainly poor audience feedback) for being so shut-in in its realism, ultra-minimalist, ultra-aesthetic, heavy on long takes and dialogue and silences and 2deep4u psychological layers. Compared to which Dogs is indeed sort of refreshing: clear-cut, incisive and gritty, minimal but in a way it generates tension and sharp lines of dialogue, variegated in its crimson-ranged environmental nuances. A thriller of throbbing pulses at first that you just know will burst and spray all over later on (you can read the synopsis on IMDb, if you want, what's written there is basically it). It's not an unique recent experience, since there have been a few other thrillers or "newwave"-genre-evading attempts, even this director (Bogdan Mirică) having previously made a TV show for local HBO in the same vein, albeit with too much urban slum talk and realism in it. This movie has been broadly said to be taken almost from a Cormac McCarthy handbook, to the point of looking quite derivative - something I can't myself argue against, although, overall, it still felt valuable in its own way and refreshingly smart and composed in its realization.
Weiner (link), a recent documentary that covered the controversial political figure's sexting scandals and career downfall, mainly during his bid for resurrection during the 2013 NY mayoral campaign. Not sure how much depth I would say this feature has, given that it mostly chronicles the 2013 period, with direct focus on Weiner, his wife, his campaign staff, his detractors or the media, but since it appears that Weiner allowed consistent real time access and inquiry during the events, it almost fascinates me that this could have originally been a documentary meant to highlight Weiner's return to glory, only to go into trainwreck mode afterwards, changing thus the narrative halfway through. As for the story itself, while I was aware of some of the details (from watching the bulk of TV late show satirists), it was still pretty hard to fathom just how much of a foresight-less damaged doofus this man has been. Much of the heartbreak will probably be provided by seeing his wife, Huma Abedin, struggling through all of this shitstorm and wave after wave of betrayal and shock, following a period of reconciling and even pulling lobby strings to push Weiner back into office contention. Her entire body language in the documentary is "I cannot even".
And finally The Founder (link), the story of Ray Kroc who, as an early failing salesman, fortuitously discovered the McDonald brothers' small, but innovative and modern-thinking burger restaurant and struggled then succeeded to franchise the shit out of it. While aware that a more positive take on this movie has been written and mentioned here, I have to confess I couldn't have been more bored watching this after a third of it or so - even opened the Friday Chatzy to hang out there in the process. Part of this, I reckon, has to do with director John Lee Hancock, who has yet to show any sign of cinematic style highmark (though, technically, The Founder is his best yet). Really typical American Dream biopic framework. He directed before The Blind Side, which was a complete dud and an infuriating cheeseball awards-contender (earned Sandra Bullock that Oscar) and Saving Mr. Banks which... ergh. Interesting enough, both this and Mr. Banks seem to show Hancock's inclination for certain stories - and even period pieces of American history - both highlighting a visionary figure (Walt Disney / Ray Kroc) who nevertheless took questionable steps in bringing someone else's creation (P.L. Travers / McDonald brothers) towards a bigger audience (Mary Poppins / the food megachain that is today McDonalds), arguably corrupting a bit of its initial quality or standards in the process. As for The Founder, while, yes, it does highlight capitalist expansion and smart skilled booming at its finest, it also highlights the different stages of Kroc's driving ambition, perhaps not in a way that's ultimately on a moral high note. Maybe it was a naive viewing from my part, but towards the end Kroc become a fairly questionable, reprobate character. Keaton and Offerman in particular do a competent portrayal, but the rest of the script and settings felt like a no face, no substance basic filmmaking affair. From a movie viewpoint, this couldn't have felt more generic and Hollywood fodder in its chronicle of big moments, figures and such.
- Wed Feb 15, 2017 7:27 pm
- Forum: Tinsel Town
- Topic: Rate the last movie you've seen
- Replies: 274
- Views: 31928
Re: Rate the last movie you've seen
Or better yet, wait for Sonemic? (Or whatever the film branch will be called)
Is that still happening?
Is that still happening?
- Wed Feb 15, 2017 5:24 pm
- Forum: Tinsel Town
- Topic: Rate the last movie you've seen
- Replies: 274
- Views: 31928
Re: Rate the last movie you've seen
Enemy > Sicario > Incendies > Arrival > Prisoners
Polytechnique and the rest are ?? at the moment
Polytechnique and the rest are ?? at the moment
- Wed Feb 15, 2017 3:27 pm
- Forum: Tinsel Town
- Topic: Rate the last movie you've seen
- Replies: 274
- Views: 31928
Re: Rate the last movie you've seen
What impresses me the most about Enemy is that it is not only a great mindfuck of a standalone movie, it is also a great adaptation of a mindfuck of a book (Saramago's The Double). The adaptation is overall straightforward, but Villeneuve also finds and includes an extra psychological layer, that completely works.A Person wrote:If you liked Arrival check out his other movies, Enemy is what I saw first from him and it blew my mind. Mongoose did not like it though >:(
- Sat Feb 11, 2017 9:11 am
- Forum: Tinsel Town
- Topic: Rate the last movie you've seen
- Replies: 274
- Views: 31928
Re: Rate the last movie you've seen
A/A- / B+ / B / B- / C / D / F / No rating
The Edge of Seventeen (link) or what is meant to be the indie movie of the year from within the main Hollywood caravan, yet, while most such indiecoms are generally meant to bounce right off me, I swear I couldn't think of a more half-assed project this year once I finished watching this. Overall, its aim is to add to the bulk of John Hughesian, high-school dramedies focusing on teen angst and social niche mismatch, while amping up the levels of dark / deadpan / awkward comedy and the protagonist's youthful imbalance of outspoken cynicism, grief or social anxiety (the gist is that our main girl's - Hailee Steinfeld - world comes tumbling down when her BFF hooks up with her brother, leaving her stranded in a pool of [even more] intense negativity and disconnect from almost anyone else in the community).
I think what doesn't work with the movie are the precise things it may try to charm us with: the uncanny prevalent brooding or sharp tone and the pay off. Steinfeld - making a true notable return, as far as I'm concerned, only since True Grit - does a commendable effort to play this bluesy, erratic, atypical lead teen figure and shout out even to Blake Jenner (the brother in the story) who can apparently play a jock with flair and substance in any situation (he also played one this year in Linklater's Everybody Wants Some!! which, for my money, is the true - if bathing in retro - indie jewel of the year). Meanwhile, Woody Harrelson...I think some of the posters even highlighted the bond between his character and the main girl, a sort of off-the-wall student-teacher mentorship, but it's probably the most deceiving part of the entire movie, because Woody's scenes are too few and far in between and they don't add up to anything: there are like five identical scenes in which the girl comes in class freaking out and the teacher approaches the kick-some-sense-into-her solution via wisecracking quippy sarcasm, plus a more fatherly-behind-all-the-facade later scene... and I chuckled alright at the former, because they were hilarious, but was there any real pay off?
At its best, I almost sensed that this movie tried to deliver a peculiar message about how negativity sometimes means just as much to poison yourself from within as to not be able to click with the world around you, thus making the protagonist a sort of anti-heroine, whose self-deprecation and rejection are questionably over-the-top and egocentric and whose "coming-of-age", in the end, comes closer to "getting your head out of your ass". But can you fully sell something like this to the mass audiences, in need of their laughs, romance awws and predictable plot developments? Of course not. Hence the pedestrian set pieces, despite the glaze of dark comedy on top of them.
Right Now, Wrong Then (link) - whose original title is so quirkly long and weird, I just have to mention it: Ji-geum-eun-mat-go-geu-ddae-neun-teul-li-da - apparently not the first movie by Sang-soo Hong I've watched (Nobody's Daughter Haewon), though I don't remember much from it. With this movie, one could almost joke that this is how South Korean cineasts envision romcoms, since it is a story of a filmmaker on a business trip who gets enamoured with a stranger and the date goes quite weird, due to his awkward social skills and several faux pas... only for the story to be rebooted completely, with alterations that lead things into a different, seemingly more favorable direction. If your first thought would be that such gimmick of crafting the same movie twice - which apparently is not even the first time this director is doing it :o - would instill boredom upon viewing, well, in some ways that effect could surface, especially since its aesthetics are also fairly minimal and its pace is slow, nevertheless I think there was enough chemistry between the lead characters and humor or emotion to carry some of its moments; plus it resembles that quality of Eric Rohmer's movies, rich in dialogue and interaction if not much else to the naked eye, in which people just talk and talk, acting both philosophical and cursory in their thoughts. One theme this movie might go for, and that I've seen come up in other reviews, would be how the artist can use (or manipulate) the language of his art to his own will and thus tailor the amount of reality or fantasy he puts in his story or drama or whatever content he chooses - the equivalent of a date gone wrong that you'd later wish you could just dial the clock back and do it the right way. Anyway, bit hard to recommend a movie whose two-hour running is literally generated by a one hour act and a complete variation of it, but this was not bad at all.
Krisha (link) - a concise, poignant Thanksgiving drama about an old woman trying to reconnect with her family, despite some troubled past issues. The drama boils up nicely from its apparent conciliatory opening tone, complete with quirky, menacing, bomb-ticky background music, gradual cracks in the family interactions and the protagonist's psyche, even in sync with, oh sweet analogy, the turkey getting roasted in the oven. Plus the big family reunion depicted has a combination of conservative and hipster elements: they have like a bazillion dogs in the house and some of them blabber on about spiritual integrity and practices, whilst matriarchal and/or patriarchal elements are also on full display (the women nursing to their chidren or preparing the meal, while the men watch football, wrestle in the back garden like bros and such). But mostly, this movie deals with psychological pressure and demons of the past you cannot always deal with it - or rather, for which you cannot always be forgiven by others. While this is neatly etched in frame by its debutant director, I'd also say there's a bit more style than substance put into it, plus I didn't feel I'll remember or revisit this one any time soon.
L'avenir (Things to Come) (link), a new, awards-gifted (Silver Bear for Directing) movie by Mia Hansen-Løve, a director who might fly under your radar (in which case you should correct that), but whose past three movies I've seen and liked, including this one - 2011's Goodbye First Love, a rare instance of a youthful, capricious and misguided romantic drama that I've actually loved, and 2014's Eden, which I've shortly noted in the past. Her movies always appear to be small scaled, intimate in depiction as well as quasi-referential in creativity, although even with this movie there are hints of bigger themes nudged forward: the protagonist is a philosophy teacher, so naturally a lot of references and allusions come up; social instances of what appears to have been student strikes during the (2010?) pension reform protests: plus the teacher meeting again with a past eminent, gifted student that seems to have, nevertheless, embraced communard anarchy. But deep down, this movie is nothing but the personal drama of a woman who experiences, late in her age, a lot of separations and losses, and must deal with it and with "the things to come". And what better actress to render this than the lovely Isabelle Huppert, capable to act so emancipated and vulnerable within the same range. Contrary to Verhoeven pushing her in Elle to be as sardonic, acerbic and stony-hearted as possible, in light of all grievances and adversities - a performance that was, nonetheless, mindblowing - Hansen-Løve allows more natural and raw emotion from Huppert, while also pushing for the same note of not yielding to any sorrowful circumstances. Soft spoken filmmaking and atmosphere, lively pace and visuals (photogenic frenchiness and/or parisianess, so to speak) and the usual dash of French chic, all making a pleasant viewing, one that could turn out among the best of the year, in hindsight.
And finally, on the more lunacy-driven side of French cinema, Alain Guiraudie's new movie Rester vertical (Staying Vertical) (link), a fairly risqué and weird flick, if that wouldn't be the case with all of his ouevre. While his previous Stranger by the Lake proved such a shocker and surprise delight for me, if its combination of gay romance and chilling thriller could be regarded as plausible and described as such, this one didn't quite land well. "A screenwriter going into rural pilgrimage, in search of inspiration, only to hook up and have a baby with a shepherdess" is about the straightest narrative that could be shared, before things go quite batshit, with, as expected from Guiraudie, full elements of homoeroticism, the protagonist facing conflicting, contradictory opposition from everyone around him and everything happening to him, plus some scenes that just shoot into magic realism fantasy, without any discernible meaning or connection. Nah.
The Edge of Seventeen (link) or what is meant to be the indie movie of the year from within the main Hollywood caravan, yet, while most such indiecoms are generally meant to bounce right off me, I swear I couldn't think of a more half-assed project this year once I finished watching this. Overall, its aim is to add to the bulk of John Hughesian, high-school dramedies focusing on teen angst and social niche mismatch, while amping up the levels of dark / deadpan / awkward comedy and the protagonist's youthful imbalance of outspoken cynicism, grief or social anxiety (the gist is that our main girl's - Hailee Steinfeld - world comes tumbling down when her BFF hooks up with her brother, leaving her stranded in a pool of [even more] intense negativity and disconnect from almost anyone else in the community).
I think what doesn't work with the movie are the precise things it may try to charm us with: the uncanny prevalent brooding or sharp tone and the pay off. Steinfeld - making a true notable return, as far as I'm concerned, only since True Grit - does a commendable effort to play this bluesy, erratic, atypical lead teen figure and shout out even to Blake Jenner (the brother in the story) who can apparently play a jock with flair and substance in any situation (he also played one this year in Linklater's Everybody Wants Some!! which, for my money, is the true - if bathing in retro - indie jewel of the year). Meanwhile, Woody Harrelson...I think some of the posters even highlighted the bond between his character and the main girl, a sort of off-the-wall student-teacher mentorship, but it's probably the most deceiving part of the entire movie, because Woody's scenes are too few and far in between and they don't add up to anything: there are like five identical scenes in which the girl comes in class freaking out and the teacher approaches the kick-some-sense-into-her solution via wisecracking quippy sarcasm, plus a more fatherly-behind-all-the-facade later scene... and I chuckled alright at the former, because they were hilarious, but was there any real pay off?
At its best, I almost sensed that this movie tried to deliver a peculiar message about how negativity sometimes means just as much to poison yourself from within as to not be able to click with the world around you, thus making the protagonist a sort of anti-heroine, whose self-deprecation and rejection are questionably over-the-top and egocentric and whose "coming-of-age", in the end, comes closer to "getting your head out of your ass". But can you fully sell something like this to the mass audiences, in need of their laughs, romance awws and predictable plot developments? Of course not. Hence the pedestrian set pieces, despite the glaze of dark comedy on top of them.
Right Now, Wrong Then (link) - whose original title is so quirkly long and weird, I just have to mention it: Ji-geum-eun-mat-go-geu-ddae-neun-teul-li-da - apparently not the first movie by Sang-soo Hong I've watched (Nobody's Daughter Haewon), though I don't remember much from it. With this movie, one could almost joke that this is how South Korean cineasts envision romcoms, since it is a story of a filmmaker on a business trip who gets enamoured with a stranger and the date goes quite weird, due to his awkward social skills and several faux pas... only for the story to be rebooted completely, with alterations that lead things into a different, seemingly more favorable direction. If your first thought would be that such gimmick of crafting the same movie twice - which apparently is not even the first time this director is doing it :o - would instill boredom upon viewing, well, in some ways that effect could surface, especially since its aesthetics are also fairly minimal and its pace is slow, nevertheless I think there was enough chemistry between the lead characters and humor or emotion to carry some of its moments; plus it resembles that quality of Eric Rohmer's movies, rich in dialogue and interaction if not much else to the naked eye, in which people just talk and talk, acting both philosophical and cursory in their thoughts. One theme this movie might go for, and that I've seen come up in other reviews, would be how the artist can use (or manipulate) the language of his art to his own will and thus tailor the amount of reality or fantasy he puts in his story or drama or whatever content he chooses - the equivalent of a date gone wrong that you'd later wish you could just dial the clock back and do it the right way. Anyway, bit hard to recommend a movie whose two-hour running is literally generated by a one hour act and a complete variation of it, but this was not bad at all.
Krisha (link) - a concise, poignant Thanksgiving drama about an old woman trying to reconnect with her family, despite some troubled past issues. The drama boils up nicely from its apparent conciliatory opening tone, complete with quirky, menacing, bomb-ticky background music, gradual cracks in the family interactions and the protagonist's psyche, even in sync with, oh sweet analogy, the turkey getting roasted in the oven. Plus the big family reunion depicted has a combination of conservative and hipster elements: they have like a bazillion dogs in the house and some of them blabber on about spiritual integrity and practices, whilst matriarchal and/or patriarchal elements are also on full display (the women nursing to their chidren or preparing the meal, while the men watch football, wrestle in the back garden like bros and such). But mostly, this movie deals with psychological pressure and demons of the past you cannot always deal with it - or rather, for which you cannot always be forgiven by others. While this is neatly etched in frame by its debutant director, I'd also say there's a bit more style than substance put into it, plus I didn't feel I'll remember or revisit this one any time soon.
L'avenir (Things to Come) (link), a new, awards-gifted (Silver Bear for Directing) movie by Mia Hansen-Løve, a director who might fly under your radar (in which case you should correct that), but whose past three movies I've seen and liked, including this one - 2011's Goodbye First Love, a rare instance of a youthful, capricious and misguided romantic drama that I've actually loved, and 2014's Eden, which I've shortly noted in the past. Her movies always appear to be small scaled, intimate in depiction as well as quasi-referential in creativity, although even with this movie there are hints of bigger themes nudged forward: the protagonist is a philosophy teacher, so naturally a lot of references and allusions come up; social instances of what appears to have been student strikes during the (2010?) pension reform protests: plus the teacher meeting again with a past eminent, gifted student that seems to have, nevertheless, embraced communard anarchy. But deep down, this movie is nothing but the personal drama of a woman who experiences, late in her age, a lot of separations and losses, and must deal with it and with "the things to come". And what better actress to render this than the lovely Isabelle Huppert, capable to act so emancipated and vulnerable within the same range. Contrary to Verhoeven pushing her in Elle to be as sardonic, acerbic and stony-hearted as possible, in light of all grievances and adversities - a performance that was, nonetheless, mindblowing - Hansen-Løve allows more natural and raw emotion from Huppert, while also pushing for the same note of not yielding to any sorrowful circumstances. Soft spoken filmmaking and atmosphere, lively pace and visuals (photogenic frenchiness and/or parisianess, so to speak) and the usual dash of French chic, all making a pleasant viewing, one that could turn out among the best of the year, in hindsight.
And finally, on the more lunacy-driven side of French cinema, Alain Guiraudie's new movie Rester vertical (Staying Vertical) (link), a fairly risqué and weird flick, if that wouldn't be the case with all of his ouevre. While his previous Stranger by the Lake proved such a shocker and surprise delight for me, if its combination of gay romance and chilling thriller could be regarded as plausible and described as such, this one didn't quite land well. "A screenwriter going into rural pilgrimage, in search of inspiration, only to hook up and have a baby with a shepherdess" is about the straightest narrative that could be shared, before things go quite batshit, with, as expected from Guiraudie, full elements of homoeroticism, the protagonist facing conflicting, contradictory opposition from everyone around him and everything happening to him, plus some scenes that just shoot into magic realism fantasy, without any discernible meaning or connection. Nah.
- Sun Feb 05, 2017 7:14 am
- Forum: Tinsel Town
- Topic: Rate the last movie you've seen
- Replies: 274
- Views: 31928
Re: Rate the last movie you've seen
A much lighter list this week, due to certain events and business that kept me busy during the evenings. Wrapping up my major Oscar season binge first and then moving on to other recent films on my watchlist.
A/A- / B+ / B / B- / C / D / F / No rating
Lion (link) Strange late bloomer (premiered at Toronto in September, yet screened in theaters only starting November in the US and January elsewhere) to have garnered critical buzz and end up with multiple Academy nominations, including Best Picture - enough to turn to me into a headshaker and have me believe it has Weinstein's lobbying fingerprints all over it. Thing is, it's not even half bad as an inspirational movie (even if it eventually drops into full melodrama) -- a young poor Indian boy, scrapping for coal with his brother, that gets accidentally separated from his family, getting lost in a deadheading train thousands of miles away from home, ending up on the streets, in an orphanage, then adopted by an Australian family, only to later, as a young adult, try to track down his family -- but I have not detected any details that would set it apart from the usual heartstring-tuggers that are churned. Plus, I went into this movie knowing nothing and yet, halfway through, I started sensing it had "based on a true story" written all over it, which proved to be the case. Dev Patel as the adult protagonist does a creditable job in acting gradually obsessed and consumed by his desire to reconnect with his homeplace, although I wouldn't say his range as that is particularly big, plus he nosedives along with the movie into emotional cheese during the last 10 minutes or so; Nicole Kidman, as the adoptive mother, does nothing whatsoever to warrant an Oscar Nomination; heck, even the less visible Rooney Mara is slightly more notable as Patel's sympathetic, if frustrated by his shut in feelings, girlfriend. Apart from any critical view and standards, this should prove an enjoyable, heartfelt movie, but given all its buzz right now, nah, you would have to consider it as slight bait just as much.
Silence (might go up to B, who knows) (link) - oh, toughie one here: impossible to rate after a first watch, but at the same time demanding to sit again through its three hours, anytime soon; has the hallmarks of beautiful, erudite, epic Scorsese, but also feels like it doesn't quite have the overall focus to reach deep into artistic and philosophic profundity. Some of you may have read that this was a long-time, long-postponed passion project for Scorsese, ever since making The Last Temptation of Christ - which I would wholeheartedly recommend, even if it might set on flames the blasphemy-o-meter for more religious people around here; it has without doubt true cinematic virtues - and while it is a far less "agnostic" religious movie than that one, it still deals with themes related to the trials of fate. Its synopsis is quite simple: two Jesuit priests (Andrew Garfield and Adam Driver) go to Japan, during its difficult 17th Century climate of hunting down and persecuting Christian priests and converted locals, in search for their mentor (Liam Neeson), upon hearing news that he might have apostatized. The movie starts with the two priests both pursuing their goal and fulfilling their mission to propagate the faith further, after which it focuses more and more with Garfield's character's own predicaments of facing persecution. The movie is not devoid of some rather convenient moves from Scorsese: the casting of familiar faces (Garfield, Driver, Neeson); the odd intent to cast the priests as Portuguese, yet lazily resort to mostly everyone in the movie, even the Japanese characters, speaking English; the expected maxing of violence and emotional or devotional despair. On the bright side, though, its Japanese supporting cast seems extraordinarily strong and the narrative, despite its extreme stretch, could be described as holding up quite well. Overall, if any of you are familiar and felt that his previous Wolf of Wall Street was too on the nose with its opulence and Scorsesian cheekiness, this might come off as a much more pious, thoughtful and balanced movie. I still have to decide, though, if it's meant to be up there with his finest. Not quite the believer on that matter.
Under the Shadow (link). Did a bit of a sloppy watch with this one, but here are my first impressions. British-produced Iranian psychological horror movie about a mother and a daughter having to cope not only with the war terrors and perils during the Iran-Iraq 80s war, but with evil spirits hauting their home. This movie could be easily catalogued along with the new wave of smart(er), abstract, less-is-more horror films such as The Babadook, Goodnight, Mommy or It Follows. In fact, I feel it could be easily dubbed as "The Babadook of Tehran", since it works with and delivers a straight haunt movie narrative, but one which could also translate into the distraught relationships within the family. Contrary to the The Babadook, I'd add that this movie did arguably have some actual, decent, well-timed scares. I liked it, especially for a few memorable scenes, including one in which the mother relentlessly, ritualistically works out at home to some VHS tapes of Jane Fonda aerobics, but did I like like it, I wonder? Who knows. If you want your horrors to be a full on spectacle of spookoo, even if riddled with clichés, this might not satisfy your need, but if you appreciate the less-is-more wiser approach, you should check it out.
Allied (link), a new Robert Zemeckis, starring Brad Le Pitts and Marion Cotillard in a romantic WWII / spy thriller mashup, one rather remembered by the critics for its shortcomings and its Casablanca-styled imitative aspirations. Yet I have to say, I went into this expecting nothing but woeful, forgettable cheeseball, and it turned out a much more decent experience... at least until the cheeseballs were indeed served. Its first act, in which Le Pitts infiltrates as a secret agent in occupied France and is matched up in fake marriage with Cotillard's character, so they can plot and carry a high profile assassination, is strong and charming - with particularly seductive, assured acting from Cotillard. I would even applaud the extensive language training that Le Pitts seemed to have undertaken for this role (as opposed to, say, his (likely intentional) half-assed dialects in Inglorious Basterds). Even Cotillard's English has improved or at least focused greatly. Sadly though, once the Casablanca affair concludes, they get romantically involved and relocate to Britain, it switches to a spy story on how Cotillard might be a double agent after all, and the thriller goes quite dour, mainly because the focus is taken away from Cotillard's magnetic, swaying presence and cast on Le Pitts, who suddenly couldn't be more stiff in acting out the emotional and tactical complications of this possible betrayal. So I found it rather sad that the movie did not hold up at all in the end.
And finally, I rewatched Villeneuve's Arrival. I just gave it a 6 on IMdB (mind you, though, my "quite good / real good" scale is usually at 7 over there), which feels like a step back in appreciation, but I would say it's because a) I don't think it's as well done and valuable as Sicario, for instance (not to mention Enemy, his arthouse-iest delight) and b) my mood has been embittered by the overall quality of Oscar season this year. Might bump it to 7 in the future, idk. One thing I feared this second watch was that, having experienced its big finale twist once, it wouldn't feel the same the second time. Fortunately, I can report that, while that may be an issue upon repeated views, the movie still holds up and I even felt less jumpy and eyebrow-raising at some of its twisted logic revelations than I felt in the theater, the first time. That's gotta count as a positive, right?
A/A- / B+ / B / B- / C / D / F / No rating
Lion (link) Strange late bloomer (premiered at Toronto in September, yet screened in theaters only starting November in the US and January elsewhere) to have garnered critical buzz and end up with multiple Academy nominations, including Best Picture - enough to turn to me into a headshaker and have me believe it has Weinstein's lobbying fingerprints all over it. Thing is, it's not even half bad as an inspirational movie (even if it eventually drops into full melodrama) -- a young poor Indian boy, scrapping for coal with his brother, that gets accidentally separated from his family, getting lost in a deadheading train thousands of miles away from home, ending up on the streets, in an orphanage, then adopted by an Australian family, only to later, as a young adult, try to track down his family -- but I have not detected any details that would set it apart from the usual heartstring-tuggers that are churned. Plus, I went into this movie knowing nothing and yet, halfway through, I started sensing it had "based on a true story" written all over it, which proved to be the case. Dev Patel as the adult protagonist does a creditable job in acting gradually obsessed and consumed by his desire to reconnect with his homeplace, although I wouldn't say his range as that is particularly big, plus he nosedives along with the movie into emotional cheese during the last 10 minutes or so; Nicole Kidman, as the adoptive mother, does nothing whatsoever to warrant an Oscar Nomination; heck, even the less visible Rooney Mara is slightly more notable as Patel's sympathetic, if frustrated by his shut in feelings, girlfriend. Apart from any critical view and standards, this should prove an enjoyable, heartfelt movie, but given all its buzz right now, nah, you would have to consider it as slight bait just as much.
Silence (might go up to B, who knows) (link) - oh, toughie one here: impossible to rate after a first watch, but at the same time demanding to sit again through its three hours, anytime soon; has the hallmarks of beautiful, erudite, epic Scorsese, but also feels like it doesn't quite have the overall focus to reach deep into artistic and philosophic profundity. Some of you may have read that this was a long-time, long-postponed passion project for Scorsese, ever since making The Last Temptation of Christ - which I would wholeheartedly recommend, even if it might set on flames the blasphemy-o-meter for more religious people around here; it has without doubt true cinematic virtues - and while it is a far less "agnostic" religious movie than that one, it still deals with themes related to the trials of fate. Its synopsis is quite simple: two Jesuit priests (Andrew Garfield and Adam Driver) go to Japan, during its difficult 17th Century climate of hunting down and persecuting Christian priests and converted locals, in search for their mentor (Liam Neeson), upon hearing news that he might have apostatized. The movie starts with the two priests both pursuing their goal and fulfilling their mission to propagate the faith further, after which it focuses more and more with Garfield's character's own predicaments of facing persecution. The movie is not devoid of some rather convenient moves from Scorsese: the casting of familiar faces (Garfield, Driver, Neeson); the odd intent to cast the priests as Portuguese, yet lazily resort to mostly everyone in the movie, even the Japanese characters, speaking English; the expected maxing of violence and emotional or devotional despair. On the bright side, though, its Japanese supporting cast seems extraordinarily strong and the narrative, despite its extreme stretch, could be described as holding up quite well. Overall, if any of you are familiar and felt that his previous Wolf of Wall Street was too on the nose with its opulence and Scorsesian cheekiness, this might come off as a much more pious, thoughtful and balanced movie. I still have to decide, though, if it's meant to be up there with his finest. Not quite the believer on that matter.
Under the Shadow (link). Did a bit of a sloppy watch with this one, but here are my first impressions. British-produced Iranian psychological horror movie about a mother and a daughter having to cope not only with the war terrors and perils during the Iran-Iraq 80s war, but with evil spirits hauting their home. This movie could be easily catalogued along with the new wave of smart(er), abstract, less-is-more horror films such as The Babadook, Goodnight, Mommy or It Follows. In fact, I feel it could be easily dubbed as "The Babadook of Tehran", since it works with and delivers a straight haunt movie narrative, but one which could also translate into the distraught relationships within the family. Contrary to the The Babadook, I'd add that this movie did arguably have some actual, decent, well-timed scares. I liked it, especially for a few memorable scenes, including one in which the mother relentlessly, ritualistically works out at home to some VHS tapes of Jane Fonda aerobics, but did I like like it, I wonder? Who knows. If you want your horrors to be a full on spectacle of spookoo, even if riddled with clichés, this might not satisfy your need, but if you appreciate the less-is-more wiser approach, you should check it out.
Allied (link), a new Robert Zemeckis, starring Brad Le Pitts and Marion Cotillard in a romantic WWII / spy thriller mashup, one rather remembered by the critics for its shortcomings and its Casablanca-styled imitative aspirations. Yet I have to say, I went into this expecting nothing but woeful, forgettable cheeseball, and it turned out a much more decent experience... at least until the cheeseballs were indeed served. Its first act, in which Le Pitts infiltrates as a secret agent in occupied France and is matched up in fake marriage with Cotillard's character, so they can plot and carry a high profile assassination, is strong and charming - with particularly seductive, assured acting from Cotillard. I would even applaud the extensive language training that Le Pitts seemed to have undertaken for this role (as opposed to, say, his (likely intentional) half-assed dialects in Inglorious Basterds). Even Cotillard's English has improved or at least focused greatly. Sadly though, once the Casablanca affair concludes, they get romantically involved and relocate to Britain, it switches to a spy story on how Cotillard might be a double agent after all, and the thriller goes quite dour, mainly because the focus is taken away from Cotillard's magnetic, swaying presence and cast on Le Pitts, who suddenly couldn't be more stiff in acting out the emotional and tactical complications of this possible betrayal. So I found it rather sad that the movie did not hold up at all in the end.
And finally, I rewatched Villeneuve's Arrival. I just gave it a 6 on IMdB (mind you, though, my "quite good / real good" scale is usually at 7 over there), which feels like a step back in appreciation, but I would say it's because a) I don't think it's as well done and valuable as Sicario, for instance (not to mention Enemy, his arthouse-iest delight) and b) my mood has been embittered by the overall quality of Oscar season this year. Might bump it to 7 in the future, idk. One thing I feared this second watch was that, having experienced its big finale twist once, it wouldn't feel the same the second time. Fortunately, I can report that, while that may be an issue upon repeated views, the movie still holds up and I even felt less jumpy and eyebrow-raising at some of its twisted logic revelations than I felt in the theater, the first time. That's gotta count as a positive, right?
- Sun Jan 29, 2017 4:29 pm
- Forum: Tinsel Town
- Topic: Rate the last movie you've seen
- Replies: 274
- Views: 31928
Re: Rate the last movie you've seen
Heh, Dragoniel D.ay Lewffis was easily the best thing about Lincoln. But I can agree that, out of the three Oscars he received, this felt like the easiest one handed out. That year's Best Acting should have easily, easily gone to Joaquin Phoenix for The Master, but it was 2deep4Academy. Don't know how he does it, but almost all Phoenix's recent roles (The Master, Her, Inherent Vice, less so Irrational Man) have been nothing short of transcendental.
- Sat Jan 28, 2017 5:28 pm
- Forum: Tinsel Town
- Topic: Rate the last movie you've seen
- Replies: 274
- Views: 31928
Re: Rate the last movie you've seen
I forgot to note the score for Jackie, which was done by Mica Levi, British classical composer, and also stands out a bit in the movie. Atypical at times, not the smoothest or most traditional accompaniment to scenes unfolding and maybe not as otherwordly as Under the Skin, but still good.
- Sat Jan 28, 2017 4:37 pm
- Forum: Tinsel Town
- Topic: Rate the last movie you've seen
- Replies: 274
- Views: 31928
Re: Rate the last movie you've seen
Yikes.Golden wrote:Everyone I know who went to see Laa Laa Land either walked out or wanted to, and said lots of other people did. My mother called it 'popular in Hollywood because they wrote a movie about themselves, but it just makes them look sad.'
We were going to go see it, but now we've changed our mind. It baffles me that I've had such a consistency of 'it's not very good' from people I know who've seen it, and it gets 14 Oscar nominations.
I don't think it's walk out or miss out material, despite the criticism, although it's up to any moviegoer, of course. You could also certainly wait for a home release a few months from now, if that's yer thing, although you'd then be stuck with a purchase you may not like, rather than a movie showing that simply did not deliver.
Didn't say I'm unaware of stuff that went on in the movie or a few scenes. I just didn't sat down to watch it in full. Crowe's performance is... either ballsy or no-fucks-given. Tho not sure what the difference would be, in his case.Golden wrote: Rico, as for musicals - forget Burlesque, forget Into the Woods (it had its moments, but as a whole felt a little too much like a stage show on the screen). But Les Miserables was different for me, and still worth seeing, unless you know you don't like the story. I found Hugh Jackman transcendent and it remains the only time that Russell Crowe has ever managed to make me care about his character.
- Sat Jan 28, 2017 1:10 pm
- Forum: Tinsel Town
- Topic: Rate the last movie you've seen
- Replies: 274
- Views: 31928
Re: Rate the last movie you've seen
A/A- / B+ / B / B- / C / D / F / No rating
So my new week of movie-watching proved quite the Oscarbait fest, especially given the predictable-in-all-regards nominations that were announced, but before I slash err dive into them with my much-to-be-expected cynicism and niggling, let me quickly mention a carry over from the previous week, that I forgot to write anything about, a 2014 adaptation of Madame Bovary (link), done with precious, pedantic filmmaking, but coming off uninspiring and rather dull - plus settling for a disorienting mix of English accents, which to disconnect from any possible original book flavor. Now, I understand empathy (or lack of) towards the protagonist and her condition / tragic story is a debatable issue in the novel, nevertheless I still felt the movie achieved the wrong notes on that. There is some distancing effect in the scenic and social boredom that's portrayed, but it almost veers into navalgazing, followed in the last act by pretty run-of-the-mill overdramatic crescendos. Mia Wasikowska's performance is kinda frost and all the men around her are complete no faces, whether it was Lloyd-Hughes who might have worked too hard on getting the most-boring-man-on-the-planet act right, the hipster romantic Ezra Miller or the prince macho Logan Marshall-Green. Perhaps one exception was Rhys Ifans, as the web-spinning, cold conniving Monsieur Lheureux. Yeah, I'll put him down as the MVP in this case.
====
Now, while I still have a few more movies to check, the internet has blessed with enough screeners this week to ascertain that Hollywood has outdone itself to be even more lackluster with its awards season crop than last year. Even the ones that I did like from this list feel a bit like getting a bye, due to how much there is to complain about the rest.
Hacksaw Ridge (link), Mel Gibson's return to directing and (given the reputation slump he's been during the past years) big-budget, accolade-grabbing works, adapting the story of Desmond Doss, a conscientous objector who enlisted despite his beliefs during WWII and served and saved lives straight on the battlefield of Okinawa. This topic honestly makes perfect material for both inspirational biopic-making and, given that it's Gibson we're talking about, war movie gruesomeness - and this combination is fairly straight. All the dramatic tropes and cheese are inserted to quickly cover Doss' life, romantic interests and moral challenges in joining the military, after which it's queasy time, as the war act unfolds with graphic violence and hecticism, Doss even disappearing for a while from the center of attention, until returning for his main shot, Oscar please grand climax. There's talk about how, for a movie centered on moral objections towards war and violence, Gibson's delights for gritty, bloody imagery almost thwart that message - and it's hard to argue against that. Andrew Garfield comes off a bit hammy in the biographical stages, but once thrown in the battle zone, I found his energy and acting much better. The movie also periodically makes you suffer through Vince Vaughn with his serious-acting-face on. Aaarrrrrrrrrggggggghhh. All in all, given that his last film, 10 yeas ago, was the controversial, but substantial and unique Apocalypto, this one feels quite lazy and drenched in cheap Gibsonian moves.
Hidden Figures (link) Honest, simple movie on the story of several African-American women scientists who rose to significant contributions in NASA's Space Program during the early 60s Space Race and later on. In the Oscars' narrow spectrum of what constitutes an Oscar-worthy movie, I'd rank this as the "Hallmark Channel type" (think Trumbo last year or My Week With Marilyn a while ago), nonetheless there's some sense of balance in covering the lifestories, the racial frictions of the period, the sentimental tones of the protagonists' conflicts or the strong acting. Guaranteed crowd-pleaser, but will I remember it in a month's time, even? No I won't. Can't lie about that.
Jackie (link), which started as a Venice Filmfest contender, but it was quite inevitable to end up in the Oscars' race as well (though it may have gotten less attention than expected - only Actress, Costume and Score nods). It covers with kaleidoscopic narrative jumps a fragment from Jackie Kennedy's life, between JFK's assassination, dealing with the aftermath of it, his funerals and opening up to the media (her Life interview with Theodore H. White). Given that it's made by Chilean director Pablo Larrain, there are certain good things you could expect: some degree of visual stylistic prowess (stemming all the way back to his 2012 pretty great No, which was intentionally shot to capture the 80s televisual period style; here, there is also a visual sheen that allows for smooth transitions between fictional movie scenery and original media footage) and some elements of a non-standard approach to creating a biopic. Then again, it was also bound to be more mainstream and have soft touches, compared to his arthouse, unflinchingly bitter El Club (which I reviewed a while ago). If you're ready to say this has Oscarbait written all over it, I would say Natalie Portman does an honest hard work and approximation in her acting and the directorial approach is also indiscriminate between honoring the former First Lady's persona and challenging the concepts of her public image, grace, grief and pretension, at the same time. But since the whole movie centers around a Life interview that even its writer later disavowed (Wiki: "White later described his comparison of JFK to Camelot as the result of kindness to a distraught widow of a just-assassinated leader, and wrote that his essay was a "misreading of history."), it's hard to not imagine that this movie also has a serious spoonful of fantasy.
La La Land (link) is a fine musical. A great one even, if you happen to enjoy life, music, colors, romance, puppies, kittens, Les parapluies de Cherbourg, ice cream, chocolate, rainbows.
But for a different view on it, read it below in spoilers at your own discretion
[/Mongoose]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Manchester by the Sea (link) In light of having just cut deep into most of the movies above, you'll probably hate me for colouring this one a bit better, given that it's close to Infinite Sadness - The Movie, about a reclusive, divorced man with a troubled past who must deal with becoming the guardian of his nephew, once his brother passes away. One thing I was surprised is that I didn't recognize its director, Kenneth Lonergan, from his previous effort, Margaret, which I couldn't stand. This one fares slightly better, although the dramatic overtones feel just as implacable. Casey Affleck does a noteworthy performance on a multitude of shades of grey, so to speak: cloistered, bitter, mopey, grieving, profoundly depressed; quite small oscillations there. This is a slow burn of a story and while it could be labeled as "redemptory drama", it might still leave you wondering towards its end. You'd probably understand better if you saw it or will see it. Which you should. At least once.
And finally for this week, Moonlight (B- or maybe B color, idk yet) (link), the critically beloved three-part chronicle (literal transitions between child, adolescent and adult phases) of a black young man and his struggles with social inclusion and with his own sensitivities and sexual identity (hint: it's homosexuality). If there are movies I'd rewatch, it'd be probably be Jackie and this one. For one, it went by so fast, bewildering me with its soft, straight, but at the same time sparse, elliptical narrative. Sometimes it has more minutes of silence and visual-sensorial or gestical flickers than substantial dialogue. If that's meant to be the concentrated essence of this highly poetic and feeble movie, pretty sweet, but I still have to decide whether its themes are broad or archetypal.
So my new week of movie-watching proved quite the Oscarbait fest, especially given the predictable-in-all-regards nominations that were announced, but before I slash err dive into them with my much-to-be-expected cynicism and niggling, let me quickly mention a carry over from the previous week, that I forgot to write anything about, a 2014 adaptation of Madame Bovary (link), done with precious, pedantic filmmaking, but coming off uninspiring and rather dull - plus settling for a disorienting mix of English accents, which to disconnect from any possible original book flavor. Now, I understand empathy (or lack of) towards the protagonist and her condition / tragic story is a debatable issue in the novel, nevertheless I still felt the movie achieved the wrong notes on that. There is some distancing effect in the scenic and social boredom that's portrayed, but it almost veers into navalgazing, followed in the last act by pretty run-of-the-mill overdramatic crescendos. Mia Wasikowska's performance is kinda frost and all the men around her are complete no faces, whether it was Lloyd-Hughes who might have worked too hard on getting the most-boring-man-on-the-planet act right, the hipster romantic Ezra Miller or the prince macho Logan Marshall-Green. Perhaps one exception was Rhys Ifans, as the web-spinning, cold conniving Monsieur Lheureux. Yeah, I'll put him down as the MVP in this case.
====
Now, while I still have a few more movies to check, the internet has blessed with enough screeners this week to ascertain that Hollywood has outdone itself to be even more lackluster with its awards season crop than last year. Even the ones that I did like from this list feel a bit like getting a bye, due to how much there is to complain about the rest.
Hacksaw Ridge (link), Mel Gibson's return to directing and (given the reputation slump he's been during the past years) big-budget, accolade-grabbing works, adapting the story of Desmond Doss, a conscientous objector who enlisted despite his beliefs during WWII and served and saved lives straight on the battlefield of Okinawa. This topic honestly makes perfect material for both inspirational biopic-making and, given that it's Gibson we're talking about, war movie gruesomeness - and this combination is fairly straight. All the dramatic tropes and cheese are inserted to quickly cover Doss' life, romantic interests and moral challenges in joining the military, after which it's queasy time, as the war act unfolds with graphic violence and hecticism, Doss even disappearing for a while from the center of attention, until returning for his main shot, Oscar please grand climax. There's talk about how, for a movie centered on moral objections towards war and violence, Gibson's delights for gritty, bloody imagery almost thwart that message - and it's hard to argue against that. Andrew Garfield comes off a bit hammy in the biographical stages, but once thrown in the battle zone, I found his energy and acting much better. The movie also periodically makes you suffer through Vince Vaughn with his serious-acting-face on. Aaarrrrrrrrrggggggghhh. All in all, given that his last film, 10 yeas ago, was the controversial, but substantial and unique Apocalypto, this one feels quite lazy and drenched in cheap Gibsonian moves.
Hidden Figures (link) Honest, simple movie on the story of several African-American women scientists who rose to significant contributions in NASA's Space Program during the early 60s Space Race and later on. In the Oscars' narrow spectrum of what constitutes an Oscar-worthy movie, I'd rank this as the "Hallmark Channel type" (think Trumbo last year or My Week With Marilyn a while ago), nonetheless there's some sense of balance in covering the lifestories, the racial frictions of the period, the sentimental tones of the protagonists' conflicts or the strong acting. Guaranteed crowd-pleaser, but will I remember it in a month's time, even? No I won't. Can't lie about that.
Jackie (link), which started as a Venice Filmfest contender, but it was quite inevitable to end up in the Oscars' race as well (though it may have gotten less attention than expected - only Actress, Costume and Score nods). It covers with kaleidoscopic narrative jumps a fragment from Jackie Kennedy's life, between JFK's assassination, dealing with the aftermath of it, his funerals and opening up to the media (her Life interview with Theodore H. White). Given that it's made by Chilean director Pablo Larrain, there are certain good things you could expect: some degree of visual stylistic prowess (stemming all the way back to his 2012 pretty great No, which was intentionally shot to capture the 80s televisual period style; here, there is also a visual sheen that allows for smooth transitions between fictional movie scenery and original media footage) and some elements of a non-standard approach to creating a biopic. Then again, it was also bound to be more mainstream and have soft touches, compared to his arthouse, unflinchingly bitter El Club (which I reviewed a while ago). If you're ready to say this has Oscarbait written all over it, I would say Natalie Portman does an honest hard work and approximation in her acting and the directorial approach is also indiscriminate between honoring the former First Lady's persona and challenging the concepts of her public image, grace, grief and pretension, at the same time. But since the whole movie centers around a Life interview that even its writer later disavowed (Wiki: "White later described his comparison of JFK to Camelot as the result of kindness to a distraught widow of a just-assassinated leader, and wrote that his essay was a "misreading of history."), it's hard to not imagine that this movie also has a serious spoonful of fantasy.
La La Land (link) is a fine musical. A great one even, if you happen to enjoy life, music, colors, romance, puppies, kittens, Les parapluies de Cherbourg, ice cream, chocolate, rainbows.
But for a different view on it, read it below in spoilers at your own discretion
[/Mongoose]
~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
Spoiler: show
And finally for this week, Moonlight (B- or maybe B color, idk yet) (link), the critically beloved three-part chronicle (literal transitions between child, adolescent and adult phases) of a black young man and his struggles with social inclusion and with his own sensitivities and sexual identity (hint: it's homosexuality). If there are movies I'd rewatch, it'd be probably be Jackie and this one. For one, it went by so fast, bewildering me with its soft, straight, but at the same time sparse, elliptical narrative. Sometimes it has more minutes of silence and visual-sensorial or gestical flickers than substantial dialogue. If that's meant to be the concentrated essence of this highly poetic and feeble movie, pretty sweet, but I still have to decide whether its themes are broad or archetypal.
- Mon Jan 23, 2017 9:18 am
- Forum: Tinsel Town
- Topic: Rate the last movie you've seen
- Replies: 274
- Views: 31928
Re: Rate the last movie you've seen
8/10 is pretty high and quite the opposite of something you don't think you enjoying as much as you should have k.Vompatti wrote:The last movie I saw was The Woman in the Dunes but I don't think I enjoyed it as much as I should have. So I give 8/10 to the movie and 4/10 to myself.
I'd say 7/10 and I enjoyed it as much as I enjoyed the book.
- Sat Jan 21, 2017 8:54 am
- Forum: Tinsel Town
- Topic: Rate the last movie you've seen
- Replies: 274
- Views: 31928
Re: Rate the last movie you've seen
A/A- / B+ / B / B- / C / D / F / No rating
The Birth of a Nation (link), the heavily dramatized and partly historical depiction of the life of Nat Turner, an enslaved African American worker and preacher, who led a short-lived but echoing rebellion in the mid-19th Century. It's hard to judge the movie after one sitting, but at the same time, it's hard to tell how soon the second viewing might come. It's a directorial debut from Nat Parker and that in itself may be the source of both admirable and less good things about it. It has the passion to lay out a thorough, epic story and experience, but also the uneven ambition to hit all the high notes of drama and visual candy on max. It's grand, but also lavish and pompous at times. It sort of wants to be both 12 Years of Slave, in nuancing the scale of good and evil, prejudice and righteousness, (small) fortunes and (great) injustice, inside the universe of slavery, and Django Unchained, in building it up to a revenge plot, plus something alike Braveheart, in the tragic moral trials and emphatic defiance of the leading hero. It centers so heavily on Nat Turner, it blurs the lines between character study and iconography - not to mention between Nat Turner the character and Nat Parker the actor that wants to, again, hit all the notes. It no doubt wants to be a political statement, in addition to its typical biographical powerhouse drama - with its cheeky borrow of a title from Griffith's 1915's heavily racist movie and the feeling of surfing the current period of racial insecurity and Black Lives Matter wave. It doesn't shy away from depicting tragedy, cruelty and horrors, but it does shy away, as far as I understand, from certain or complete accuracies. So all in all, a both standard and questionable drama. Notable, yet flawed.
Tickled (link), a documentary with some buzz I figured I should check out. I see that its trailer is fairly generous in giving you some ideas of what happens, so up to a point I feel I can describe it without getting it spoiled - plus the documentary did / should prove rewarding in its further reveals, as well. Basically, a New Zealander journalist in search of a new bizzare/funny entertainment scoop comes across a site dedicated to "Competitive Endurance Tickling", only to be met with adversity and both legal and social harassment from the mysterious owners. At which point he decides to investigate in full and document the whole process on camera. One element missing the most is the cinematic flair, which I feel some recent documentaries were able to bring in equal measures to their content, so it relies on the investigative format and efforts above all else. But in this regard, it's one hell of a pandora box opened from a mere curiosity for a ha-ha material, revealing the extents of a business' power and bullying, plus some uncanny levels of human fetishism, injustice and sociopathy that may unknowingly surround us in the world.
===
Then, continuing from last week, another couple of rewatches, that either didn't work or didn't move me the previous times, yet were kept in my folder since:
Der Himmer über Berlin (Wings of Desire) (link), another 80s movie by Wim Wenders (I talked about Paris, Texas last week), with an imaginative, humane close-up of the lives of inhabitants of West Berlin, still divided at that time - guardian angels living amongst the humans, eavesdropping to their desires, problems, insecurities, or even getting immersed themselves in their lifestyle. Sounds so poetic and fantasy-like, I should love it, and yet it feels like a two-hour long drag, plus makes me wonder if it is that rich of a human introspection and urban ode. 'Cause somehow, I'm not feeling it.
Bergman's Winter Light (link), third attempt. Still not ready to put a colour on it, but it's improving with each viewing. Right now, I'm a bit shaken by the intricacy of human expressions and meanings in most scenes, gestures or script passages. As if the whole movie is subliminal towards deeper messages (and the answer to that is probably yes). In some cases, making me wonder if it's full sarcasm or just incertitude towards faith that's being suggested via a certain line of dialogue or expression. But the movie certainly projects an inner inquest over religion and the trials of human love, compassion and guidance.
Yoidore tenshi (Drunken Angel) (link), an early Kurosawa movie and the first of his to star Toshiro Mifune. It's incredible to think how inspired Kurosawa was to audition and cast Mifune, given that the latter exhibited already so much fiery skills and swagger, as a tough-acting and reckless, yet soul-suffering and disease-stricken lad. Furthermore, there's so much electricity in the interactions between him and a choleric, yet good-hearted doctor (Takashi Shimura) who wants to aid him. Alas, as the later acts develop, with more elements of yakuza conflict and endless backs and forths of the protagonist's recovery and perdition, meant to emphasize a tragic plot, it still can't hold my attention all the way through. The movie also has inserts of imported Western cultural elements that are supposedly meant to be politically charged, since this was made during the occupation years.
===
Finally, a new movie called Certain Women (link), which quite literally anthologizes, short story like (and the original source for this film does indeed seem to be a book in that format), three tales of, uhm, certain women (played by Laura Dern, Michelle Williams, Kirsten Stewart and Lily Gladstone), each having to cope either with work-related challenges, family issues, loneliness or existential stress. Their storylines are supposed to be also intertwined, but honestly, the connections are so minor, I doubt it's a serious element. If the movie was meant to be this slow-paced, intimate and weightless, highlighting the reverberations of human emotions in a more larger, more mundane setting encompassing them, that's all nice, but I struggled to find the richness and depth in this.
The Birth of a Nation (link), the heavily dramatized and partly historical depiction of the life of Nat Turner, an enslaved African American worker and preacher, who led a short-lived but echoing rebellion in the mid-19th Century. It's hard to judge the movie after one sitting, but at the same time, it's hard to tell how soon the second viewing might come. It's a directorial debut from Nat Parker and that in itself may be the source of both admirable and less good things about it. It has the passion to lay out a thorough, epic story and experience, but also the uneven ambition to hit all the high notes of drama and visual candy on max. It's grand, but also lavish and pompous at times. It sort of wants to be both 12 Years of Slave, in nuancing the scale of good and evil, prejudice and righteousness, (small) fortunes and (great) injustice, inside the universe of slavery, and Django Unchained, in building it up to a revenge plot, plus something alike Braveheart, in the tragic moral trials and emphatic defiance of the leading hero. It centers so heavily on Nat Turner, it blurs the lines between character study and iconography - not to mention between Nat Turner the character and Nat Parker the actor that wants to, again, hit all the notes. It no doubt wants to be a political statement, in addition to its typical biographical powerhouse drama - with its cheeky borrow of a title from Griffith's 1915's heavily racist movie and the feeling of surfing the current period of racial insecurity and Black Lives Matter wave. It doesn't shy away from depicting tragedy, cruelty and horrors, but it does shy away, as far as I understand, from certain or complete accuracies. So all in all, a both standard and questionable drama. Notable, yet flawed.
Tickled (link), a documentary with some buzz I figured I should check out. I see that its trailer is fairly generous in giving you some ideas of what happens, so up to a point I feel I can describe it without getting it spoiled - plus the documentary did / should prove rewarding in its further reveals, as well. Basically, a New Zealander journalist in search of a new bizzare/funny entertainment scoop comes across a site dedicated to "Competitive Endurance Tickling", only to be met with adversity and both legal and social harassment from the mysterious owners. At which point he decides to investigate in full and document the whole process on camera. One element missing the most is the cinematic flair, which I feel some recent documentaries were able to bring in equal measures to their content, so it relies on the investigative format and efforts above all else. But in this regard, it's one hell of a pandora box opened from a mere curiosity for a ha-ha material, revealing the extents of a business' power and bullying, plus some uncanny levels of human fetishism, injustice and sociopathy that may unknowingly surround us in the world.
===
Then, continuing from last week, another couple of rewatches, that either didn't work or didn't move me the previous times, yet were kept in my folder since:
Der Himmer über Berlin (Wings of Desire) (link), another 80s movie by Wim Wenders (I talked about Paris, Texas last week), with an imaginative, humane close-up of the lives of inhabitants of West Berlin, still divided at that time - guardian angels living amongst the humans, eavesdropping to their desires, problems, insecurities, or even getting immersed themselves in their lifestyle. Sounds so poetic and fantasy-like, I should love it, and yet it feels like a two-hour long drag, plus makes me wonder if it is that rich of a human introspection and urban ode. 'Cause somehow, I'm not feeling it.
Bergman's Winter Light (link), third attempt. Still not ready to put a colour on it, but it's improving with each viewing. Right now, I'm a bit shaken by the intricacy of human expressions and meanings in most scenes, gestures or script passages. As if the whole movie is subliminal towards deeper messages (and the answer to that is probably yes). In some cases, making me wonder if it's full sarcasm or just incertitude towards faith that's being suggested via a certain line of dialogue or expression. But the movie certainly projects an inner inquest over religion and the trials of human love, compassion and guidance.
Yoidore tenshi (Drunken Angel) (link), an early Kurosawa movie and the first of his to star Toshiro Mifune. It's incredible to think how inspired Kurosawa was to audition and cast Mifune, given that the latter exhibited already so much fiery skills and swagger, as a tough-acting and reckless, yet soul-suffering and disease-stricken lad. Furthermore, there's so much electricity in the interactions between him and a choleric, yet good-hearted doctor (Takashi Shimura) who wants to aid him. Alas, as the later acts develop, with more elements of yakuza conflict and endless backs and forths of the protagonist's recovery and perdition, meant to emphasize a tragic plot, it still can't hold my attention all the way through. The movie also has inserts of imported Western cultural elements that are supposedly meant to be politically charged, since this was made during the occupation years.
===
Finally, a new movie called Certain Women (link), which quite literally anthologizes, short story like (and the original source for this film does indeed seem to be a book in that format), three tales of, uhm, certain women (played by Laura Dern, Michelle Williams, Kirsten Stewart and Lily Gladstone), each having to cope either with work-related challenges, family issues, loneliness or existential stress. Their storylines are supposed to be also intertwined, but honestly, the connections are so minor, I doubt it's a serious element. If the movie was meant to be this slow-paced, intimate and weightless, highlighting the reverberations of human emotions in a more larger, more mundane setting encompassing them, that's all nice, but I struggled to find the richness and depth in this.