View Full Version : Superb Scenes With Seanc
Sean's Reviews/Film Diary
http://i.imgur.com/P62XQZI.jpg
Full Reviews (http://www.movieforums.com/reviews/search/any/higher/any/seanc)
Year In Review (Top Tens)
2013 (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=1024398#post1024398)
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRlNBfv9lNICEhn00Xe2xlQPzrRv8Ef1cgZMOYKx1V019tFHJhaLw
4
Director: David O Russell
Cast: Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence, Robert De Niro, Jackie Weaver
There are always at least a few movies a year that at first glance appear to be typical Hollywood fare, but manage to bring something a little more original and nuanced to their story. Silver Linings Playbook is one of those films for me. I really love the characters in this movie. Our two protagonists are each dealing with mental illness, each have lost their spouses, and each have difficult family dynamics to deal with. What strikes me most about the two main characters is their devotion. How Pat's devotion to his wife plays out over the course of the film is especially endearing.
There are some problems with this film. As expected in the final act the movie falls into some romantic comedy tropes. There are not many things that frustrate me more in a movie than characters being thrust into contrived situations that could be solved by a simple conversation, and we see this a couple of times in Silver Linings. We also get an unexpected twist right before the third act that not only feels out of place in the story arc but also is completely unnecessary. My last major issue with this movie is a trigger that we learn Pat has very early in the film. as soon as we are given this information we know that it will be used as a plot device later in the film. Sure enough it is but thankfully only once , and the experience is relatively painless.
All of the supporting characters in Silver Linings look at Pat and Tiffany as if they are different, as if they are time bombs waiting to explode. As the story progresses and we see the flaws in many of the supporting players, most notably Pat's father and brother and Tiffany's sister and brother-in-law, we see where many of their issues came from. We also see that all of us have some sort of psychosis even if it manifests itself in different ways. The primary remedy is building our relationships with an understanding that they will be as imperfect as we are. This is the main theme in Silver Linings Playbook and ultimately what makes this an engaging film worth visiting.
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSE6wdf5c-DeCOEW4hDvV7M3RJR2sNNl4ETJiBlnWLbueSDPTUh
3.5
Director: Akira Kurosawa
This was my first Kurosawa film and I was not disappointed. I am not one to talk about film length very often, I think a film should be however long it takes the director to tell the story. I will admit however when I fired up Seven Samurai on Hulu and 3:46 appeared at the bottom I was very worried. Making it through a 1954 foreign language action film of this length did not seem like something i was ready for. Kurosawa however doesn't waste a scene in this film even if many scenes are a little more on the nose than I would prefer.
My problems with the film are the same problems that I have with a lot of classic films. All of our characters are one dimensional which makes them fairly predictable. We know what purpose they will serve in the plot almost from the moment we meet them, to the point where we can predict which characters are probable to live and which will likely die.
I also have an issue with the portrayal of the peasants in this film. The peasants are the center of our story and are treated with disdain by all of the characters around them. While this is understandable in the context of the film, I felt throughout that Kurosawa treated them the same way. Every peasant, except possibly one, in this film is treated like a fearful moron. Often they are seen running around aimlessly babbling incoherently to each other. When they do engage our heroes in conversation they have nothing to add to the process that is transpiring. There is no better evidence of this than in one of our seven heroes. As soon as we meet this character we know he will be a part of our group, yet he is always treated like a punch line. He is treated like that by the other characters because he is written like that by our story teller. In one of the plot twists midway through the film it is revealed he is a peasant. This comes as no surprise because of the seven samurai he is the most peasant like. Each character must fit into a stereotype.
What engaged me in this film is the glimpse into the culture as well as the cinematography. For a movie made in 1954 it looks amazing. We are transported into this world through the landscapes, through the poverty that is portrayed visually, and through the way the characters interact with one another. Kurosawa also does a fantastic job with the action in this film. In a movie that the plot revolves entirely around a village protecting itself it would have been easy to just piece action scene after action scene together. Kurosawa never does this, the action is always handled in a very intelligent way. Giving us just what we need to get the next part of the story.
Overall I enjoyed this film quite a bit, and am looking forward to seeing more of Kurosawa's work. I am reluctant to give classic films like this star ratings, as they rarely engage me the way they need to emotionally to warrant consideration in my favorites, or multiple viewings. This film reminds me of Citizen Kane in that I respect it more than I love it, and will probably reference it more than I will watch it.
rauldc14
01-26-13, 06:51 PM
I thought Silver Linings Playbook was quite the solid film too. I gave it a 7.5/10 upon first viewing and it's my favorite thus far of the oscar contenders.
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSupk6P0dw1uNZPN0ASKH4fr63Z6vz_S-PTxxWJMIdwxVKWfPaNbA
4
Director: Kathryn Bigelow
Cast: Jessica Chastain, Joel Edgerton, Chris Pratt, Jason Clarke
Let's get the tough stuff out of the way right away. I don't feel that Zero Dark Thirty is "pro torture" on any level. Bigelow presents torture as an element of what transpired in the CIA's search for Bin Laden. Our protagonist never appears to be completely comfortable with the process, and while she does receive a name through this process there is no evidence that she would not have received this information otherwise. I also find irony in the fact that all the controversy surrounds the CIA's interrogation technique and not the invasion of a home where people are shot in the back, and where Bin Laden may or may not be.
While I did not love this movie as much as some have, I did enjoy it a lot and feel overall it is a well above average film. The performances are very good across the board. Clarke and Chastain are the standouts. Again I feel that overall the excellence of Chastain's performance is being overstated, she is none the less giving an above average performance. My problem with the film lies entirely in the pacing of the first half. This is a procedural and we are given lots of important information through the first half, but for me it felt a little slow getting there. I enjoy slow and contemplative, if I am getting a lot of character development in the process. Here however I feel the characters, while not uninteresting, are slightly under developed.
The final third of this film is the highlight for me. Watching Chastain's intensity ramp up as she gets closer and closer to her goal was immensely entertaining. When we are introduced to Seal Team Six the intensity steps up another notch as we know we are getting closer to our goal. There are also some nice lighthearted moments as Chastain's character interacts with the Seals. Finally we get our climactic scene and it is the best action that I have seen in a theater since I can remember. Our final shot is well earned, and the best ending to any movie in 2012. Bigelow once again has more than proven herself in a male dominated genre. I look forward to seeing whatever she may do next.
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRcog73tcgJJxbxCqZW5GOhZ87GNTtvLuV0cZccItF2bv4cNvS3Dg
3
Director: Abbas Kiarostami
The story of a man on trial for impersonating a famous director at the expense of an Iranian family. Kiarostami expertly weaves intrigue into what could have been a rather bland narrative. It's hard to get a sense of what is real and what is not, and there in lies the beauty of Kiarostami's dialogue.
While the way this story plays out will surely intrigue you, it will also prohibit you from ever being emotionally tied to any of the characters or the story. Ultimately I want to know how things end up for the main character and the family, but I don't care what happens to any of them.
Our sense of reality is further blurred after the final verdict comes in.The outcome that we have expected is flipped around and where we end up is not at all where we expected to be. Ultimately I enjoyed this film and would recommend it to anyone who enjoys a strong dialogue driven movie.
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT0NiH9F0o5DA9RUajzGASN7Nd10N5XGJliRfARQSW_Tx23Sp3i7A
3.5
Director:Abbas Kiarostami
In normal Kiarostami fashion he takes what is a straight forward mundane narrative and weaves in intriguing relationships and dialogue. Our protagonist is on a mission and needs assistance with his task. He circles what seems to be a relatively small work site in his vehicle looking for the right person. As he interacts with the characters he chooses, most of whom turn him down for various reasons, we get more questions than answers.
Although each person is picked up for the same purpose, each are very different people. Why he would choose them and their perspective on his situation is what drives the film. Through each encounter we are given little glimpses into the main characters life. More times than not we are left wondering if he knew the outcome before they entered his vehicle, and if he has had previous relationships with them.
Although we are left wishing that we had more information on what set our main character on his quest, we have real investment on how it will end. As in other Kiarostami films we are given a quite ambiguous ending. In Taste Of Cherry the journey is the thing and that is good by me.
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQIZz6DU7_kOWNiMJKj2Luw6jL1NOMB_Kv-Fa64i-RtBsxjPg5A
1
Director: David France
How To Survive A Plague follows the group ACT Up as they fight the powers that be and their response to the Aids epidemic. The group wants more money to be put into Aids research. They want access to experimental drugs the FDA will not approve. They are more than willing to humiliate anyone they view as the enemy to prove how serious they are. Mostly they just humiliate themselves.
In my estimation you must show two sides of a subject to consider yourself a documentary. We see maybe two or three shots of various politicians saying slightly inflammatory things and this is the only opposing perspective we receive. Then in the the final half hour of the film we see our heroes admitting that most everything they did during the first hour and a half was misguided, but they redeem themselves with their actions at the end. There is no evidence in this film that the group Act Up had anything to do with the progress that has been made in Aids research. Their is also no evidence in this film that the politicians that they demonize stalled Aids research in any way. I'm sure that this film is getting the positive publicity that it is because it revolves around the scariest most deadly disease of the last 30-40 years. However if you are going to pass your film off as a documentary, as pure fact, and not an editorial then you need to give me some facts to hold on to. This is no documentary.
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQs4zReiuYYLlMyu5lTfrCiv5zF3dhdg4E2sjr3qlDSveZaFTvbmw
2.5
Director: Bart Layton
This documentary follows the disturbing story of a family and their missing 13 year old son. They think their life has returned to them when their lost son is found in Spain. This is just the beginning of one of the most outlandish stories of crime that you will ever hear.
The details of the events are given to us in little bites. Each step more bewildering than the last. Each new player makes us wonder how anyone could be so blind, careless, and just plain stupid. There are a couple of intriguing twists in the last third of the story that make this film worth the watch. There is one shot in particular where no dialogue is used that perfectly sums up this film. But overall this documentary simply plays out like a high concept episode of 48 Hours.
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSf50if8eQrBj7Fo1vndIpx47Un10fxkJbW694hxhBnM_KQXGtO
4.5
2002 Director: Fernando Meirelles, Katia Lund
City of God follows the fortunes of a group of children growing up in a poor, crime infested part of Rio de Janeiro. The story centers mainly around two characters. Each with very similar lives, but who take vastly different paths. This juxtaposition is what drives the narrative in City Of God, and what makes it so compelling.
Rocket feels out of place in the world he lives. He wants to be a photographer. We know from the moment we meet him that he longs to rise above the horrendous poverty and crime that envelopes him. He stands out in this world, others are naturally drawn to his soft temperament and demeanor even if they don't realize the reason. Rocket does not readily have the means to rise above this world so consequently he comes across many stumbling blocks in his life. One of the more interesting sequences in the film is when Rocket concludes that he has no other options than to resort to the life most of his peers have. How this decision plays out results in some of the more lighthearted moments in City Of God. While Rocket's path may not be more interesting than others in the story, it is the most sympathetic.
Li'l Ze is the polar opposite of Rocket. He doesn't long to rise above this world, he longs to rule over it. The perverse crime and violence he sees all around him doesn't hinder him, it compels him. Li'l Ze earns the kind of respect that comes from brute force, and he learns these tactics at a frighteningly young age. If Li'l Ze is going to be a criminal he is determined to the most powerful criminal in the City of God. This is his only motivation, and what he allows to define his existence.
There are many other characters in City Of God. This film has lots of moving parts. However most of the other players move within the framework of the two main characters. Rocket and Li'l Ze are the black and white of the movie, while the other characters represent the shades of gray. It is an interesting way to tell a story, and works exceptionally well here.
If I have an issue with City of God it is with the way the movie was shot. We get very few static shots in this film. Everything is quick cuts and shaky camera. While this style never completely keeps me from enjoying a film, it can detract from my enjoyment some. It is very hard to get a sense of time and place when this style is employed, City if God was no exception to this. It also make it difficult to differentiate between the good and bad acting within this style. I suppose this can work positively for the director, but I still consider it a detriment.
Overall I would consider City of God a great crime drama. The story is extremely well told, with many interesting memorable characters. This is the kind of movie that is still with you weeks or months after you see it. I am looking forward to revisiting it in the future.
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTItqdXwPzrSZzJKhSuNQ3PUwRoxLIDJI6reKTt6izJ_APPv3oA
2
Director: Allen Hughes
Broken City is a predictable, unimaginative thriller. Admittedly there were things to like in the first third of the film. The premise is pretty standard fare, but there are a couple of relationships that had me feeling that the movie was headed somewhere. Of particular interest was Billy's (Wahlberg) relationship with his girlfriend and her family.
Broken City soon fall of the rails however. What could have been an entertaining puzzle to watch fit together is handed to our protagonist on a silver platter. There are 2 or 3 scenes that are so ill conceived they destroy any chance that this film had of making viewers or the characters put forth any intellectual effort at all. A film with Crowe, Pepper, and Chandler has to work pretty hard for me not to enjoy it. Whalberg and Jones are both also more than capable if given the right roles. All are wasted here, and what we are left with is another forgettable Hollywood thriller.
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSVsfwu1C5QqEci1XloPI4E845ZG0-z2sVCJb0aZ_P1xxgviS3rNg
1
2012 Director: Leos Carax
Holy Motors is a day in the life of a performer. We see Oscar (Lavant) picked up by his driver/assistant, he is told that he has a certain number of appointments that he must attend throughout his day. Soon after we learn that at each appointment he is to play a new character. Who he is performing for and why he is performing is for the viewer to decide for themselves. There in lies my problem with Holy Motors. There is no narrative to speak of, and there is no character development. Unless of course you consider the fact that Oscar becomes exhausted from all of his appointments character development.
There is one positive in Holy Motors, and that is Denis Lavant. He transitions flawlessly from one character to the next, and portrays each character convincingly. I would say that Lavant is giving my second favorite performance of 2012, next to Day-Lewis in Lincoln. However once again my issue becomes that I am given no reason to care about any of the characters he is portraying. It's as if I am watching a very good audition. If I was casting a movie I would hire Lavant, if I'm looking to enjoy a film for two hours, no thanks.
Holy Motors is deliberately bizarre and surreal so there is an audience that it is appealing too. I am just not that audience which I'm sure is no skin off Carax's back. For me Holy Motors is simply artistic masturbation.
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTvo762t53lNWuU59O9BHok8O6BFD9wmWZ-m6QE1HbFHH-61lo5
3.5
2012 Director: Craig Zobel
Compliance is the chilling true story of a young fast food worker who is accused of stealing from one of the restaurants patrons. A phone call is made to the restaurants manager, who is then requested to assist in the investigation. The entire story takes place within the confines of the restaurants back room. What transpires over the course of a couple of hours will have you running to the internet to see how much of this true story was fabricated for dramatic license. The answer appears to be none of it. Which is not only bewildering but also terrifying.
For a film that is made by a relatively unknown writer and director and stars relatively unknown character actors Compliance is very well done. Zobel does a good job of giving us a sense of the environment that the characters reside in through subtle static shots. We are also given short glimpses into the characters lives which is allows for us to connect with them enough to be invested in the outcome of the story. This becomes very important as the story builds, and most of the characters become unsympathetic. Zobel also does a nice job of building the tension and drama in the movie. If you read about these events separate of the film you will have a hard time believing that any human could ever be so ignorant as these characters. However the events are a slow burn and Zobel does a great job of illustrating this. You will still be left shaking your head, but the events do seem more plausible as presented here.
While Compliance is not a life altering movie it is very well done and worth your time. Compliance is a story that evokes sympathy, anger, and bewilderment all at once. That is a story worth telling.
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQGWsWYYUbGdSVAfPCappGd_NFR6ZJEEN-6qx2nYwRz75Ob8-qzsA
1
March 2013 Director: Sam Raimi
It's March and there is finally a film released in 2013 that I was looking forward to going to the theater and watching. My expectations for this film were not super high, I certainly would never expect it to live up to the original which is one of the greatest films of all time. I expected a respectable origin story, great visuals, and maybe a few easter eggs thrown in for fans of the original. With Raimi directing two of the better young actors working today, and two other more than capable actresses I didn't feel that my expectations were too high. I was blown away...with how poorly this film turned out.
In two hours plus there is no story here that we don't already know from the original material, none, the screen writing couldn't possibly have been lazier. The acting is bad, soap opera bad. Some may possibly give Franco or Williams a pass because of the material. However no one will give Kunis a pass when she is transformed into the wicked witch of the west. If you need a reminder of how an over the top stereotypical witch should be played go back and watch a few minutes of Margaret Hamilton's version.
There are several new characters introduced, as expected and as there should be. Unfortunately not one of them worked. Some are introduced for humor, some to tug at the heart strings, and some for plot devices. Not one of them is effective, and none of them are memorable.
Probably most disappointing of all were the visuals of the film. I know the 1939 version probably doesn't actually look better, but the fact that I had that thought several times during the course of the movie gives you a glimpse into how poor the visuals were. The only exception was the opening credits and first 20 minutes of the film. All this was the black and white portion of the movie. These are the only moments where it is not obvious that the actors are on a sound stage going through the motions.
The Wizard Of Oz was perfect family entertainment. Whimsical, humorous, frightening, and endearing. The characters were one dimensional, yes, but they were fun and we cared about them. Oz The Great And Powerful is none of these things. All I wanted was a glimpse back into aspects of the original. Instead I received my worst theater experience since Spiderman 3. Wait who was responsible for that one?
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSECVLjFbi7uZozcLOlQUDk-FePj2avrDGg0vJ615BT8iEdAr60
4.5
2011 Director: Asghar Farhadi
From the opening scene of A Separation I knew I would enjoy this film. The dialogue is smart and ambiguous. The shot is framed so that all your attention is focused on the two characters, you are hanging on every word. Invested in what emotion they are conveying and thus invested in them as characters right from the beginning. So it goes with A Separation a dialogue, character driven Iranian film that will have you invested throughout.
The driving force behind this film is conflict. Nearly every character that comes in contact with each other has some sort of conflict at some point. How they react to the conflict engages us and drives the narrative forward. A Separation also makes nearly every character both sympathetic and unsympathetic at the same time. At any given time we are mostly unaware of who is lying and whether their motives are pure.
As an American viewer I was also quite intrigued at some of the cultural conflict in this film. There is a married couple who are devout Muslims and this informs many of the decisions they make throughout the film. Their conflict as a result of their beliefs is not something that most of us can relate to. Even the religious devout in our culture would not allow these things to become a point of contention. For an outsider this definitely added to my intrigue within the film.
A Separation is a well made intriguing drama. The writing is superb. The acting is very good, especially Maadi. While the visuals are not particularly note worthy, the scenes are framed very well, in a way that engages the viewer. A Separation is a must view for any film lover.
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRr7sF8C62hhBjxc1yn7pJki0xGfe9T4fgFELbDTY81G0sXK_PT
3
2011 Director: Jeff Nichols
Take Shelter is the story of one man's quest to protect his family from an impending storm. Curtis (Shannon) begins to have premonitions that a storm is coming to destroy his world. These premonitions become so real that Curtis begins to prepare a shelter for the storm. Curtis is also fully aware that his premonitions may not be real. At the same time he is preparing his shelter he is also seeking help for what may just be delusions.
This is the strength of Take Shelter. This film is superbly acted, and the story is laid out with precision. Going through the struggle with Curtis and his family is tense and mesmerizing. We know early on that Curtis is having these premonitions, but the way way Nichols unfolds the story, we are never quite sure when the real storm is coming.
While I enjoyed many aspects of Take Shelter I didn't connect with it in the way I do in films I enjoy the most. Usually I know immediately why I don't connect emotionally with a film, with Take Shelter I am having a hard time pinpointing the reason. Overall I think the story just feels a little dry, and although the tone of the movie is pretty tense the stakes just never felt as high as they could. A fine film, and a worthy watch, but in the end average.
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR03RWkzZjT3_6WwISAEZNRYRDaO1u-RNJYNIUi-TFKaUNaremb
0.5
2013 Director: Don Scardino
Full disclosure, I'm a Carell fan-boy, otherwise I wouldn't have gone anywhere near this movie. I should have stayed away. This is the type of comedy that has no appeal to my funny bone whatsoever. This film is trying desperately to be Anchorman but falls flat in every way. The first 20 minutes gives us a glimpse into the two main stars childhood. Presumably to give us some insight into the characters motivation, and to help us connect with them. Strike 1 and strike 2. Why would you spend 20 minutes of a comedy setting up your hero to be sympathetic to the audience if in the very next scene you plan on making him an unsympathetic egomaniac, inexplicable. Every single character in this movie except for Olivia Wilde's is played completely over the top. Correct that. Apparently they were told to play the character over the top, and then crank it up another notch.
Of course all of this is forgiveable in a comedy if it does the one thing that everyone expects, make us laugh. As you can probably already tell Wonderstone fails here as well. Two jokes landed for me in an hour and a half. When the name of Carrey's characters television show is revealed and the scene after the credits start rolling. Except for those not even a chuckle. It's the same way as I feel about The Office post Carell (in case your wondering why I'm a fan-boy).
Ouch! A shame to see such a brutal review for Burt Wonderstone. As a fan of Carell, and a worshipper of Carrey, I had high hopes but yet to see any really positive reviews for it. I've seen a few mentions of Carell perhaps being miscast, that for a character who is quite a douche it would have suited the likes of Will Ferrell or Vince Vaughn better. Also a few people saying that the story feels a bit late in the game seeing as it was 10+ years ago now that street magicians like David Blaine began to pop up
Oh and I thought Take Shelter was a great film.
Maybe Ferrell would have worked better, it seemed obvious that is what Carell was going for. The Blaine references didn't seem dated to me, just not funny. Except for the part I mentioned about the show name, I won't ruin it. Hopefully others will have a different experience. I don't have high hopes for comedies this year either if the trailers are any indication.
Take Shelter might have been an instance of my expectations being too high. I have heard so many great things. I certainly didn't dislike it, just a little dry for my taste. Love those type of endings though.
teeter_g
03-16-13, 11:23 PM
I enjoy reading your reviews! Your pretty good at it. I am a little disappointed to see Broken City got such a low rating. Not because I have seen it, but because I want to. I will still watch it of course, I just don't expect as much as I did. Also I loved City of God I thought it was amazing!
Thanks teeter, I don't feel pretty good at it but I enjoy it and I accept the compliment. City Of God was one of those films that had been on my watchlist for over a year because I had heard so much about it. Once I watched it I wondered what took me so long, great movie.
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTnEuECPxyCtK-Av2Np8nvwerYELwq6K-9QKF1XQHcKB4jLVpbN
4
2009 Director: Duncan Jones
Sam (Rockwell) works for the company that is responsible for producing most of the world's energy. Sounds like a great gig but there is a catch. He work on the moon, what's worse is he is stationed there for the duration of a three year contract with no interaction except for GERTY (Spacey) the computer that aids him in his work. Sam knows three years is too long, he desperately misses his wife and daughter. He has begun to have delusions, he tells GERTY he is worried because he has begun talking to himself. Things turn real bad when he takes a trip on a rover to fix a piece of machinery that has broken down. Sam crashes the rover and it is at this point that things start to become fuzzy not only for Sam but for the viewer.
Everything Moon is it owes to Rockwell. He is always a more than capable actor but outdoes himself in this role. The character he is playing goes through many extreme emotional states during the course of this film. Rockwell not only displays these emotions effectively but he keeps what could be an extreme character grounded enough that we continue to identify with him throughout the entire film. Spacey has a unique voice, one that doesn't always work to his advantage. It works perfectly here, the emoticons on GERTY are quite effective as well. Non-human characters are not an easy thing to pull off in film, but GERTY not only works it adds to the emotion of the film. If Moon has an issue it is in visuals. This was probably a low budget movie so I won't harp on it. I will say that everything inside the station is fine, everything outside the station less than fine.
Moon is a very effective character study. Grounded sci-fi is rare and Moon is better than most that have tried. Even the twists feel less jarring than they do in most movies. A must watch for any film fan.
I felt the same about Moon. Very impressive film. :yup:
And we actually ended up with identical ratings, a 4 in my review as well. Moon review (http://www.movieforums.com/community/showthread.php?p=874008)
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRIB2sWmesLMs5jPR5UnGMzyfqwWFA_ZwLlRslx_wjI0Ij40E1Q
4.5
Director: Daniel Lindsay, T.J. Martin
Undefeated is a documentary that follows a single season of a high school team in Memphis Tennessee, the Manassas Tigers. The film follows the whole team but really focuses in on four people, the coach and three players. One of the first things the coach says to the camera is, "football doesn't build character, football reveals character". This line may seem corny, but as we go on the journey with this team, and specifically these three players, we get an understanding of how true this line is.
All three of these kids come from difficult situations with more than their share of obstacles to overcome. As we watch their stories unfold in this short period of their life we feel like we get to know these players. We grow to care for them, we rejoice with them when they succeed and our heart breaks with them when their situations get the better of them. Their stories are the emotional crux of the film. To read their stories in a review would not do them justice, their stories need to be experienced within the film. It is a journey worth taking.
No less emotional is the story of the coach of this team. On the surface he may seem like one of a thousand coaches in this country, I can only hope this is the case. As the film unfolds and he shares more of his journey our respect for him grows and grows. Football is important to him, but way more important is the way he connects with the young men he coaches. he understands how important it is for young men to have an adult male to care for them, to connect with them, and to kick them in the butt when they need it. This coach seems to be a truly humble man with a true heart for the young men he coaches.
Undefeated is a great, emotional watch. Not only one of the best documentaries I have seen in a long time but one of the best movies I have seen in a long time.
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQp2p52tGysS8APsN8QcQkcCGdpgXsmnpWk2b93j9hwrVV2jfDh
2
Directors: Joel & Ethan Coen
Larry Gopnik is having a good old fashioned mid-life crisis. He is a physics professor, and it is safe to say his job is not all he wants it to be. His students seem disinterested and the one that is engaged is trying to bribe him for grades. His teenage children are self involved, imagine that, so he is getting little fulfillment on that front. His wife wants a get, a divorce to us non-jews, and to top that off he had no idea anything was wrong plus she wants to marry his friend. All this seems like drama ripe for entertainment in the hands of the Coens. In my opinion there is little entertainment to be had.
Where I think A Serious Man goes wrong is in it's character development. Besides our protagonist every other character in this film is severely under developed. In fact next to Larry I would say the next most developed character is Clive Park. He is the before mentioned student that tries to bribe Larry for a grade. The two scenes that Larry and Clive have together are the best in the film. This is unfortunate because they are very short, and Clive's situation amounts to little more than a plot device to be used later on in the story arc. Larry's whole family is ripe for drama and terribly underused, but the most egregious example of this his brother Arthur, played by Richard Kind. I was excited to see Kind in this film, however like most of the characters he is in little of the film and we don't get to know him. He has one crucial moment towards the end of the film, but of course nothing much comes of it and we are left wondering what he had to do with anything at all.
What A Serious Man does right, is let us get to know the character of Larry. He is a very quiet unassuming man, yet those around him treat him as if he is the source of all their discomfort and misery. Larry never loses his cool in any of his personal interactions but simply always looks bewildered at whatever situation he is being confronted with. We are waiting for him to explode with emotion, but he never does. There are a couple of times when yet another character has told him to calm down that I wanted to explode for him. Larry is a really good character, unfortunately there is just not enough going on with the characters around him to truly engage us the way we need to be.
I love the Coens, I love almost every film they have done. One of the things that I like best about their films is the characters they create. Even their most seldom used characters always feel like part of the world they are creating. They have nuance, they give us reason to laugh with them, cheer them on, or root against them. That is why this effort is so disappointing to me. A Serious Man is practically unrecognizable as a Coen brother film.
I would really like to see Undefeated sometime, and your extremely positive review just enhanced that. Like you I'm also a big fan of the Coens but A Serious Man just really did not appeal to me at all. I may get round to it one day but certainly not in a rush to see it.
Undefeated is streaming on netflix if you have it. Well worth your time.
Daniel M
03-24-13, 10:38 AM
As a massive fan of both the Coen Brothers and Michael Stuhlbarg, I really want to see A Serious Man, I just hope I enjoy it more than you :P
As a massive fan of both the Coen Brothers and Michael Stuhlbarg, I really want to see A Serious Man, I just hope I enjoy it more than you :P
I hope so. There are things to like, his character in particular. Let me know what you think.
Gabrielle947
03-24-13, 04:48 PM
Moon is probably my favorite film with Sam Rockwell as lead. :D
I also didn't like A Serious Man,it just seemed pointless.
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS7utHJT2ExG98ktnKdG01XbYB-aNgnXjlNio8czCZ9lzIJa-fBQA
4
Director: Michael Haneke
The story of a small village in Germany right before World War I. The White Ribbon is an emotional experience but not of the feel good sort. This film does not really have a central character, and only two characters that we can root for. While most movies with bleak story lines try to move our emotions from dark to light, Haneke takes the opposite approach. While the mood is never light, it still manages to become harsher and darker as the story progresses.
Someone seems to be targeting the citizens of this small village. A handful of them are brutally injured at separate times and with no witnesses. As the search towards finding the culprit takes place we get to know many of the folks in the village. The teacher in the village is the one character that we can have a positive response to and he is also the narrator of the story. So we learn what is happening as he does. The women and children in this story are more seen than heard and that is the way that the men of the village want it. We see the harsh treatment of them throughout the film and it is hard not to have a visceral response to the abuse they are subjected to.
This film thrives under Haneke's hand. Everything that is great about it is owed to him. The pace is slow and steady, so the viewers response grows with the film. Each shot is beautifully framed, the black and white setting is brilliant for this story. The dialogue is sharp and ambiguous. This is the type of film that I will not be in a hurry to revisit. However I am glad I did once and it will stick with me for a long time.
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQRA9DMUNEZLBac3HVveH8dX1xNT3vDanfgWCwQUzUCIydNJalaxw
4
Director: Chan-wook Park
Oldboy at its most basic is a revenge story, this film is however much more complex than that. It is a barrage on the viewers senses. Visually stunning as well as emotionally visceral. On the surface the narrative is very straightforward, but little is as it seems throughout the entire film up till the last few minutes. Not for the weak of heart Oldboy has some of the most violent sequences that I have witnessed.
Oldboy does many things extremely well. From the opening sequence we are treated to a score that adds much to the film. Having a great score but knowing how to properly use it so as to not allow it to overwhelm the film is not an easy task. Park does it perfectly in Oldboy. Park also uses the split screen masterfully in this movie. This is another device that I have seen used to the detriment of a movie, not so here. Park is an artist with the camera. One sequence in particular stands out for me. The main character comes to a location that is familiar to him and important to a memory that he is trying to recall. As he recalls this memory he chases the memory of his younger self through the sequence. It is beautifully shot, we never lose our sense of time or place as can easily happen in such a scene.
The visuals and score are not the only positives in Oldboy. The narrative is gripping and tense. Our protagonist is on a mission of revenge for what has been done to him. We are along for the journey every step of the way. We feel every emotion that he is feeling as his story progresses. We feel his fear, torment, and hatred. Like all good revenge stories as he begins to reek his havoc we wonder at what cost it is coming. Are his motives pure, and even of they are is it worth the price it is costing his soul. Oldboy handles these themes masterfully.
I have two issues with this film. The first is I was never completely on board with the character of Mi-do. It is not a spoiler to say that we learn very early on that she has had a very similar experience to the protagonist. Despite this fact we are given she always seems to be much more aware than he is. He spends the film unraveling a mystery, she appears to understand most of what is happening but is just relying on him for protection from it. My second issue is the ending. While much is revealed in the last third and there are some very well done intense scenes, the last five minutes lacks the punch that a film like this needs.
Oldboy is an amazingly directed film that is well worth your time. While you may not wish to revisit this world, you will be happy that you took the journey.
Really nice review man. :up: Out of interest is that your first viewing, or a rewatch? Just I was quite stunned by it and rated it about the same when I reviewed it a while back, but it was just my first viewing and I'm curious how it will hold up on repeat viewings.
Oh and I love that poster you went with. Not seen that one before.
Yeah I thought the poster was cool as well. My first viewing. I will probably watch it again but might be a couple of years. Wanted to see it before the Spike Lee version comes out this year.
Just in my review I mentioned that I was unsure how it would hold up on repeat viewings, because so much of the film's power came from the incredible level of intrigue and the shocking twists. So with that removed I was curious if there was enough left there to still enjoy.
While I've got fears about it being a mess I am intrigued by the US remake, though I'm struggling to imagine a US production going into such dark territory. Although it's got more chance now that it's not a Spielberg/Will Smith project
I have no fear Spike will make the movie he wants. Were Spielberg and Smith really attached or is that sarcasm?
I have no fear Spike will make the movie he wants. Were Spielberg and Smith really attached or is that sarcasm?
Oh no believe it or not I'm being 100% factual there. The two were attached to the project on and off for a couple of years. It apparently fell apart over problems securing the rights. Really, really hard for me to picture the film that would have resulted.
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR_JYg5YyqmEAnO02C2rKVGH-IvPutgcY6eT7nuepVsBU0qiuTaCw
2
Director: Rian Johnson
So your watching a movie and it is very character and dialogue driven. Then you suddenly realize that your favorite character in the film hasn't said a word. I would say chances are your not enjoying the film all that much. I sought out The Brothers Bloom after loving Johnson's Looper last year, and liking Brick quite well after that. Hopefully The Brothers Bloom will be a little remembered blip on the directors resume as his career continues. It is the story of two orphaned brothers who at an early age develop a knack for the con.
In my opinion a good con movie is hard to pull off. First of all you have to make the audience connect with characters who are doing deplorable things because that is who your story has to center around. I think Johnson does this well enough. Secondly the con needs to be written so the audience understands it, but it fools them. It also must be believable enough that the target would be fooled as well. This is my biggest issue with The Brothers Bloom. The major con is so dull in fact that I had little interest in any twist that would come. Johnson also falls into the annoying habit of twisting the twist. When a director does this too often I don't feel pleasantly fooled anymore, I feel annoyed with the direction the story has taken.
The Brothers Bloom does again show off Johnson's ability to build an entertaining world. The characters are entertaining, each with a distinct style. I enjoy Johnson's use of score and music where necessary. Johnson is a stylish filmmaker and that is on full display here. Overall this film just falls short in its story arc, and at the end of the day that is the most important part of a con film.
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTf4SOh8tIKws7oTH0YDTGmJvgt7p4NDuz-wqisuQK5dTDiO1uW
4.5
Director: Jean-Pierre Jeunet
Amelie is born to parents who while caring and intelligent never show her the affection children crave, and shelter her from fear that she has a heart condition. Naturally as soon as Amelie is old enough she wants to venture out into the real world. She feels like an outcast but soon realizes that the people in her life feel like outcasts for one reason or another and she sets out to do the things for them they will not do for themselves to make them happy. Unless you are heartless it will be impossible for you not to find Amelie endearing, and most of us can probably relate to her insecurities in one way or another. As Amelie works through her insecurities and tries to do something to make herself happy, as well as those around her, our fondness for her grows and grows.
The title character is not the only thing that Jeunet does well in Amelie. The supporting characters are well thought out and blend perfectly in Amelie's world. This film is also beautifully shot. There are many breathtaking frames in Amelie. His use of color is also impeccable and adds much to the visual tone of this movie. The casting of Tautou can also not be overstated. She is perfect in this role, I can't imagine another actress playing her as well.
The themes in Amelie are not unique and are presented in a straight forward way. But rarely have I seen them done so well, with such an endearing character, and with the style of this film. Amelie is an endearing feel good film that I will enjoy coming back to again.
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQ9q-FQ7cckKzrKFIHcGq-sz5ikNIUsPBNQQXQr35ZKdJ8wXDgE
1.5
Director: Darren Aronofsky
The tree of life and the fountain of youth. The possibilities for themes and visuals are endless. Unfortunately Aronofsky chooses to bog us down in a melodrama with two characters that he never gives us a chance to connect with. This film is trying very hard to be complex but the story arc is simple. A doctor is trying to save his dying wife. She knows what he will not accept. The rest is surreal visuals revolving around the afterlife.
All of this would be a great idea if there were characters involved that I cared about. My second issue with the Fountain is the visuals. For a film that is relying heavily on visuals they are pretty bland here. If there is a bright spot I think it is Jackman's performance. I don't think I have ever seen him convey emotion in such a believable way. The Fountain had some promise but in the end never delivers.
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR2ISe6Ud5Surw__WQ1-BeZb-xkW6ByrSyktjzpRLsPb7Cqst2z
4.5
Director: Richard Linklater
The story could not be more simplistic. An American Male meets a French Female on a train and asks her to spend the evening with him in Vienna. What is not simplistic is the wonderful characters, and exceptional dialogue in Linklater's film. It is obvious that Jesse (Hawke) and Celine (Delpy) have a connection after their first conversation. As their day progresses their connection to each other deepens as does our connection with them. Before Sunrise is so special because we are not manipulated into connecting with them through tragedy, or violence, or sex. We connect with them as we do with people in everyday life, through the life experiences they share with us little by little as our relationship grows. This is true intimacy and is beautifully achieved here.
The intimate, personal moments that Jesse and Celine share throughout the film are sprinkled amidst a plethora of other conversations during their night together. They discuss everything from palm reading to dancing, the conversation is never boring and never unnecessary. They don't agree on everything and through that disagreement we we are invited further into their personalities as their connection grows. Jesse and Celine do interact with other characters in the course of the film. Linklater perfectly blends these interactions as well. The supporting characters add to the film without over powering the main characters. These characters are also just odd enough to further strengthen Jesse and Celine's connection as kindred spirits, without ever becoming caricatures.
Before Sunrise is a beautiful film. It made me want to rush off to Europe and spend aimless evenings wandering around foreign cities looking for romance. I suppose I will have to settle for revisiting this film and these characters in the future.
honeykid
04-10-13, 11:00 PM
I'm so pleased every time I see someone else take a look at this. It really should be so much better known than it is. That was the last Linklater film I just fell in love with, though I've still not seen Me and Orson Welles, which I think looks really interesting.
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSK5z6jKUP0SluDuV5Mne-35xB4vaFw0rhqMtQ_4wq6t_uhYo7uqw
4
Director: Chan-wook Park
Lady Vengeance is the third film in Park's vengeance trilogy and in many ways it parallels the second film Oldboy. Geum-ja Lee has just been released from prison where she served a sentence for kidnapping and smothering a five year old boy. We understand early on in the film that things are not what they seem, so the mystery of what Geum-ja Lee's role in the actual crime is lasts throughout the film.
The first half of the film we spend getting to know Lee and the people in her life. This character has a strong sense of right and wrong and is not afraid to dish out her brand of justice to anyone that wrongs her or others in her life. We also learn that she has a daughter who becomes not only integral to Lee's character but a very strong part of the emotional tie the audience will have with the movie. Similar to the protagonist in Oldboy we develop a large amount of sympathy for Lee. She is a tortured soul but one that is more than capable of showing sympathy and affection for others. Appropriately Park never lets us forget that Lee is tragically flawed and that her actions are not to be celebrated. Park knows that revenge is something that we all feel and may even fantasize about at times, but he is quick to pull us back by showing us how ultimately it does not change our circumstances and lessens who we are in the process. Park could not have done a better job of driving this point home in the second half of Lady Vengeance. I refuse to spoil a minute of what transpires, but if revenge and it effects is a theme that intrigues you in the slightest this is must viewing.
I have two issues with this film. The first is the way that Park causes the viewer to lose their sense of time and place at many points during the first half of the film. I do not require a straight forward narrative to enjoy a film. However if I spend any amount of time wondering where,who, and what I am viewing instead of spending my time getting to know the characters it removes me from the film and lessens my experience. That happened to me more than once here. I also remained not entirely clear on Lee's ultimate role in what she was accused of at the beginning of the film. Whether left deliberately ambiguous by Park or if it was explained but missed by me in the messier aspects of the first half I am unsure. In my mind the fact that I am unsure is the fault of the film and again lessened my experience. I could be, and hope to be, proven wrong on this point in future viewings.
Again, like Oldboy, Park's use of color and music is impeccable. The atmosphere that he sets in his films is unmatched and certainly adds to the enjoyment of Lady Vengeance. I could not be happier that I have began to experience Park's films. He will most certainly become a director whose work I look forward to. Lady Vengeance is a visceral experience that should not be missed by film fans.
I'm so pleased every time I see someone else take a look at this. It really should be so much better known than it is. That was the last Linklater film I just fell in love with, though I've still not seen Me and Orson Welles, which I think looks really interesting.
Have you seen Bernie? I hear Mixed opinions.
CelluloidChild
04-11-13, 01:00 AM
Have you seen Bernie? I hear Mixed opinions.
I liked Bernie. Jack Black does a good job with his tragicomic role, and he and Shirley Maclaine make for a compelling combination.
I also really enjoyed Jack Black's other Linklater film, School of Rock.
My favorite Linklater film, though, is without question Waking Life.
honeykid
04-11-13, 03:01 AM
Have you seen Bernie? I hear Mixed opinions.
No, I've not seen Bernie. Honestly, he's not really done anything that's really interested me since Waking Life. Plus, if you throw Jack Black into a film, what am I expected to do? Watch it? :D
BTW, I think I'm right in saying that Audrey Tautou's role in Amelie was written for Emily Watson.
No, I've not seen Bernie. Honestly, he's not really done anything that's really interested me since Waking Life. Plus, if you throw Jack Black into a film, what am I expected to do? Watch it? :D
BTW, I think I'm right in saying that Audrey Tautou's role in Amelie was written for Emily Watson.
I read that a couple days after seeing the film and writing my thoughts. I guess it is easy to say you can't see anyone else in the role when it turns out great. I do think that Tautou brings a nuance to the character that would be hard to duplicate. Either way amazing performance and worthy of the accolades in my opinion.
honeykid
04-12-13, 01:35 AM
I agree her performance is astounding. While I can imagine the part for Watson, I can't imagine her in the role because Tautou completely inhabits it. If that makes sense.:D
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRcT2wd6P8h5LU-9zuqvouBU3xdVwk-I08CVimSy7FzgK9OTF_-BA
2.5
Director: Brian Helgeland
Schmaltzy baseball movie about a player enduring unbearable adversity to be much more than anyone could expect. Add to that the fact that it is true and you have a movie tailor made for me to love. So why didn't I? The easy answer is they white washed the story, and I think they did to a point. However this story was white washed long before it hit the big screen, and there is a valid reason for that. You will not find anyone in his family or that played with him that will not say that Robinson was not only a great ballplayer but a great person. A player who had every reason to fight, to be filled with venom, to give up. Robinson did none of these things even though no one would have blamed him if he did. That character prevails throughout 42 and is not the reason I would condemn this film.
The problem with 42 is most of it does not feel authentic, although it does have some authentic moments. There are some scenes involving children that are especially problematic and will no doubt be greeted by most viewers with an eye roll. Robinson's teammates and wife are all painted with broad strokes and consequently we never get a realistic impression of their relationships. 42 also fails to give us a realistic look at racism. The racism either seems to be present in a character in its worst form or not there at all. It seems odd to use a word like nuance when talking about racism but I feel that is exactly what is missing from most of the conflict in 42.
One relationship that 42 does well, and what saves it from being a total disaster , is Robinson and Rickey. Ford is great as Rickey and Boseman is no slouch as Robinson which doesn't hurt. Their relationship is the only one given a true arc and their scenes together are the best in the film by far. Listening to Rickey talk about the abhorrent situations that Robinson endured is a far more emotional experience then anything we get to see in other scenes. As depicted in the film Rickey seemed to understand the difference between having empathy for Robinson and having sympathy, where other characters did not. This made him and Robinson the driving force behind everything that felt authentic in 42.
I would be remiss if I did not give some credit to John McGinley when talking about 42. He portrays Red Barber, the Dodgers announcer during this period, and is a true stand out in a very limited role. His voice and cadence were perfect and really added to my enjoyment of the baseball sequences.
42 is a flawed, but not fatally flawed film. It is a mixed bag that I think many people will really respond to. If your a baseball fan it is worth your time.
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRnqv8t9n3Lts35JoHdJgNwQxCS9ijOdZAUB8TCisvXjKcMK2Ky
4.5
Director: Sidney Lumet
12 jurors stuck in a room to decide the fate of a young man accused of killing his father. One man's vote on this fate differs form the other 11 and this is where all the conflict in the film derives from. There are many threads running through 12 Angry Men. The film deals with racism, family ties, anger, poverty, and just plain indifference. Each character brings a unique, and mostly valid point of view to the discussion. The films dialogue is at its most poignant when dealing with reasonable doubt. There were times when I felt it would benefit from lingering on this topic a bit longer, but who am I to argue with Sidney Lumet. The dialogue is never dull and propels the entire film, as it would have to in a movie with only one location.
If I have an issue with 12 Angry Men it is in the story arc. For a film where ambiguity is key to keeping our interest, the bookends are a little too black and white. While this does not take anything away form your enjoyment of the film while enjoying the journey, it was problematic as I began to dwell on the film after viewing. 12 Angry Men has endured as a classic for very good reason. Its topics are timeless, it has very good performances, and the dialogue sets a standard that other films should try to match. A great film no doubt, if not perfect in my opinion.
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTddzUhmo4F-MsL8uZjVTkQmwpUg4DcchM8wWQfhO8RWBQ0Lxr_og
2
Director: Richard Linklater
I am amazed that people have the same response to this film as they do to Before Sunrise. My experience was the polar opposite of the one I had with the first film in this series. The dialogue in Before Sunrise was fresh, romantic, and funny. The characters were endearing, I cared what happened to them and I wanted them to be together. In Before Sunset the characters have become jaded. They have white people problems. Life just is not turning out how they had hoped. They have good jobs, and people who love them but it is not enough. They want the romance back in their life, for things to be new again. Where in the first film it felt like they respected each others opinion, they were free to disagree without judgement. Here it feels as though they are preaching at each other. I'm right because my experiences dictate that I'm right. Your opinions are less valuable then mine because you don't have the same worldly experiences as me. These are certainly not unusually drawn characters for 30 somethings with similar cultural backgrounds, and are probably accurate more times than not. However spending an hour and a half with no one but these two people was not the pleasure it was the first time around, and at times was insufferable.
My respect for Hawke's character lessens even further in the third act when he begins to talk about his marriage. This is not a spoiler as we are to notice his ring right away and frequently throughout the first half. It is obvious he values little of the institution he has entered into, and instead has taken the typical modern approach to his vows. Perhaps and likely all of my issues with the film are Linklater's point. Perhaps these are typical views for people their age. my problem is I spent the first film with unique people. Characters who were looking at the world differently, with compassion and understanding. I couldn't wait to spend time with those people again. Those people are gone.
honeykid
04-20-13, 08:56 PM
Whilst I liked it more than you did, I feel the same way about the two films. Before Sunrise is the most romantic film I've ever seen and this... Isn't. I don't know how many times I've seen Before Sunrise, but it's probably close to 20. I've seen Before Sunset once. When it came out. I'm sure that my expectations were just far too high, especially having had to wait 9 years for it and I have been thinking about going back and watching it again, as the third film is on its way, but whereas I was dying to watch Before Sunrise again asap after that first viewing, it was years before I thought of watching Before Sunset again. I just hope I like it a lot more next time around.
I was also disappointed by this sequel, though for different reasons I guess... I don't know how are 35-year-old people supposed to behave in these situations but the way they do it here doesn't seem real and spontaneous. It seems they are able to take their relationship back from the same point they left at Before sunrise, and if I take into account the huge time gap, it doesn't really look believable. I was hoping for some more actual, and not just apparent (they have their quirks from time to time but the pacing of the conversations is fast and fluid), insecurity to be shown. The dialogues are specially guilty of this. They always seem to have a proper answer, at the right time and at the right mood.
Thanks for the feedback. I will still be interested to see Before Midnight. maybe he will get the magic back.
https://encrypted-tbn1.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcT4lUcugwDUVyyPxG0ky6nOzBOKy2Cz_HlDqzz1pNE1QuJG1qgREA
1.5
Director: Joseph Kosinski
Oblivion is the kind of movie that looks amazing and has a Hollywood heavyweight attached so story becomes secondary. It would be impossible to mention all of the plot holes in this film in a couple of paragraph review. Jack and Victoria are the only humans left on earth. They are there to repair the drones that are on our planet to protect water extractors that are supplying the ship that all human life has been transported to with energy. We are told more than once that we won the war against an alien species but we lost earth. Of course everything is not as it seems, that is where the conflict in the film comes from. To divulge more than that would be to enter into spoiler territory. I will not do this even though most will not connect enough with the film enough to care about the emotional twists, and veterans of the genre will see many of the twists coming before they happen.
As I mentioned Oblivion looks amazing. The set pieces are great to look at and some of the sci-fi elements are quite inventive. Jack's space vehicle and the drones stand out as some of the cooler elements. So little is done with this world however that it is all wasted. Even the action sequences are well below average. They are the type of sequences that make you feel like you are watching a video game. The danger elements are impossible to defeat when it fits the story, but are quite vulnerable when anyone of consequence comes up against them. This leaves zero stakes in the story and makes the sequences boring and unnecessary.
Oblivion is trying very hard to be relevant. The main theme of the film is and will always be relevant. Unfortunately it is in no way original and has been done infinitely better many times over. When you are treading on familiar ground you need to give the audience something to connect with. Characters that we are emotionally tied to or are believably tied to each other, a world that seems relevant, or stakes that seem real to its audience. Oblivion has none of these, and will soon be forgotten because of it.
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRFPJWd19rlWuI1Kk3sbIqyRzsuayI9HzBeJcZZZF2QlbYPHFhJDQ
4
Director: Derek Cianfrance
The Place Beyond The Pines is an atmospheric, gripping, emotional drama. The film is sliced into three very distinct acts. Each act is unique and focuses on a different character. However all of the characters are intertwined and all of the conflict reverberates throughout the entire film.
The first act focuses on Luke (Gosling) who is a stunt cycle rider with a traveling fair. When the fair makes it annual trip Schenectady, NY Luke learns that he has a son. In an attempt to do the right thing he quits his job and decides to stay and try to have a relationship with him. When he teams up with a nefarious mechanic to rob banks things go south and the happy ending he was hoping for moves farther and farther from his grasp. Gosling's character is painted with a sympathetic but tragically flawed brush. Cianfrance and Gosling do a masterful job of emotionally tying us to him and his son immediately. We are invested in what is to become of these characters and it propels us into the rest of the film.
Cooper's Avery is an equally as engaging character and drives the narrative in the second act. Avery is a police officer who crosses paths with Luke briefly in the first act. The parallels between Avery and Jack become obvious when we learn he also has a one year old son, and is thrust into illegal activity. Although Avery's father is present, he has issues with him as well. Avery and Jack are a perfect juxtaposition and make the first two acts of this film completely engrossing. Like Luke in the first act, we are propelled into the next act when Avery's illegal activities come to a head and that story arc is complete.
In my opinion this film misfires a bit when we come to the final third. We are 15 years in the future. So the characters remain the same but are in much different circumstances. Where as the characters and plot points in the first two acts are messy and broad things tighten up considerably in the final act. This gives the film an uneven feel in addition to succumbing to some contrivances and manipulations.
The Place Beyond The Pines is the first really good film of 2013. There are problems in the final third, but there is so much more good than bad here that much of the issues can be somewhat overlooked if not forgiven. Cianfrance draws up many great, sympathetic characters in this film. There are really no weak links, but Gosling and Cooper's performances shine. Ray Liotta should be mentioned as well, he is perfectly cast and has some great moments despite his limited screen time. This is a film that I look forward to having many discussions about. The father-son themes are timeless and played out to great effect.
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS6HXlv7esYUKxgr08XBvFBQoUP9UHjLskS-8lYzJ2w-uRwxJO0
3
Director: Shane Black
Die Hard meets Iron Man in the third film of the ultra popular comic book adaptation. Guns are in full effect in true 80's action style, the climax even takes place in a dock yard. Just in case you missed the point during the film we are given a credit sequence after the film that is certainly a nod to 80's action flicks. The film takes place at Christmas time, a point that is highlighted at least 10 times, my first nitpick, this is more than a little distracting sitting in a theater in May. In case you missed the hours of trailers over the past few months Tony is having anxiety over the events of New York. It's effecting his sleep and his relationship with Pepper. On the bright side he has plenty of time to construct all different sorts of Iron Man armor, 42 is the number we are given early on if I am not mistaken. Iron Man 3 makes great use of the armor where the other two films did not, this turn out to be one of the main highlights of the film for me. We are given some really cool static shots of the armor, it appears on characters we would not suspect, there are many different styles which gives us plenty to look at and serves multiple purposes in the explosive final act. Black is also able to play some pretty cool mind games with the audience involving the suit. You would think this gimmick would tire after one use, but he manages to fool us on a couple of occasions and with entertaining results.
Iron Man 3 is a very uneven movie in my opinion. For everything that I love there is an element that I hate. Of course the movie is full of the Tony Stark humor and smugness that fans have come to love. Even that aspect of the film is mixed for me however. In fact over the course of the first half hour or so I found myself wondering if the writers had lost the humor and charm that made the first two films and The Avengers so entertaining. Thankfully it comes roaring back and carries most of the latter part of the film. It begins to find its way back when Stark develops a relationship with a young man in Tennessee. The banter between them is unexpected and makes for some of the better moments in the film.
The villain arcs are another example of the films bipolar nature. I will tread lightly to avoid spoilers. All of Iron Man's foes have been given a certain power. This power is maybe one of the cooler things that I can remember from a comic book movie. It is menacing, difficult to destroy, and creates some of the more tension filled moments. However once again it removed me from the film at times because it did not seem to always be handled in a consistent manner. The villains themselves are also a mixed bunch. There are a couple that I really enjoyed and a couple that could have been editing fodder for all I care. Like all comic book movies there are a couple of twists so I will not divulge more than to say that they are a part of some of the better moments of the final third of the film.
If comic book movies are your thing then Iron Man 3 is not a bad film by any means. However I think fans expect a little something from Iron Man that we do not get from other heroes. On that level I definitely think there will be some disappointment. Leave your brain at the door and go in expecting some pretty good humor and action, above average visuals, and you will have a good time.
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSPekQTGqtmGIFvnfGdrSAnDmEtnuxqQm_dOqp9tbJn4EK32oV7
4
Director: Baz Luhrmann
I was very excited to come into this story with virgin eyes. I knew absolutely nothing of this story except for the trailers that have been playing over the last couple of months. It is very rare for me to come into a story this old knowing nothing of it, thus having very little expectation. What little expectation I did have came from Luhrmann's last project with DiCaprio, Romeo And Juliet. Considering there was not an aspect of that movie that I enjoyed, I was truly hoping that the story would carry the day. It did and in the process my appreciation for what Luhrmann was doing visually grew. I do not enjoy 3D, so I rarely see a movie that way unless forced to do so. Usually at least once a year there is a film that makes me regret that decision, in 2013 Gatsby is that film. When a director truly cares about the benefits that 3D visuals can lend, it works, this is rare but can usually be seen even when viewing the film in 2D. While watching Gatsby there were at least half a dozen occasions when I caught myself thinking a scene would be amazing in 3D. This film is visually stunning even if I did not feel that way the first 15 minutes. Luhrmann is a very stylized director and a lot of what he does can be distracting. Once I settled into the style however the visuals were quite enjoyable and just one of the aspects that makes me want to view this film again.
The main thing I enjoyed about Gatsby were the themes that run throughout the story. In fact I became so consumed by the themes that the love story at the center of the film became inconsequential to my viewing. Excess, self indulgence, and narcissism were clearly on Fitzgerald's mind when writing his novel and they effect every character and their actions throughout the entire story. This gives Luhrmann free reign to assault our senses, and he does so with reckless abandon. These themes are certainly as relevant today as they were in the 20's.
Gatsby is a shadowy but engrossing figure all at once. In fact we don't see him until what seems like at least thirty minutes have gone by, but we feel his presence from the opening scene. When we do meet him we are as charmed as the characters in the film. However, like most in the film, we are not sure we should be succumbing to his charms. There is something that makes us feel that he is not all he seems to be, this plays into the shadowy aspect of his character. Throughout the film many of the characters ask the question who is Gatsby? He slowly reveals the truth about himself but we are never sure what is the truth and what is a lie. There are other things that are revealed throughout the film that give us some revelation of his character. Ultimately I think it is left up to the viewer to decide who the real Gatsby is and what his relevance to Fitzgerald's world is.
The performances and dialogue in Gatsby are all above average. DiCaprio brings his usual charisma to the role. If you dislike him elsewhere you will feel the same here, if you love him there is nothing going on in this film that will taint that. Mulligan and Edgerton are both very good in their roles as well. Maguire is as he always is, which to me leaves something to be desired. I find him dry, the only emotion he displays is intensity, and that usually feels misplaced. I always find Jason Clarke brilliant, but he is given very little here. I found Gatsby enthralling, but perhaps those with other points of reference will feel differently. I am looking forward to a second viewing as I feel there is plenty more to discover.
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRGi8-b_wlwlREntflknQlu2gGRDbHo_g13IKoRWRfI65E6HHtt
4.5
Director: Billy Wilder
Double Indemnity is a skillfully written, engaging film-noir. The film follows insurance salesman Walter Neff who falls for a clients wife when meeting her for the first time. They soon develop a scheme to write an accidental death policy on the husband and stage his murder as an accident. All appears to be going smoothly until the claims manager, Barton Keyes, grows suspicious.
Keyes is played by Edward G. Robinson who in my estimation takes this film from another ho-hum noir to a completely engrossing film. Keyes and Neff's scenes together are by far the best thing in Double Indemnity, leaps and bounds ahead of Neff's scenes with Stanwyck's femme fatale. MacMurray is also doing good work as Neff. He particularly excels in the scenes where he is feeling the pressure of his scheme unraveling. The weak link in my opinion is Stanwyck. She feels like someone who is sleep walking through their role, never allowing us to feel the emotion of her character.
Double Indemnity has made me excited to see more of Wilder's work. It is a very straight forward story elevated by Wilder's touches. His dialogue is brilliant. The twists are smart but well thought out. Allowing us to enjoy the story arc as it fleshes out rather than simply trying to fool us as so many thrillers do. The visual touches in the film bring a coolness as well. I was particularly fond of the way Neff lights his matches with his fingertips. Not only was this a cool touch, but Wilder uses it to convey character's emotions visually rather than verbally on a couple of occasions. Double Indemnity is a true classic.
honeykid
05-15-13, 12:15 PM
I was going to ask if you really thought that Edward G. Robinson really drags this from ho-hum to completely engrossing. However, you then mention many of the aspects of the film I was going to bring up, so I'm guessing I shouldn't take that as literally as it's written.
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTuyiuFlOgOu_TKooP9gQK5JshXUvf23JvUDC_VsUeFZg9r2faCsg
4.5
Director: Jeff Nichols
Mud is the story of two best friends who happen upon a boat on an island that somehow became stuck in a tree. They plan to attempt to get the boat down and make it their own but discover that someone else already has the same plan. That someone is Mud (McConaughey) who tells the boys he is holding up on the island until he meets his girlfriend. Ellis, our protagonist, is immediately intrigued by Mud's personality and his situation and begins to do favors for him. Every favor leads to another favor and soon Ellis is learning more about Mud and his life than he should. He is also becoming more and more entwined in whatever conflicts Mud is involved in. Ellis's best friend Neckbone is leery of helping Mud from the beginning but is more than willing to support his friend in his decisions.
Ellis (Tye Sheridan) is the heart of this film and carries nearly every scene. Ellis is a complex character. He loves without reservation, he fearlessly confronts any perceived wrongs, and he is 100% committed to those in his life that he connects with. He sees something in Mud that he wants for himself and though Mud is flawed he commits to his cause as if it was his own. Ellis learns many life lessons over the course of the film. We can begin to see his faith in humanity shaken. That the film does not end with us having a concrete feeling of how this character will endue is a testament to Nichols script.
Some may read Mud as a cautionary tale for Ellis. I found him to be a picture of unconditional love. Mud is certainly flawed and would probably find his lot in life improved by cutting certain ties. Ultimately though his life would be hollow without the passion and love he has developed.
Nichols has created a nearly perfect film. There are a couple of characters and one five minute scene that in my opinion keep this from being a perfect film. Other than that the film is flawless. As in Take Shelter Nichols creates an amazing sense of place. We are gladly immersed in the world of the characters. The characters are rich and ambiguous. We feel like we know even the secondary characters who are given limited time. Shannon is particularly memorable as Neckbone's uncle. No scene is wasted, Nichols gives us emotion and context every step of the way. I can't wait to experience Mud again.
My daughter thought it was great here (http://dailytrojan.com/2013/04/30/river-runs-deep-in-jeff-nichols-mud/).
donniedarko
05-15-13, 11:11 PM
If it's as good as Shotgun Stories and Take Selter I'm in, many think it's his best of the three. I think Nichols could become one of the great directors of our time. Excited to see Mud once I get the chance.
I'm interested in seeing Mud based purely on the strength of Take Shelter which I loved. If you were forced into choosing, which did you prefer? Oh and thanks donnie for reminding me about Shotgun Stories. Meant to track it down after watching Take Shelter but struggled to find a DVD at anything close to a decent price and then forgot about it.
Congrats Mark to Sarah and by extension you.
Thanks mark for sharing your daughters review. Very nice review.
I liked Take Shelter JayDee, but didn't love it. I love Mud, I think this will be one that sticks with me for quite a long time. The characters and atmosphere are rich just like Take Shelter, but I def connected with the themes more. I think you and donnie will really like it judging by how you feel about his others.
BTW I believe Shotgun Stories is streaming on netflix, I need to check it our as well.
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSUW-90_eoHf54SqPcYoDFQI6lyTvoufpTrg3QOst3TOzmjlJAo-g
2
Director: JJ Abrams
I want to love Star Trek so much. I love well done world building. I love wise ass larger than life heroes. I love action set pieces that bring me to the edge of my seat. So why do I find it so hard to fall in love with Star Trek when I found it so easy to fall for the Lord Of The Rings, Star Wars, and Marvel universes? I have tried. I have seen every film. I have even watched more than a few Next Generation episodes. I simply never connect and cannot put my finger on a simple reason why.
Into Darkness does well what most of its predecessors have. All the characters are here in their proper form. The Enterprise looks better than ever. More than enough eater eggs for true fan boys. The action set pieces are huge and plentiful and I think that is my biggest issue with the latest installment. The dialogue and character building feels like a formality on our way to another over long action sequence. Most of the character building is done through cheap humor. Hundreds of jokes are thrown at us at not very many stick unfortunately.
Into The Darkness is all about the spectacle. If you go to the movies to watch pretty people run and shoot at each other among pretty settings than there is plenty for you here. If you want a film to remember for any amount of time or to connect with on any emotional level, move along.
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcShwHIc8KOeUmglkEXS84V_ai28gzW7RYW8L1X2tmv6pdDpORUrfQ
5
Director: Quentin Tarantino
Why don't I trust Tarantino yet. Pulp Fiction and Inglorious Bastards are among my 10-15 favorite movies ever. I also love Jackie Brown, Reservoir Dogs, and Django Unchained. However I always felt like I enjoyed those other genres even if Tarantino turned them on their head. I have no interest in Samurai or martial art films. Your not gonna see any Bruce Lee or Jackie Chan in my blu-ray collection. Surely Tarantino cannot make me enjoy a samurai sword wielding, revenge seeking hero or blood spraying like a geyser from severed limbs. Of course he can, he is the master. Not only can he make me enjoy it, but he will fill it with such rich characters and dialogue that it will immediately leap over films that I have loved and been watching for years on my favorites list.
I don't know how he does it. When I think of the characters he creates, they must look foolish on paper. A 17 year old catholic school girl uniform wearing assassin. A Shaolin Monk who can balance on a sword in mid air. A hospital orderly who accepts cash from degenerates who want to have sex with comatose patients and drives a truck marked Pussy Wagon. Surely these are not characters in a film I love. Tarantino's characters are so perfect because he writes perfect dialogue for them and does not miss a detail. We feel a connection with every character even those we do not spend very much time with. We feel like we know them because of the way they dress, because of their reactions to other characters, because of the way they smoke a cigarette, because of the car they drive.
Tarantino starts Kill Bill with a simple narrative but immerses us in his world with precision. His non-linear story telling is distracting in the hands of other directors. Somehow when we come to the end of a Tarantino film we can't see the story being told any other way. That is because he knows at what point we need to know details better than we do. He realizes if he tells the story straight forward we will lose interest, the intrigue will be gone. He starts volume 2 where we would have started volume 1, and the film is better for it. One of the biggest reveals of the story is handed to us at the end of volume 1 and somehow we forget its importance until the final act of the entire film. Every scene is perfect and in its perfect place.
I will always view these films as a whole, and that will annoy some people. A sequel is something the director never envisioned or possibly only hoped for. A film that feels like an add on not a continuation. Kill Bill is one whole story, beginning to end. One would not exist without the other. Tarantino created another masterpiece, a perfect film. I am just disappointed it took me so long to experience it. Now Tarantino could surely never make me love a grindhouse flick right?
Cobpyth
05-20-13, 10:33 PM
Now Tarantino could surely never make me love a grindhouse flick right?
Right. Death Proof is the only 'weak' movie he ever made in his career, so far, in my opinion (although it has a few good moments).
I agree about the Kill Bill movies. They both form one story, but they are quite different in style. I liked them both a lot, but I personally think the first one is a better, because of its style. It had the best scenes of the two movies, in my opinion.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E84OWq6z3IQ
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ImyntxVxZyE
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sJlu_xo79k8
ETCETERA...
All great scenes but gun to my head I would choose volume 2 because of Thurman's scenes with Carradine. In the beginning and the end. Also thought Madsen was amazing. Her being buried and the snake in the case both through me for a loop. Great stuff.
Sorry that you didn't have a particularly postive experience with Into Darkness sean. I didn't realise you weren't much of a fan going in which certainly wouldn't have helped. The fact that I am a proud trekkie certainly helped me overcome many of the film's flaws.
And despite seeing bits and pieces a few times for some reason I have still never gotten round to watching the Kill Bill films properly.
Go see Kill Bill and get back to me in four hours. ;) In my opinion if you have loved anything by Tarantino you will love it.
Daniel M
05-21-13, 07:05 PM
I will always view these films as a whole, and that will annoy some people. A sequel is something the director never envisioned or possibly only hoped for. A film that feels like an add on not a continuation. Kill Bill is one whole story, beginning to end. One would not exist without the other. Tarantino created another masterpiece, a perfect film. I am just disappointed it took me so long to experience it. Now Tarantino could surely never make me love a grindhouse flick right?
5
I'm glad you loved Kill Bill, I too am a massive Tarantino fan and love everything he has done, Pulp Fiction, Inglourious Basterds and Reservoir Dogs are my top three then the rest I'm unsure about, it'll take time to truly judge Django Unchained in comparison with his other films, though I loved it.
But yeh Kill Bill is definitely one film just split in to two parts, taken from my top 150 thread:
The film immediately starts off by revisiting the Church massacre that set the events of the two films in motion, we are providing with much more background information and the character of Bill is fully introduced for us. Whilst the first film was very much a over then top fun film the indulged itself in bloody style, this one is more a film filled with great substance, really tightening the two films together and strengthening this revenge tale with great details that make the finale all the more satisfying.
I've done a post on here somewhere about my annoyance with people who complain about Kill Bill or QT or something, it's about part 2 and the different style (similar to paragraph) above, but I've searched and can't seem to find it.
Death Proof is great by the way, I went in to it with low expectations, watched it and was very surprised by how much I enjoyed it, even for Tarantino. It's great fun, the first hour is honestly as good as anything he's done for me.
I couldnt agree with you more daniel. You described the difference in the films perfectly and that is exactly why I prob prefer 2 if I had to choose. However I sure am glad they both exist together. On another note Tarantino's films are one of the only ones in my collection where I will throw them in when I just feel like watching a single scene. For example I have only watched Bastards all the way through three times but have probably watched the opening sequence six. I have done that with Pulp Fiction a few times as well and can see it happening with Kill Bill. I will def check out Deathproof soon.
honeykid
05-21-13, 09:53 PM
As I think I said in reply to Daniel's post in his 150 thread, I feel Kill Bill 1 is a kind of Tarantino compilation of all the films of this genre that he's seen and loved, while Kill Bill 2 is the Tarantino version of that genre.
Tarantino may well think Death Proof is his worst film, but I prefer it greatly over Kill Bill and the dull, dull, dull, Inglorious Basterds. I feel I'd feel the same way about Django Unchained, as well. I think I'll wait for that to be shown on tv before I let it bore me to death or, simply, become irritated by it and fight against it till the end.
Tarantino's characters are way too rich and his dialogue way to tense and biting for me to ever consider him dull. Bastards has two of the best scenes in any movie ever in my opinion. Tastes diverged.
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcS7Mbs2x0nYpW3AsEZmUw2DDEiWFuY9HzJqv3neAuQXKM-oR_nb
4.5
Director: Charlie Kaufman
This is certainly a hard film for a simple minded man like me to write about, but I really responded to it so I want to give it a try. First a couple of thoughts going in, number one I have a hard time responding to surrealism. I feel that the movies I love have a straight forward narrative but with complex characters and rich dialogue. Many would probably say this makes sense considering I am a simple minded man, and more than likely they are correct. This leads me to my second point which is considering I tend to enjoy films with straight forward narratives why do I respond so favorably to Kaufman scripts? My simple answer is he develops incredibly complex characters and writes some of the best dialogue in film today. What Kaufman also does that I enjoy is to not immediately turn us over to the surrealism of his stories. He lets us spend a little time with the characters before throwing them into their inevitable spirals. This allows us to connect with the characters and also gives us reference points to recall during our viewing of the film. All of these Kaufman characteristics are on full display in Synecdoche.
Synecdoche is the story of Caden (Hoffman). Caden is a playwright with a wife and a young daughter. As I stated before things begin simply enough, Caden is directing a version of Death Of A Salesman. His wife is an artist and although things do not appear to be perfect by any stretch they certainly do not appear tragic. Things for Caden begin to devolve when his wife asks him not to accompany her and his daughter to Germany, where she is going to work. On more than one occasion she tells Caden that he should stop doing others work and do something true and pure. After she leaves this is what Caden sets out to do and in my opinion is one of the central themes of the film. Caden sets out to create the perfect play, the perfect truth of his life. Because his perception of perfect truth is always changing, his play is always changing and thus is never complete.
Death is also front and center in Synecdoche. Everything in Caden's life is decaying including himself. This in and of itself of course is not an uncommon theme for a film but the way that Kaufman handles it is. I love the way that Kaufman has Caden handle the decay in his life. He is constantly scrubbing and cleaning as if he can stop the decay this way. This may not sound like an interesting way to handle this theme on paper but is visually striking and often jarring throughout the course of the film. Caden also has no sense of time which proves interesting during his interactions with others. Often he feels as if only months have gone by when it has in fact been years. Caden is pushing back against time and death throughout the entire film as all of us do throughout our lives.
Caden's relationships are central to the film. He remarries after his wife has been gone for a period and has another child. This relationship devolves like the others in his life and we never see any real connection between him and his second daughter. Caden even refers to his second daughter by his first daughter's name on a couple of occasions. Maybe the most interesting relationship he has in the film is between him and the box office girl we meet in the original theater. While their interactions are some of the more interesting in the film what I find most fascinating is that this seems to be the person that Caden has the most intimate connection with, but they are never intimate physically. I can certainly draw some conclusions from this and I am sure that Kaufman did not do this by accident.
I am positive that a book could be written about the other themes and the imagery in this film. I think Kaufman uses them brilliantly, they are thought provoking and make the film worthy of multiple viewings. We have a house that burns continually, a tattoo that comes to life or dies, diseases that manifest themselves and seem to go away without a trace. Characters are replaced by others multiple times. Our sense of time and place grows weaker and weaker as the film progresses. Caden's art grows bigger and bigger while his wife's gets smaller and smaller. Gender lines are blurred. I know I am forgetting countless others. This is what has made this film grow in my mind in the two days since I have viewed it and what makes me want to revisit it as soon as possible.
https://encrypted-tbn3.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcR0mrKNhhWkx9z_V4MjiLy7cEylkEJBcpIAK4g-cZ0Zvc0cGps07A
4
Director: Jeff Nichols
Nichols debut Shotgun Stories is every bit as rich and layered as his next two films. Nichols is adept at creating atmosphere and writing realistic, multilayer-ed characters. Shotgun Stories is the story of Son Hayes (Shannon) and his two brothers. We meet Son as his wife is separating from him because of his gambling. He asks his brother who is staying in a tent in the yard to move into the house with him. Soon after the third brother is in the home. Within the first fifteen minutes of the film we feel as if we know four characters, one of whom we have not even seen. Nichols perfectly displays the emotion and personality of his characters through their interactions with each other and the world they inhabit.
When the Hayes brothers learn that their father has passed away Son reluctantly decides that they should attend the funeral. Son's brothers are not prepared for the fact that he has decided to air their fathers dirty laundry of how he treated them and his mother in front of his seemingly happy current family. This sets off a feud between the three brothers and their four half brothers. The feud manifests itself in many forms, including some violent. Although much of what we see from both sets of brothers is tragic and appalling, we are slow to judgement concerning any of the characters because each act seems in some way justified by the previous one. Again this is a tribute to Nichols and his story telling.
Feuds in our culture are so prevalent in one form or another and Nichols is showing us the tragedy of this truth in an emotional and honest way. Everyone in this film feels justified in their hate and actions. However each action leads to an emotional or physical tragedy and leads to the next person feeling justified in their actions. Some of the characters in Nichols film are asked to forgive and forget even if their forgiveness is not asked for to stop the bleeding, for peace, and for future generations. Nichols is teaching us a valuable lesson in his debut film.
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTKxseNtFSCkI16M8nGpJ2leEyHFFtF_nUieQ0lkBOJsE3FBeLZ
2
Director: Louis Leterrier
Leterrier took an interesting and entertaining premise and turned it into a mess of a film. By far the best part of the film is the half hour of exposition we get at the beginning. Unfortunately all of the exposition we receive revolves around the magic and not the actual characters. This makes for an entertaining first third but leaves the film hollow later on when we have to care about stakes and relationships.
From the moment we see the hooded figure in the opening scene we know that we will receive a twist reveal. Two or three possibilities are not just subtly revealed through the narrative but on a couple of occasions are suggested to us straight up in dialogue. The reveal becomes incidental and not at all exciting. Whether you guess right or wrong on the twist what is easy to see is that many plot holes are revealed as soon as everything becomes clear. Sound like an oxymoron? Yes it is.
Now You See Me's other major issue is the wasted cast. This is not to say that there are not some good things happening. Harrelson in particular has some of the best moments in the film. However when I have Ruffalo, Freeman, and Eisenberg at my disposal every scene should resonate, and few do. In particular I felt Eisenberg was wasted. It was as if they took the worst traits from his previous characters and created one super annoying character. He is a jerk, and what is worse, as with most of the other elements of the film, we are given no reason as to why he is a jerk. Freeman and Ruffalo simply have poorly written characters. They are in a lot of the film but are given surprisingly little to do of any interest.
Everything in Now You See Me is underdeveloped except for the magic. So if magic in a movie setting is your bag go and enjoy. If you need more than that to sustain your interest for an entire film, stay away.
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcTZREdWNwEwQtKe1cm72LzAs6b6eQjgT8DWtjbrGoMyPPJdnvXF
3
Director: Zach Snyder
In my opinion Superman has a people problem. Most of us identify with the Waynes, Starks, and the Parkers of the comic book universe. Kent on the other hand is near impossible to sympathize with because we see him as perfect. Snyder spends the first hour of the film trying to make us connect with Superman. To his credit it was working. Seeing Kent as a boy trying to cope with being different then everyone else, nonhuman, was pushing all the right buttons. Unfortunately not enough time was spent with this aspect of his life and before we know it we are thrust into chaos that we have next to no investment in.
A lot of Kent's relationships are thrown at us as well, probably too many for one film. We see significant relationship arcs with two fathers, a mother, a schoolmate, co-workers, and of course Lois Lane. Most of these were done well enough, but the one that fell the most flat is the one that we should care the most about going forward and that is his relationship with Lois Lane. If they took this character out of the film entirely I don't know that I would even noticed, I certainly wouldn't have cared.
The acting in Man Of Steel is good enough, but a lot of characters are wasted because of trying to cram too much into one film. We don't get to know Cavill too well, he really looks the part, and I think he will be fine going forward. Shannon and Adams are wasted as the villain and Lane. Shannon especially could have been saved for a future film. All other players are doing exactly what they are asked, and that is good enough for a summer blockbuster.
My biggest disappointment in Man Of Steel comes in the last hour or so. Snyder goes Bay on us and we are treated to countless explosions, unprecedented destruction, and God only knows what kind of body count. I would have much rather spent this time getting to know our characters further. I think that Snyder could have even done an entire film ending around Kent's teen years. That of course could never happen because every summer movie is trying to make a billion dollars at the expense of having a franchise that people would be truly invested in. So Man Of Steel will go down for me as another ho-hum spectacle. One that I enjoyed most of but will have no lasting effect.
https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQd1jtvhphvUjK0Y_CyR6B9HnFyO11jx_fZXUaSxIvZRsXf3eIT1A
4
Director: Alfred Hitchcock
I finally got around to the greatest ever made. While it is easy to see why people feel that way I disagree. There is plenty to love, and way more to like then dislike, but I still had my issues. As in all his films Hitchcock keeps us on our toes. Blending strong characters into the story and tension perfectly. We receive the proper amount of exposition so that we care about the characters we are supposed to. Every scene is in its perfect place, revealing what we need when we need it. It may sound crazy but I think the perfectness of it is all is what removed me from the film at times. When watching a Hitchcock film I feel myself just waiting for the twist that I know is coming, instead of soaking in every moment.
The acting is great, which is a credit to both the actors and Hitchcock's script. The scenes between Stewart and Geddes are my favorites in the film trumping those between Stewart and Novak by a narrow margin. I found myself wishing we had more of Geddes character by the end of the film. She served her purpose in the plot, but I was left feeling that there was much more to her relationship with Stewart that was unexplored. One small nit-pic about the actors themselves, what in the world is going on with Novak's eyebrows?
Overall another great Hitchcock film. The twists are awesome. The ending is bound to be one of my five favorites forever. I won't talk about them even though the film is over 50 years old. Vertigo is great and well worth your time, even if in my opinion it is not the greatest film of all time.
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRxWZreYq4RwT9Odep4NMZ8LH1X2WVpWOF54_XdLchu346E3gZw
3.5
Director: Andrew Dominik
One that I was pretty disappointed I missed in the theater last year, just catching up with it now. Killing Them Softly is a pretty straight forward crime film. When your narrative is this simple you have to make up for it with well written complex characters. Mostly Dominik succeeds. The pair of two bit thieves that drive the narrative are well written and well played by Mendelhson and McNairy. They have some very entertaining scenes together and bring most of the levity to the film. Pitt and Gandolfini steal the film as would be expected. Their scenes together are the highlight of the movie, and what I will remember when talking about or thinking about this film in the future. I found myself wishing that Gandolfini had more to do so we could have seen more of their dynamic. Still what we get from him is pretty great.
Now for the elephant in the room that everyone has talked about. was the political commentary a useful tool in depicting the state of our country at the time this movie takes place, or was it unnecessarily preachy and distracting? I would lean towards the latter. Although I didn't find it too preachy, I definitely think it was an unnecessary distraction. It felt like the commentary was there to give us some kind of perspective on why the films criminals are acting in the way that they do. If this is the case it fails miserably, if it is not the case I am really not sure of the point. In addition Dominik could have had the same dialogue concerning the economy without it being the background noise that it was. The truth is it does not matter the era or place that a story takes place, the economy is always a relevant topic. The have and have-nots have always been and always will be. The question of how to close the gap is never irrelevant.
Killing Them Softly is a film worth watching. Some of the individual scenes are really fantastic and override many of the films flaws.
Agree with a lot of what you said about Vertigo and Killing Them Softly. Particularly in relation to Vertigo. I felt like there was real chemistry with Stewart and Geddes and I wanted to see more of her but she just seemed to disappear. The chemistry between Stewart and Novak was really forced. Overall I thought it was a great film for an hour and a half but then went downhill due to that lack of chemistry.
Thought Pitt was great in Killing Them Softly - one of my favourite performances by him.
https://encrypted-tbn0.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcSAsLZ_PqfwoXWQb05taCIWQT9CsppV-OgziXQXwq6-vbQp-ug-wA
5
Director: Billy Wilder
There is nothing better than when a film lives up to every bit of your expectations. The Apartment certainly did for me instantly becoming not only one of my favorite classic films but one of my favorite films period. First off the premise of the film is brilliant and Wilder lays it out perfectly. Baxter (Lemmon) lends out his apartment to his superiors at the insurance company he works for so they have a place to bring their mistresses. I was especially fond of how Baxter's neighbors believe that he is the one who is carousing at all hours of the night. By doing this Wilder gives us all the exposition we need of the character of C.C. Baxter. We quickly learn in a very entertaining way that Baxter has not only a difficult situation on his hands but also longs to have a life quite different than the one he is leading.
Once Fran Kubelik (Maclaine) is introduced we have a good idea of where the story is heading but Wilder throws us a couple of nice curve balls along the way. Baxter and Kubelik are our protagonists and certainly who we are rooting for all the way. However what I love about The Apartment compared to most classics is that they are not one dimensional and Wilder does not let them off the hook easily. Both are complex, flawed characters, so despite our hope that thing turn out for the best for them we do have points where we are let down by their actions. In my opinion this make us love them all the more. Characters that we can empathize with are always superior to those who seem above us.
There are points of this film that I could nit-pic but frankly I don't want to I loved it so much. Lemmon and Maclaine are fantastic, Maclaine is way cuter than I ever realized. The supporting players are all well done and well acted. Lemmon's neighbor the doctor especially stands out in his scenes. This was only my third Wilder film and certainly has me excited to see more as they just keep getting better and better for me. The Apartment is a perfect film.
This was only my third Wilder film
What were the other two?
Cobpyth
06-22-13, 01:35 PM
Agree with a lot of what you said about Vertigo and Killing Them Softly. Particularly in relation to Vertigo. I felt like there was real chemistry with Stewart and Geddes and I wanted to see more of her but she just seemed to disappear. The chemistry between Stewart and Novak was really forced. Overall I thought it was a great film for an hour and a half but then went downhill due to that lack of chemistry.
I disagree about the lack of chemistry making the film worse in general.
The whole film is about obsession. Hitchcock wasn't reaching for romance at all. They don't need the chemistry, because they really don't belong to eachother. He isn't meant to be with her, but his mind is constantly pulling him in her direction. It's quite a horrific and traumatic story actually.
What were the other two?
Sunset Blvd which I hated and Double Indemnity which I loved but didnt respond as strongly as I did The Apartment. Where should I go next ?
I disagree about the lack of chemistry making the film worse in general.
The whole film is about obsession. Hitchcock wasn't reaching for romance at all. They don't need the chemistry, because they really don't belong to eachother. He isn't meant to be with her, but his mind is constantly pulling him in her direction. It's quite a horrific and traumatic story actually.
Dont completely disagree with your assesment but the fact that they fall hopelessly in love would suggest they should have better chemistry dont you think? In fact fatal love like they share would lend itself to a more animal type magnetism I think.
:eek: You hated Sunset Boulevard?!!!
And I'm not sure where to go next. I've only seen a few more of his films than you have and also plan on tracking down a lot more. A lot depends on what you're in the mood for as he certainly seemed to jump across genres. Personally however I would have to recommend the delightful Some Like It Hot.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7b/Cache_Haneke.jpg/220px-Cache_Haneke.jpg
4
Director: Michael Haneke
This is my second Haneke film having seen The White Ribbon just a couple of months ago. While there is a coldness to his films and characters that I feel will always keep me from completely embracing them, I certainly respond to his themes and the way he builds intrigue. Cache revolves around a married couple and their son who begin to receive extremely strange videos and pictures on their doorstep. Although at first they have no idea where they are coming from, it begins to become apparent that they are from someone that has been in the husband's life. The beauty of Haneke of course is that we never find out for certain. The final static shot in this film is memorizing and I would be hard pressed to think that someone could watch this film and not just let the silence roll over them while contemplating all that has transpired. If afterwards you don't have more questions then answers please feel free to share. Of course this is the whole point and while some filmmakers annoy me with this style of storytelling, thus far Haneke has always given me enough answers in his film to where I appreciate the ambiguity.
Daniel Auteuil plays the husband and does a more than capable job. It is really his film and at no point does he lose it. However after Cache and seeing Certified Copy about a year ago I have to say that Juliette Binoche has become a revelation to me. She is absolutely brilliant here as the wife who throughout the film is receiving even less answers then we do. The emotion she conveys as she slowly realizes her husband is only giving her half truths ring true each and every time. Haneke is throughout the story also giving small glimpses into this couples marriage up to this point and Binoche is spot on in conveying this to the audience.
Cache is more than worthy of your time. Haneke's static shots are beautiful and haunting all at the same time. The characters are well drawn and well portrayed. I do wish that Haneke would allow a little more warmth into his films. This is a small point of contention however as he does everything else so well. I am dying to see Amour, what is taking so long with a Blu-ray release for that film?
Haneke follows his own muse, but this is one of his better films, and I've seen nine of his features. Some of them really challenge an audience to care about anything, but he's certainly unique.
The Queen Of Versailles
http://ts3.mm.bing.net/th?id=H.4900180809679070&pid=1.7&w=122&h=181&c=7&rs=1
2012 Director: Lauren Greenfield
The Queen Of Versailles is a documentary that follows a billionaire and his wife on their quest to build a modern day french palace. It is to be the biggest one family house in the US. Things turn upside down when his business hits major obstacles during the market turn in '08. Whether Versailles will ever be finished or not suddenly comes into question. In addition the family has to learn to live quite differently than they have in years.
This documentary has many different layers that make it unique and quite enjoyable. First off I am sure that this endeavor for the filmmaker started as a movie that would simply be about the family behind this obscene home. Once the families luck turns it becomes altogether a different film. As gross as it sounds to say this is probably the quality of documentary it is because of their misfortune. Also on the surface their relationship appears superficial. He is much older than her. She was a model and beauty queen. Obviously he wanted a trophy wife and she wanted a billionaire, right? Maybe, but like all of real life things are not that simple. We do get some hints of this superficial relationship, and certainly both of these people can frustrate you at times with their lack of real world perspective. However there is more to both of these people than surface faults. We learn many things about them, their family history, we meet their children. Of course we grow to care what happens to this family, so our judgements are flipped upside down as they should be.
The most important positive of this film is that it never fells like Greenfield is passing judgement on anything or anyone. This is what makes a good documentary. We are shown the material and are free to make our own decisions on its value. The Queen Of Versailles is a quality and entertaining documentary.
4
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/03/Gangster_Squad_Poster.jpg/220px-Gangster_Squad_Poster.jpg
1.5
Director: Ruben Fleischer
You ever dislike a movie so much you don't really want to talk about it? The biggest issue with Gangster Squad is at no point is it believable. This is a problem for a film that is supposed to be about real life events. None of the relationships are believable or enjoyable. It is the type of film that is too violent not because it grosses you out but because none of the action is earned. It is not earned because you don't care about a single character in the slightest. What very little exposition we receive is spoon fed us like we are children. I knew I was in trouble when during the first scene we get with Brolin and his wife she lays out every single piece of information we should know about his character by reciting it back to him as if he forgot. Then she kisses him and that is all we need to know about them and their relationship. On with killing the bad guys.
This is a wasted cast. It is especially surprising that Penn who seems to do a movie every two years would pick this script. The only reason I give this film any stars is because it does look alright, and we get to see Penn blow his lid a couple of times.
The Gunslinger45
06-30-13, 09:51 PM
I must be the only schmuck on this site that thought Gangster Squad was fun.
honeykid
07-01-13, 03:33 AM
I thought it was possible it could be watchable... Until I saw the trailer. I've not given it a thought since.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/86/SideEffects2013Poster.jpg/220px-SideEffects2013Poster.jpg
3
Director: Steven Soderbergh
Side Effects starts out as a pretty promising thriller. It has a very interesting premise. I love the idea of exploring the way we use prescription drugs in our society now. The acting is good as would be expected from this cast. Soderbergh is adept at this point in drawing us into the film. His pacing is great, and the movie looks good even if the back drop for the story is nothing to gush over.
The story centers around Emily (Mara) and Martin (Tatum). Martin has just been released from prison for insider trading and although Emily loves him and stands by him she is having a hard time coping. Enter Dr. Banks (Law) who plays around with her prescriptions trying to get the perfect balance. Something terrible happens to Emily and the real conflict of the film takes shape. Is what transpired a side effect to her meds or is something deeper going on? This for me is where the movie falters. It is engaging to watch the story transpire but as with many thrillers the stories and characters begin to lose their credibility as it does. Soderbergh mostly manages to maintain the essence of the film but he take me out of the film just enough to strip away most of the investment I had in how things will end for the characters.
Side Effects is mostly smart and mostly entertaining. The story is certainly relevant and that is what makes it pretty disappointing that it could not maintain everything it earns in the first third.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/04/Bernie_film_poster.jpg/220px-Bernie_film_poster.jpg
3.5
Director: Richard Linklater
One massive piece of advice before watching Bernie. DO NOT read the IMDB or Netflix synopsis before watching. I am not usually spoiler crazy, what they spoil however is the entire point of the movie and doesn't transpire till a solid 40 minutes in. Bernie (Black) is an interesting character. He is an eternally positive individual despite working in a funeral parlor. He is an expert at consoling people through their grief, especially older women. When he befriends a rich widow (MacLaine) who no one else in town can stand the company of, people begin to talk and speculate.
Bernie is based on a true story and Linklater decides to tell the story documentary style which I think works to great effect here. The people of the small Texas town are givng us perspective on Bernie and his story directly to the camera. They are mostly older people who have lived in this small rural Texas town their whole life so they certainly fit some stereotypes. At no point however did I feel as if Linklater was placing judgement on these characters which makes their weaknesses bearable to watch. Bernie himself is beloved by most everyone in town and it is easy to see why. he is a giving and caring individual who seems to know the right thing to say to everyone he comes in contact with. Bernie is not the type of individual you would want to go get a beer with, but he certainly would be hard to dislike.
The acting and storytelling are the highlights of Bernie. McConaughey is very good in his smaller but entertaining role. MacLaine also does a nice job although I don't feel that her character is very hard to capture. As corny as it may sound the role of Bernie seems to be the one that Black was born to play. The quirky mannerisms and the singing are right up Black's alley. He is perfect in this role, and is definitely the best of his career thus far.
Everything in the final half of Bernie is off limits to talk about as far as I am concerned. The movie takes us to some places where I didn't expect it to go even after reading the synopsis. Bernie is not a perfect film but it is a memorable and entertaining one.
https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5d/White_House_Down_poster_with_billing_block.jpg/220px-White_House_Down_poster_with_billing_block.jpg
0.5
Director: Roland Emmerich
Come for the bullet dodging stay for the worst case of republican bashing since Fahrenheit 911. It's July 4th weekend so a film buff has to catch a movie, so what to see? Pirates Of The Caribbean on horses? No thanks. The filthy version of Miss Congeniality? I don't think so. Maybe Emmerich can bottle some of the summer fun from Independence Day in 2013. That was a pipe dream. White House Down is trying very hard to be political commentary wrapped up in summer fun. It falls short on both accounts.
The biggest surprise to me was that White House Down does not even look good. From the opening scene where we see helicopters flying through DC the CGI sticks out like a soar thumb. Unfortunately that never changes throughout the entire film. The acting in this movie is also sub par. Foxx especially stands out as the worst of a bad bunch. It is possible that much of this may be a result of a horrible script, however Jason Clarke does manage to be somewhat enjoyable with an ill conceived character.
White House Down simply fails on every level. Plot hole riddled script. Unimaginative action sequences. Flat humor. Contrived relationships. This is one of the worst movies I have seen in a couple of years. Half a star for Clarke and the two smirks in the hundred jokes Emmerich threw at me.
The Gunslinger45
07-06-13, 01:26 AM
Does not surprise me. Glad I stayed away. Great review dude!
honeykid
07-06-13, 10:07 AM
I honestly can't imagine why anyone would think this film would be worth their money. Even if I was a kid and only going to make out with my g/f, I'd pick a different film.
I know but I had three people this week tell me I should see this movie. That is why I have to come to movie forums to talk about movies. Even if it means wading through all the Tarkovsky.
The Gunslinger45
07-06-13, 11:15 AM
I know but I had three people this week tell me I should see this movie. That is why I have to come to movie forums to talk about movies. Even if it means wading through all the Tarkovsky.
I hear ya. I am in the same boat.
Guaporense
07-06-13, 11:37 AM
Hey! Tarkovsky made some movies that are better than anything you have reviewed here (The Mirror and Stalker are slightly better than Seven Samurai, which is probably the best movie here). They may not be the most entertaining movies ever but the emotional impact they can have on the watcher is enormous.
Hey! Tarkovsky made some movies that are better than anything you have reviewed here (The Mirror and Stalker are slightly better than Seven Samurai, which is probably the best movie here). They may not be the most entertaining movies ever but the emotional impact they can have on the watcher is enormous.
Just horsing around Guap, I know we have different tastes. Glad to see your still hanging around my review thread.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f3/Manhattan-poster01.jpg/220px-Manhattan-poster01.jpg
4
Director: Woody Allen
So I am overall very mixed on Woody Allen. The dude can flat out write. His scripts are smart and witty. On the other hand the guy is a creepy creeperson. You may be thinking lots of artists are, and I am sure that is a correct statement. However few film makers make me feel as if I am watching their persona on screen as strongly as Woody Allen. So from the opening scene where his 42 year old character is on a date with a 17 year old high school student I am creeped out. I get past it however because like I said the dude can write. The sharp wit and pretentious New York haughtiness is on full display from the word action and never lets up for a second. There is something about watching very flawed people interact that appeals to me. Perhaps it makes me feel better about my miserable existence. Of course Allen and Keaton play off each other perfectly. It is both intriguing and humorous to watch despite the fact that I don't connect with nearly anything that the characters are experiencing.
The other aspect of Manhattan that bothered me is that the 17 year old seems to be the only character in the film that has any idea of how to be selfless towards another human being. Again this in and of itself would not bother me as much if it did not seem as though Allen is saying that she is the oddball. She is the naive one, the person in the film who has to grow up and face reality. Maybe I am misinterpreting Allen's intent but the ending is the only slight evidence to the contrary.
Like Annie Hall, Manhattan is a film that will stick with me and be worth a couple more viewings. There are few film makers who can effect how I feel about their work by script alone, Allen is definitely one of them.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/88/OrdinaryPeople.jpg/220px-OrdinaryPeople.jpg
4
Director: Robert Redford
Very ashamed to say that I had not even heard of this film until a couple of months ago. Ordinary People is a poignant look at how hard a loss can hit a family. What makes Redford's film so unique in my opinion is how it also unearths how that loss can bring other emotional baggage to the surface of our relationships. The film focuses on Conrad (Hutton) who was in a boating accident with his brother. His brother dies and he lives, as if this is not hard enough for a teenager to deal with it seems that his mother (Tyler Moore) has a certain resentment of him as well. As the layers of the story are peeled back we begin to understand that the unfounded resentment was perhaps always there and is the root of much of Conrad's problems. On the opposite end of the spectrum is his father (Sutherland) who always seems to be over compensating for his wife and running interference between the two of them.
The complexity of Conrad's relationships are the heart of the story and I felt like I could watch them unfold forever. Because of Conrad's state of mind after the accident he is having a very hard time readjusting socially. This dynamic makes for many of the more emotional scenes in the film. There is not a bad performance in this movie. I have not even mentioned Judd Hirsch who plays his psychologist and may be my favorite character in Ordinary People.
There are not many flaws in Ordinary People. I like this film a lot but I think what kept me from falling head over heels is that at times the situations felt a slight bit contrived. I am reluctant to say that because that probably gives the impression that the film did not feel authentic and it did. I think the difference is that the relationships felt authentic even if sometimes their conflict did not.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f3/Pacific_Rim_FilmPoster.jpeg/220px-Pacific_Rim_FilmPoster.jpeg
1.5
Director: Guillermo Del Toro
I am having a horrible summer at the movies and couldn't be more disappointed about that. It seems like each movie I go see is worse than the last, but in fairness I did like Pacific Rim slightly better than White House Down.
I feel like there is just nothing left to say about these summer blockbusters. My beef with them is becoming as monotonous as the movies themselves. There is no thought put into the characters, every single one is one dimensional. The dialogue is horrid full of lines like: "It's not obedience it's...respect", "Let's do this together", and "Today we are canceling the apocalypse". The acting is atrocious, I am sure plenty of women love Hunnam but he brings little to any character I have ever seen him play. I am a fan of Elba generally but he is horrible here. The script does him no favors, they are trying to make him Vince Lombardi, but he comes off more like Vince Vaughn which is not a compliment to a character in this world. Every single line of humor falls flat, I did not smile once but shook my head plenty. Day, Gorman, and Perlman are supposed to be our comic relief but like Elba are betrayed by no thought being put into the script.
What little credit I am giving to the movie is because Del Toro can create some cool looking robots and monsters. That is just not enough to sustain me for two hours.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/07/Bully_poster.jpg/220px-Bully_poster.jpg
3.5
Director: Lee Hirsch
Bully is an heart wrenching documentary as you would expect. It follows five children of varying ages and backgrounds. What they have in common is that they are all bullied to some extent. Two of them to the point where their voices are not even able to be heard in this film. There are few smiles to be had in this film, you will either be in tears or rage at virtually every moment. What surprised me and I suspect will surprise others is some of the people that you will become enraged at.
Bully effected me deeply, especially as a father. To see what they go through not only makes you hurt for them but also will make you fear for your own children. There is something that is keeping this from being a great documentary and I can not put my finger on what it is. I left the film feeling like something is missing that it is incomplete somehow. The more I reflect on it the more I think that may have been deliberate. I can't shake that feeling however. So I highly recommend Bully, I think it is an important film, but I did not fall in love with it.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/19/Stoker_teaser_poster.jpg/215px-Stoker_teaser_poster.jpg
3.5
Director: Chan-wook Park
In Stoker Park has given us a smart, straight forward thriller. What I love about Stoker is just because the narrative is straight forward doesn't mean Park isn't giving us things to think about. It also doesn't mean that he doesn't hold some things back, there are a few surprises in the last third if not twists. There are also plenty of themes to explore. Park is telling the story he wants to tell the way he wants to tell it and the audience benefits from it. I think what I appreciate about Park the most as a director is the way he integrates visuals into his storytelling. Visuals are a huge part of his technique but you never feel like they are the story. His films are character driven while the visuals enhance the worlds he builds and gives us insight into the characters psyche. Park does not waste a frame in Stoker. Every single movement, word, color, or object means something. It is there for a reason and this make Stoker an incredibly rich film.
Stoker centers around three main characters and we have a fourth whose presence is felt throughout. India (Wasikowska) and Uncle Charlie (Goode) are the most intriguing characters in the film. Their relationship creates most of the tension and conflict. India is an especially engaging character. While Uncle Charlies presence is the most unsettling, we always feel like we know where his arc is headed. India is the antithesis of this. Her arc is the most uncertain, while the tone does not give us much hope for a rosy ending, she is the character we feel has the best hope of breaking away from Charlies psychological hold. India's mother, Evelyn (Kidman), is the most baffling in the film in my opinion. Her motivations and intentions are never clear. She has a jealousy issue with India and her husbands relationship. While this is not unusual, the way it manifests itself in the film and ultimately the things that Evelyn allows to happen seem out of character. In the end I feel that Kidman's character was under developed and that makes her the weak link in a very strong story.
In my opinion Stoker is another strong showing for Park. The visuals he brings to a film never disappoint. Add that to his strong character development and you have a director whose work I will always look forward to.
Dtwizzy2k8
07-20-13, 02:07 PM
Ordinary People to me just felt, well, ordinary :( It was a good movie but the direction and way it was made felt like Redford was just going through the motions. The acting was very good overall, and the story was good but we have to give credit to the novel it's based on for that. I can't believe this won Best Picture over Raging Bull, that may be the worst pick of all-time.
Ordinary People to me just felt, well, ordinary :( It was a good movie but the direction and way it was made felt like Redford was just going through the motions. The acting was very good overall, and the story was good but we have to give credit to the novel it's based on for that. I can't believe this won Best Picture over Raging Bull, that may be the worst pick of all-time.
Raging Bull is better but I still think Ordinary People is well above average. To me it is better than Crash, Shakespeare, English Patient, and Argo. Just as good as a few others as well.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/13/Not_Fade_Away_poster.jpg/220px-Not_Fade_Away_poster.jpg
1
Director: David Chase
I was very excited when I heard that David Chase was making a feature film. Even more excited when I heard Gandolfini was in it. The fact that it was not gonna be a gangster film did not worry me in the least. Not Fade Away was on the top of my must see list last year. So I finally sat down to watch it and I was massively disappointed. Not Fade Away tells you exactly what it is in the beginning of the movie, a story about a band that doesn't make it. The sad part is I would not be interested in any of these characters if the band did make it. I will not remember a single one of these characters. Even sitting here now less than 24 hours after seeing the film I can not think of a single character name.
The film is meant to be a slow burn, mostly centering around one character who after joining the band becomes its most talented member and then by default its leader. You have known many of the band members throughout your life. They are the guys that want to party and play music once in a while. Of course they feel like they should become famous by default not by hard work. There music is art after all and they should be paid for it and not expected to earn it. That's it, if you get more out of the story than that, more power to you. If all this is not bad enough, Not Fade Away has probably one of the worst endings in the history of main stream films. Just really bad.
There are two reasons to watch this movie. The music is really good and there is lots of it. Gandolfini is great as the father. He is the only actor doing good work and he kills every scene he is in. Unfortunately he is not in most of the film, so we don't get nearly enough of the energy he brings. Not Fade Away is just a bad film.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/ce/Only_God_Forgives_poster.jpg/220px-Only_God_Forgives_poster.jpg
2.5
Director: Nicolas Winding Refn
When you make a movie like Drive that most people respond so positively too your next movie will be judged against it whether its fair or not. When that film is as stylized as Drive the comparisons will be even more intense. That has certainly been the case with Only God Forgives. I don't think this film lives up to the lofty standards set by Drive. I do think the comparisons are fair however because I feel Refn is trying to hit many of the same beats with Only God Forgives.
The story centers around Julian (Gosling) whose brother has been brutally murdered. Julian's mother (Thomas) comes to Bangkok to make sure that Julian seeks out revenge on those responsible. Julian seems reluctant but mostly does as his mother asks. Theirs is the most interesting relationship in the film. If this relationship had been explored with any effectiveness at all I think I would have had a much more positive response to this film. Instead we are left with hollow characters and little reason to care what their ultimate outcome will be. Every character in this film except for Thomas is given absolutely nothing to do. We see way too many shots of Gosling and Pansringarm just staring into the camera for extended takes. Due to the fact that we don't care about these characters these takes have no emotional effect. In my opinion that is the major difference between this film and Drive. In Drive we cared about the characters so the brooding was mysterious, in Only God Forgives we don't so the brooding is cheesy and badly executed.
What Refn does just as well as he did in Drive, if not better, is in the visuals. I have not seen a more atmospheric film thus far in 2013. This movie looks amazing. What I like the most about Refn's visuals is how he uses the frames to build tension and keep us guessing. Many characters in danger are framed in a way that we literally don't know what is around the corner. Simple, effective, and beautiful. I love this directors style and that makes me wish that this was a better film.
See Only God Forgives for the visuals not for the story arc or characters. If you happen to be a fan of lifeless karaoke or insane mothers that can put a psycho-sexual hold on you, you may love this film more than me.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/58/Lore_poster.png/215px-Lore_poster.png
3.5
Director: Cate Shortland
[/B][/SIZE] Lore follows five siblings in post war Germany as they travel from their home to their grandmothers after their parents arrests. Many obstacles stand in the way of their journey but are alleviated slightly when a concentration camp survivor takes an interest in Lore and her siblings and begins to help. The boy is adept at getting food and also has traveling papers. Both of these items are invaluable to Lore but she is conflicted because of the way she has been raised by her Nazi parents. Lore tries her hardest to maintain control of the situation but is obviously smitten by this would be savior.
Shortland has created a very emotional film. I really feel that Lore is at its most poignant when the characters that surround the main cast are discussing the aftermath of the war. To hear the way that many of the Germans felt about Jews and even Hitler himself is quite chilling and emotional. Shortland certainly uses this to her advantage and the film is better for it. I also enjoy the way that Shortland uses the infant as a device in the story. At many points in the story Lore and her siblings are discarded, to a person everyone offers to take the infant however. It is a nice picture of the rebirth and innocence that you know Germans would have been longing for at this time. I also enjoy the sense of place that Shortland creates in Lore. The war torn country side may not be beautiful to look at but it immerses us in the harsh reality that these children must endure.
Lore is certainly weak in some areas. For such a ponderous film all the themes remain at surface level which make for some pretty long stretches of very little going on. Though emotional most of the story feels quite contrived as well. There is also a twist at the end which was very unexpected. I can't decide whether I like it or whether it was unnecessary. In any case it kind of makes me want to watch the film again through different eyes. This at the end of the day was the point I believe. If Lore had known the truth throughout her journey things would certainly have been different and I think the same can be said for the viewer.
I definitely recommend that people see Lore. It is a unique movie. I have not seen a WWII film through these eyes before. It is a heart breaking journey but one worth taking.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/20/Detachment_poster.jpg/220px-Detachment_poster.jpg
3
Director: Tony Kaye
Detachment is the story of a substitute teacher (Brody) in an inner city neighborhood. He wants to make a difference but at the same time is dealing with some inner demons of his own. When he lands at a school where the faculty is as disillusioned as the students, things begin to unravel at an alarming pace.
Detachment is trying very hard to be the antithesis of films such as Lean On Me and Dangerous Minds. It succeeds on every level but I am not sure if that is such a good thing. In trying to be so dire and so grounded in reality much of the film becomes unbelievable. Detachment introduces us to so many relationships and story threads it is hard to attach yourself emotionally. I feel Detachment would be a better film if it narrowed its focus on just a couple of the many threads that it is juggling. There are a couple of story lines that feel authentic and I feel this would be a much better film if it had developed them more instead of throwing more and more ugliness at us.
Detachment is not a bad film but it is a frustrating one because it feels like it is on the cusp of being great. The film has an outstanding cast and each and everyone is doing good work. This movie also looks amazing. Kaye makes plenty of visually artistic decisions and they all worked for me. The static shots of empty school halls are especially memorable. The closing shot of this film is also poignant and well conceived. Detachment is also unflinching in its view, the problem becomes that its view loses credibility with how it concludes some of the characters stories.
Detachment wants you to know that our education system is broken in many ways, got it. Detachment wants you to know that our family unit is broken in many ways, got it. Detachment wants you to know that if we don't fix these issues this dangerous cycle will continue, got it. The problem is as ambitious as this film is I will not think about this film or any of its characters when pondering these things because Detachment fell short of making me connect with those themes.
Woody Allen Films
I watched six Woody Allen films this month and have enjoyed it immensely. However to avoid writing six reviews in which I use the word pretentious, amoral, self involved, quirky, witty, insightful, and brilliant like a hundred times I am going to include them all in one post. Ranked as to how much I enjoyed them from worst to first and with a couple sentences on each. Allen is certainly in my wheelhouse writing character and dialogue driven films. If there is a theme of human nature that Allen does not comment on in nearly every one of his movies they are few and far between. Although it is unlikely that Allen and I would see eye to eye on our responsibility to many of these issues I could not respect his unflinching and honest way of tackling these subjects more. I don't know that I will ever count many of his films among my hundred or so favorite films. However I have enjoyed each and every film of his I have viewed and look forward to seeing many more in the future. Great director and one of the if not the greatest writer in American film.
Hannah And Her Sisters-1986
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/af/Hannah_and_her_sisters.jpg/220px-Hannah_and_her_sisters.jpg
I don't know why this was my least favorite as this is a perfectly fine film. Good characters and story. I just didn't connect fully.
3.5
Crimes And Misdemeanors-1989
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/64/Crimes_and_misdemeanors2.jpg/215px-Crimes_and_misdemeanors2.jpg
Really engaging film but dragged a bit in the middle third. Landau is giving my second favorite performance of the Allen films I have watched. Alda is fantastic as well. Maybe the most times I laughed out loud at his films.
3.5
Midnight In Paris
2011
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/9f/Midnight_in_Paris_Poster.jpg/215px-Midnight_in_Paris_Poster.jpg
Really enjoy the more light-hearted Allen films for how much pure fun they are to watch. His science fiction is better than most of the big budget movies we are getting inundated with right now. Wilson gives my favorite performance which is surprising and saying something considering the great actors in all these films.
4
The Purple Rose Of Cairo-1985
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/c/cd/Rosa-purpura-do-cairo-poster02.jpg/220px-Rosa-purpura-do-cairo-poster02.jpg
Did not expect to like this one at all but watched it based on reading some reviews. I loved it, this was definitely the biggest surprise of the month for me and made me excited to watch Midnight. So much imagination and wit in this one. Definitely the most fun I had watching his movies.
4
Manhattan-1979
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f3/Manhattan-poster01.jpg/220px-Manhattan-poster01.jpg
Wrote a review for this one in July. Stumbled upon it on Netflix and it got me started on my Allen journey. This one and Annie Hall frustrate me the most as far as what Allen is saying about relationships and monogamy. They are my favorites however. They win me over with their honesty and wit. Allen is confounding in that he might be the most optimistic pessimist ever.
4
Annie Hall-1977
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e6/Anniehallposter.jpg/220px-Anniehallposter.jpg
There is a reason this is Allen's most beloved film. Amazing engaging characters and story. Very funny and endearing despite the flawed characters. This is one I will count among my all time favorites.
4.5
I gave Detachment a 9/10 although I do agree with some of your criticisms. For me I just felt that Brody's performance was so good that it made up for some of those issues.
I need to watch more Woody Allen films. So many great directors, so little time :)
Gideon58
08-15-13, 02:39 PM
Stanwyck was robbed of an Oscar for this one.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f9/Elysium_Poster.jpg/220px-Elysium_Poster.jpg
3
Director: Neil Blomkamp
I just knew Elysium was going to bring me out of my summer blockbuster blues. This has been the film I have been most looking forward to. One of my favorite actors and actresses, when she decides to actually be in a film. An up and coming sci-fi director whose debut was one of the better sci-fi films of the last decade. It might be a case of me being too hyped up but while not being a belly flop Elysium was certainly my definition of a mixed bag. As expected this film looks brilliant. From the slums of a 2154 LA to the super perfect gleaming Elysium, the world is pitch perfect. The androids look awesome and feel real. The vehicles are super cool. Although I think there were a couple too many action sequences they all looked amazing and were easy to follow despite the sometimes distracting shaky cam.
I was all in the first twenty minutes of the movie. Blomkamp sets up the world and characters very well. We get a strong sense of place and where the characters are coming from. I felt like I would be invested in where our story was headed but Blomkamp could not sustain the momentum. The film becomes bogged down in political rhetoric that is not at all conveyed in a realistic way. On top of that it becomes an ultra violent spectacle. I long for the day when directors learn that less is more when it comes to action and more is better when it comes to character development. Blomkamp goes the opposite way in Elysium and it is to the films detriment as would be expected. I was also devastated at the way Foster was used. She is given nothing to do and we learn absolutely nothing about her except for the fact that she is super powerful. She is really just a plot device as are the medical bays which figure prominently into the story but we are given no information for. How hard are they to produce? How many are there? How expensive are they to run? Answers to these questions would go a long way into helping Blomkamp's story and his political stance but we are given no answers. We are to just accept what is laid before us.
Blomkamp has a message he is trying to convey and is not an unimportant theme. However instead of conveying and exploring these themes in a meaningful way he just wants us to jump on board to his way of thinking and enjoy some visceral eye candy along the way. I had a foot on and a foot off while watching Elysium. Unfortunately instead of leaving me satisfied it just left me thinking about how great it could have been.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/39/Leaving_las_vegas_ver1.jpg/220px-Leaving_las_vegas_ver1.jpg
1
Director: Mike Figgis
I really did not expect to hate this film, but I did. I was really thinking I would love it or that it would be just good at worst. My major beef with this film is its lack of exposition. With very little back story given for either of the main characters what we are left with is debauchery for debauchery's sake. Ben (Cage) has decided to go to Las Vegas to drink himself to death. Apparently this is because of his ex-wife and child. However we are given no insight into this relationship and why it would push him to such a tragic existence. Enter Serah (Shue) a Las Vegas prostitute with all kinds of demons of her own. Most notably an abusive pimp who could be the character to give us some insight into Serah's psyche. Instead we are given no reason as to how she came to be a prostitute or came to be entangled with her pimp. We know simply that there is conflict between these two characters and when the film no longer needs him he simply disappears.
The pimp is not the only device that Figgis uses inconsistently. Ben's sexual appetite seems to come and go as is convenient for emotional impact. We see him inappropriately proposition more than one women but when he finally gets Serah to his room he simply wants a night of cuddling. Of course this makes him irresistible to the prostitute who is treated like a piece of meat by all the men she comes in contact with. So their relationship begins, one in where we still learn nothing about them but the fact that neither party wants to be told by the other that they should end their self abuse.
I love a film with tragically flawed characters. Characters who are entertaining sides of humanity that most of us thankfully will never have to experience. I want these characters to be in their situation for a reason however. I want to understand their motivations. Then I can sympathize and go on their emotional journey with them. This never comes close to happening to me in Leaving Las Vegas. I think the line in the film that is supposed to grab us, to make us understand what love is all about is when Serah tells Ben "I love you the way you are". Maybe that work for Serah but as a movie goer I want to have a little insight into why you are the way you are.
Very nice reviews sean. :up: I've got to say I'm rather disheartened to see yet another review for Elysium which seems to place it in the camp of perfectly decent-good as opposed to excellent. Like you my expectations for it had become pretty huge and was hoping/expecting to see loads of reviews absolutely raving about it. So far just about every review I've come across however has been a 3 or a 3.5. I'm certainly still very interested in seeing it but my hopes have been tempered a bit.
honeykid
08-26-13, 12:46 PM
I can kill it for you even more, JD. :D
My sister saw it with her b/f and liked it while he didn't. He's a big sci-fi nut and she has no taste in film at all. That said, she likes crappy Stallone and Arnie films, so you might not agree that she has no taste. :p
I can kill it for you even more, JD. :D
:( Why would you do that to me? And more importantly why do you apparently take such pleasure in it?! :D
That said, she likes crappy Stallone and Arnie films, so you might not agree that she has no taste. :p
Says the guy that likes/loves Commando and Predator (even if the latter gets worse every time you see it). And I think I quite like the sounds of your sister. This boyfriend of hers.....is it serious? Does she like a Scottish accent? :p
honeykid
08-26-13, 07:40 PM
:( Why would you do that to me? And more importantly why do you apparently take such pleasure in it?! :D
Because I'm an evil, evil man. :p
Says the guy that likes/loves Commando and Predator (even if the latter gets worse every time you see it).
Yes, but those are the good ones. I'm talking D-Tox and Junior.
Does she like a Scottish accent? :p
She does. In fact, she likes lots of those funny/annoying/indecipherable accents. :p
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/02/What_Maisie_Knew_Poster.jpg/220px-What_Maisie_Knew_Poster.jpg
2013 Director: Scott McGehee, David Siegel
The story of a divorce through a six year old's eyes. This is no ordinary divorce however, at least I hope not. These people may be the most self centered people to ever conceive a child. For proof of this you need to look no further than the fact that Maisie connects with both her step parents far more than she ever does with her own mother and father.
Everything in this film is through Maisie's eyes so we get little insight into the adult's motivations in this film. This works in favor of the film as we sympathize with Maisie at every turn, as we should. It does work against the film somewhat as well however. The film does not pack the emotional punch I expected due to not having a very strong grasp of where the adults are headed and why. We simply understand this set of adults is neglecting this child and this set of adults is providing what she needs.
What Maisie Knew will still tug at your heart strings a little though.
What Maisie Knew is a simple film with a straight forward narrative. It has good but not great performances. There are some very touching moments and some that feel more than a little forced. Worth the watch but nothing that will stay with you for very long.
3
honeykid
08-27-13, 10:10 AM
I keep seeing this advertised, but it just doesn't appeal to me in the slightest. Glad you liked it enough. :)
I keep seeing this advertised, but it just doesn't appeal to me in the slightest. Glad you liked it enough. :)
I get not being interested for sure. I'm divorced with a kid about this age, so I was expecting a tearjerker.
Because I'm an evil, evil man. :p
She does. In fact, she likes lots of those funny/annoying/indecipherable accents. :p
Yeah I'm starting to understand that!
I'm going to be the bigger man and ignore that casual racism! So your sister....got a picture of her? :randy:
:p
Rhaegar Targaryen
08-29-13, 12:42 AM
Awesome Reviews.
So far I have read 3/5 of them.
Keep up the great work.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/9/95/Amour-poster-french.jpg/220px-Amour-poster-french.jpg
2012 Director: Michael Haneke
This is a perfect example of the director elevating the material. The narrative is simple. A couple growing old together, one of them gets ill, and the other has to watch the person they have given everything to fade away. Haneke engages us beyond this simple narrative however. He does so visually and by always keeping the complexities of the story at arms length.
Haneke's static shots are perfect, as they always are. Most of the film takes place in the couples apartment but that doesn't keep the film from being beautiful to look at. The furniture, the way a door is painted, the kitchen, or the bookcase in the living room. I have never been so enamored with the mundane the way I am when viewing a Haneke film. I also loved the way that the first scene in Amour mirrors the final scene in Cache. You have a simple static shot full of people. In the case of Amour it takes place in a theater. We just spend a short couple of minutes watching people in it exist, but it is mesmerizing. Of course we are searching for someone we know, and eventually you find them. The point is it doesn't matter if you find them or not. They are just existing in this space like all of those around them.
Haneke also has such a unique style to his story telling. We are introduced to a couple of people who have been a part of this couples life. One is a student and the other is their daughter. It is obvious that they have effected both of these peoples life in both a positive and negative manner. Haneke never gives us enough to let us know exactly how but just enough for us to have something to chew on. Ultimately I think he wants us to draw our own conclusions, to fill in the blanks. Most of the time this would be a strategy that would annoy me and remove me from the film, but somehow with a Haneke film it mostly works.
I think that the ending of this film is one that could spark some controversy. There have been other films that have ended in a similar manner, and I feel that it works. In real life such an ending would be appalling, but when taken in the context of storytelling I think it is effective. Like the other Haneke films I have seen I really liked Amour, however I can't help but feel that if he would just give me a little more to grab hold of I would be in love with his films.
4
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/0b/Keaton_Sherlock_Jr_1924.jpg/220px-Keaton_Sherlock_Jr_1924.jpg
1924 Director: Buster Keaton
My first ever silent film, thanks to DanielM for finally making me man up. Unfortunately the experience was exactly what I thought it would be. It was like watching a long version of the clips I have seen hundreds of times in commercials and in other movies. It is all about the sight gags and in 2013 sight gags aint what they used to be. I am sure what Keaton was doing in 1924 was unique and engaging, I am willing to grade on that scale. That only goes so far with me however and the fact that I never laughed once in a comedy has to go into my grading as well. After all I have laughed at Abbot and Costello and I Love Lucy and even the Three Stooges on a rare occasion. The other thing that struck me while watching Sherlock Jr was that the text was completely unnecessary. We could have understood each and every thing that was going on without a word of it. It seems even in 1924 silent films directors didn't trust us to engage with the story without spelling it out for us.
So I enjoyed four of the sight gags, and that will be enough to get Buster some popcorn points from me, which is what made him get into making films I am sure. I thought the sticky trash that he puts onto the man's shoe was good, that received an actual smile from me if not a laugh. Keaton exiting the train by way of the water tower was pretty cool. Running and jumping through the open briefcase was a nifty trick. Lastly the bike ride with no driver was enjoyable.
I am glad that being on movie forums has made me break down and watch some films that I probably wouldn't have otherwise. I will not be adding the rest of Keaton's filmography to my watch list however.
3
Daniel M
09-03-13, 09:05 PM
Ah well, at least you tried it and didn't totally hate it I guess! I watched it a couple of times as it is short for a feature film, but I will say I didn't really 'laugh out loud' for a lot of it, but for most the film I was smiling with delight at Keaton's on screen antics and tricks :)
Ah well, at least you tried it and didn't totally hate it I guess! I watched it a couple of times as it is short for a feature film, but I will say I didn't really 'laugh out loud' for a lot of it, but for most the film I was smiling with delight at Keaton's on screen antics and tricks :)
The brisk 45 minutes make a difference for sure. When I was married I sat through dozens of CSI and Grey's Anatomy episodes that were longer, so this was no biggie.;)
cricket
09-04-13, 12:58 AM
Regarding the Leaving Las Vegas review and the fact you wanted the character's backstory- Sometimes there is no real story or reason why people end up this way. And Ben's up and down sexual urges are very common in drunks. Drunks often like the chase, but the drink is ultimately more important. This was a pretty realistic movie, but obviously not a movie for everyone.
I am obviously in the minority when it comes to this film. It simply felt inconsistent to me. This is a subject that hits home in a lot of ways to. I love it when a film has the guts to portray alcoholism in a realistic way but Leaving Las Vegas came up short for me.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/db/Stories_We_Tell_poster.jpg/220px-Stories_We_Tell_poster.jpg
2013 Director: Sarah Polley
Polley has made an incredibly engaging documentary about her family and the events surrounding her mother's death. She simply sits down her brothers and sisters, her father, and some close family friends and asks them to recount the story in their own words from their own perspective. What the film becomes is an exercise in revealing the truth. How we all make our own truth based on our perspective, relationships, and experiences. Each player in Polley's story has a slightly different take on the amazing story that unfolds before us. Every single person is a sympathetic character, none are trying to be misleading. Each of them is simply conveying the story from their truth of what transpired. They all love Polley's mother, yet they all recognize her strengths and weaknesses as well.
Polley's story is nothing short of extraordinary. The fact that she is willing to share it with the world shows a lot of courage. That is not the amazing part of the film for me though. The fact that she chose to tell the story this way, to tell us the story while also closely examining why and how we tell stories the way we do is genius. Polley is quickly becoming one of my favorite film makers. I cannot wait to see what project she takes on next. Meanwhile Stories We Tell is far and way my second favorite film of the year thus far.
[/URL]
[URL="http://letterboxd.com/seanc/film/stories-we-tell/likes/"]4
(http://letterboxd.com/seanc/film/stories-we-tell/likes/)
bluedeed
09-07-13, 12:16 AM
It is all about the sight gags and in 2013 sight gags aint what they used to be
I'm not sure what you mean with this statement. Sight gags don't happen anymore in film (besides Edgar Wright to a small extent) because they're way more difficult to coordinate and come up with. It's way easier to build comedic dialogue because it's how everybody communicates humor regularly. It's a uniquely cinematic form of humor (the faux mirror shot is great), it should be held in much higher regard than dialogue. If you dislike sight gags, you'll love Jacques Tati. Keaton's humor is not even entirely visual based. There's his recurring partner, some humorous title cards, and the ending are not strict, or at all dated, visual humor.
I'm not sure what you mean with this statement. Sight gags don't happen anymore in film (besides Edgar Wright to a small extent) because they're way more difficult to coordinate and come up with. It's way easier to build comedic dialogue because it's how everybody communicates humor regularly. It's a uniquely cinematic form of humor (the faux mirror shot is great), it should be held in much higher regard than dialogue. If you dislike sight gags, you'll love Jacques Tati. Keaton's humor is not even entirely visual based. There's his recurring partner, some humorous title cards, and the ending are not strict, or at all dated, visual humor.
It may be more unique, but for me it is not funny anymore. A banana peel gag, really? I am all about the dialogue. I can respect that Keaton was a pioneer, and some of the tricks were pretty cool. In the end though it doesn't make me laugh which is all I want a comedy to do. So I can't see any of these types of films ever being among my faves.
bluedeed
09-07-13, 11:36 AM
It may be more unique, but for me it is not funny anymore. A banana peel gag, really? I am all about the dialogue. I can respect that Keaton was a pioneer, and some of the tricks were pretty cool. In the end though it doesn't make me laugh which is all I want a comedy to do. So I can't see any of these types of films ever being among my faves.
Yes, a banana peel gag, one of the smallest and least significant jokes in the film. Though even that poked fun of the usual banana peel gag. It's strange that you picked something so minor to criticize instead of describing any of the later set pieces or gags which (thematically purposefully) become much more complex and integral to the film than that as the film continues.
Yes, a banana peel gag, one of the smallest and least significant jokes in the film. Though even that poked fun of the usual banana peel gag. It's strange that you picked something so minor to criticize instead of describing any of the later set pieces or gags which (thematically purposefully) become much more complex and integral to the film than that as the film continues.
Fair enough. I enjoyed the bike chase and I really liked the framing of the last shot. This is something that I mentioned in the HOF thread, though I forgot to in my review. I didn't hate this film on every level it just didnt make me laugh, which is kind of the point.
honeykid
09-07-13, 12:53 PM
Yes, a banana peel gag, one of the smallest and least significant jokes in the film.
I don't know this, but, perhaps, it's because they're all banana peel gags to people who don't like sight gags/visual comedy? I often feel that way. I don't give a crap how long it took to set up, how imaginative it is, how dangerous or anything else. Did it make me laugh? That's what matters. And these films rarely make me laugh, which is why I don't watch them. Keaton, Chaplin, Lloyd, Laurel & Hardy, The Three Stooges, etc. I don't like any of them because they don't make me laugh. I say I love The Marx Brothers, but the truth is I love Groucho. Scenes with just Groucho and Chico/Margaret Dumount are great too. But that's pretty much it. I always speed through the musical interludes and any extended Harpo tomfoolery.
How many dramas make you cry? How many action films make you out of breath or sweat? How many horror films make you bleed or piss your pants (scare you)? I already know the answers for some of you. :) Movies appeal to more than physical reaction, and besides, when you've spent most of your life shutting down certain reactions, it's pretty unfair to expect an old movie to change your habits all of a sudden.
How many dramas make you cry? How many action films make you out of breath or sweat? How many horror films make you bleed or piss your pants (scare you)? I already know the answers for some of you. :) Movies appeal to more than physical reaction, and besides, when you've spent most of your life shutting down certain reactions, it's pretty unfair to expect an old movie to change your habits all of a sudden.
This comment made me take pause because I do think there is some truth in it for sure. There are two things that make me feel this is not what is going on with me in this film though. 1) I don't have to laugh out loud to find a film funny. I think Rushmore is one of the funnier movies I have seen and I don't laugh out loud at it. 2) There are things that make me laugh out loud that I have seen 100 times. Seinfeld and early episodes of The Office are what come to mind immediately.
I do think sometimes my expectations for pure comedies may be unfair though. I only expect them to work for me on one level and that is to make laugh (again not necessarily out loud). I don't expect to connect with the characters or story in any other way and maybe that is part of the reason that I don't.
As an aside because it seems fitting in this conversation. I generally am not a huge fan of film comedies, there are only a handful that I really respond to. I generally find more humor of the gut laughing kind in TV. Seinfeld, The Office, Friends, and King Of Queens slay me on a consistent basis. I don't know what this says about the way I view comedy. Maybe some of you who have a deeper knowledge of how we engage with film can enlighten me.
honeykid
09-07-13, 04:30 PM
That's a fair point, mark. I should say, I don't like any of them and they don't make me laugh.
Though, as to the argument, Bluedeed picked out the banana peel gag and made the point that it was a small gag and that it poked fun at the usual gag. Thereby placing importance on it, however, if those type of gags don't make you laugh, then neither the physicality nor the intent/satire/parody of it are likely to make any difference. That was what I was trying to get at, however ham-fistedly I did so. :D
bluedeed
09-07-13, 05:01 PM
Though, as to the argument, Bluedeed picked out the banana peel gag and made the point that it was a small gag and that it poked fun at the usual gag. Thereby placing importance on it, however, if those type of gags don't make you laugh, then neither the physicality nor the intent/satire/parody of it are likely to make any difference. That was what I was trying to get at, however ham-fistedly I did so. :D
I made a comment about how that gag had more to it than he saw, but I didn't laugh at it when I saw it the first time or any time after that. That wasn't the point of what I was saying.
There does seem to be a bond between familiarity and laughing. The more you watch something or someone, the more you let it in and feel it's OK to laugh. I have no love for most of the popular sitcoms of the '80s and '90s because I rarely watched them, and when I did, I just thought "What a bunch of unfunny weirdos". Now. "All in the Family" and "Sanford and Som" I find hilarious because I watched them when they were on and many times since. You could call it nostalgia, but I call it comfort. I just guess I'm comfortable with these oldtime fimmakers' senses of humor.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/ba/Blithe_Spirit_-_UK_film_poster.jpg/220px-Blithe_Spirit_-_UK_film_poster.jpg
1945 Director: David Lean
This film had me hooked in the first thirty minutes. The sharp dialogue and the comfort with which the characters interact is a recipe for success in my movie viewing. It reminded me very much of a film I love, The Grass Is Greener. The setup involves a couple who are having a dinner party with another couple and a medium. Our protagonist is writing a book and it involves the supernatural. His plan is to have this medium over so that he can see the way she works but also to affirm his notion that she is a charlatan. The entire dinner party is delightful to watch. The witty banter continues and maybe even elevates when the medium appears. At first I found this character over the top but after she settles into the scenes she fits right in and has some of the better lines in the scene.
During the seance at the dinner party our protagonist hears the voice of his dead wife. He tries to play it off to the others as if he is faking but when everyone leaves and his dead wife walks through the back door he can no longer fake it with his current wife. He reveals to her what has happened and she resists at first. Soon though the facts are too obvious and she realizes it is true. This is where the film lost me and I feel like it was a slow decline from the moment the spirit shows up. Soon we are in the middle of the 1945 version of Death Becomes Her. The spirit is jealous of the current wife. The current wife is jealous of the spirit. The husband is caught in the middle with no idea how to fix his problem. When the spirit decides to try and kill the husband so that he will be with her things become even more convoluted and the story loses me even further.
This film is above average for me, but ultimately just lost any engagement with me that it earned in the first third. I'm not 100% sure what I wanted this movie to become but I know that where it went was just too outrageous for me. The couple from the beginning become uninteresting. The medium, who shows up again in the last act, this time stays silly and over the top. For my viewing I think a film is better off to start slow and end strong. I feel like this leaves the viewer with a more positive overall experience. I am disappointed that Blithe Spirit went the opposite way but would still recommend this movie.
3.5
honeykid
09-08-13, 09:50 PM
I love Blithe Spirit, but I can kind of see why you might not for the reason you've given. Obviously, it wasn't a problem for me, but then I like Death Becomes Her. :D
Anyway, as you liked the dialogue, I'd recommend anything by Noel Coward, but for films this I'd suggest Easy Virtue (2008) and Relative Values (2000).
Thanks for the recommendations, Ill check them out. Always looking for good dialogue heavy films.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2c/The_Butler_poster.jpg/220px-The_Butler_poster.jpg
2013 Director: Lee Daniels
The Butler is exactly what you would expect from a broad biopic that scales across not just years but decades. You will more than likely run the gamut of emotions. There is humor, sadness, and melodrama. Most of the emotion that Daniels is trying to evoke is earned, some is not. Despite all that what struck me the most while watching The Butler was just how thrilled I was to be sitting in a theater watching a film that cared about the narrative and its characters. I feel like The Butler has started off the fall season and that could not thrill me more.
The Butler is a simple but extraordinary story. After seeing his father killed in cold blood by the plantation owners son he is brought into the home to learn to be a butler. Soon he has to leave the plantation but his skills serve him well in finding a new job. When he receives an invite to become a butler at the White House his amazing adult journey begins. He serves under eight presidents, and while we get a glimpse into many aspects of American culture during each one the stories main focus is on civil rights. The Butler has two sons, one who becomes extremely active in civil rights activism. Much of what he does is disapproved of by his father and this is where the majority of the films conflict comes from. However next to Whitaker's butler, in my opinion the most interesting character is his wife played by Oprah. The couple survives some truly tumultuous circumstances and I would have enjoyed to see this explored more deeply. There is simply not enough time to delve deeply into every character which is usually the issue with a film that covers so much time and it is no different with The Butler. Whitaker and Winfrey make the most of every single scene together though, they work perfectly together and are giving A+ performances. It is especially great to see Whitaker back in top form, it seems to me that he has been settling for many lesser films over the past few years.
I recommend reading up a little on the true events of this man after seeing the film. I won't comment on those things here for fear of ruining the experience of the film. I do have some thoughts that would be interested to share with anyone who has seen the film. Sometimes I think that film makers take too many liberties with true stories, Argo anyone, but other times I have no issue with it and that is the case here. There is a major discrepancy but after dwelling on the film I think I understand why Daniels chose to do what he did. I believe that it made for an interesting exploration into the butler's psyche and thus was warranted.
The Butler is by no means a perfect film but is an above average bio-pic and more than worth your time.
3.5
mumupotato
09-12-13, 12:31 AM
Oh，my god.I didn't watch many films which you said.I was so out .
Guaporense
09-12-13, 01:06 AM
How many dramas make you cry? How many action films make you out of breath or sweat? How many horror films make you bleed or piss your pants (scare you)? I already know the answers for some of you. :) Movies appeal to more than physical reaction, and besides, when you've spent most of your life shutting down certain reactions, it's pretty unfair to expect an old movie to change your habits all of a sudden.
That's true. It's been over an year since I laughed out aloud watching a movie.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/ec/Shaun-of-the-dead.jpg/220px-Shaun-of-the-dead.jpg
2004 Director: Edgar Wright
"You've got red on you."
My first time wading into the cornetto trilogy and I am very pleased I did. Up to this point the only Edgar Wright film I had seen was Scott Pilgrim and this kept me from being excited about seeing others. The tongue in cheek dry humor is right up my alley and is non stop in Shaun Of The Dead. The pairing of Pegg and Frost is perfect and they carry the entire film. The peripheral characters are not bad and Wright is having some fun with their relationships but everything feeds off of Pegg and Frost.
Shaun Of The Dead did lose me towards the last third when things become more conventional action than comedy. Overall I really enjoyed this film though and look forward to seeing Hot Fuzz next.
3.5
honeykid
09-13-13, 11:59 PM
Shaun Of The Dead is ok, but I've never really understood the appeal of Simon Pegg's humour. :shrug: I think I sold my copy for a fiver to someone who really wanted it.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f4/On_the_Waterfront_poster.jpg/225px-On_the_Waterfront_poster.jpg
1954 Director: Elia Kazan
" I coulda had class. I coulda been a contender. I coulda been somebody."
It is easy to see why this film gets all of the love that it does. The small guy, in this case longshoreman, against the big guy, the mob, is a story that is as old and relate-able as civilization. Brando and Malden are amazing. This is probably my favorite Brando performance and that includes The Godfather which is one of my favorite films. There are four or five scenes in this movie that are so show stopping great that they could make you over look some of the flaws, of which there are a few.
Terry (Brando) is an ex-boxer who now is doing work for a union boss who is not anything more than a mob boss (Cobb). He has a couple of reasons for doing this kind of work. One: it is the only kind of work that most men in this town can get. The union is deciding who works and when, and if you want steady work being with them is the only way to assure it. Second: his brother is second in command which gives him little wiggle room. From the moment we meet Terry we see him as a conflicted man. When he plays a part in the death of a worker who is adored by everyone who knows him his regret is apparent. When he begins to fall for the deceased's sister things become much more complicated.
Their relationship is my biggest issue with the film. It never took me out of the story completely but the thought that she would have anything to do with this man who everyone knew is a part of the organization that killed her brother was tough to believe. Brando does an outstanding job of making Terry a sympathetic character however, and that helps alleviate some of my issues. One of my other issues with the film, despite my love of Cobb's performance, is when we are introduced to the boss and and Terry's brother. Much of the scene works because of the performances. The scene seems to exist just to spoon feed us exposition a tactic which always leaves me with a bit of a bad taste in my mouth.
Brando is magnificent and has a lot of great scenes. The scene in the cab with his brother and the climax on the dock are two that jump immediately to mind. What shocked me while watching the film though is that Malden is every bit as great as Brando, playing the priest with a true conscious for the people. Malden and Brando don't spend as much time on screen together as you would hope, but the scenes they do have together are mesmerizing and perfect. Cobb's role is smaller, but he is great in every moment we get to spend with his seedy character as well.
On The Waterfront is a true classic. A very good story with outstanding performances. I enjoyed the time I spent with it very much.
[/URL]
[URL="http://letterboxd.com/seanc/film/on-the-waterfront/likes/"]4
(http://letterboxd.com/seanc/film/on-the-waterfront/likes/)
Daniel M
09-15-13, 07:48 PM
Nice review, although I disagree with some of your concerns over the film, I enjoyed the relationship thing more and felt at first she wanted to talk to him and that to find out and help get justice for her brother, even if it meant becoming involved in a possibly sexual way, and then it kind of grew from there.
I give it the same rating, a great classic film with great performances and scenes.
Nice review, although I disagree with some of your concerns over the film, I enjoyed the relationship thing more and felt at first she wanted to talk to him and that to find out and help get justice for her brother, even if it meant becoming involved in a possibly sexual way, and then it kind of grew from there.
I give it the same rating, a great classic film with great performances and scenes.
I didn't read that at all, but certainly is not out of the realm of possibility. Thanks for the feedback, that is an interesting take.
Watched Elyisum a week or two ago by the way and sadly would have to agree with your thoughts on it. Good but ultimately disappointing. Had a lot of great and promising elements but for whatever reason they just never came together to gel into something truly satisfying.
I think one major problem were the characters. There was very little development in the Damon character so it was tough to care about him except as a result of the horrible fate that befalls him. The big problem though I felt were Copley and Foster's characters. Blomkamp seemed to be aiming for quite a serious movie with a message but they felt like they belonged to something much trashier and pulpier. Both were quite over the top and hammy and would have been more at home in something like Total Recall I felt. A shame
Watched Elyisum a week or two ago by the way and sadly would have to agree with your thoughts on it. Good but ultimately disappointing. Had a lot of great and promising elements but for whatever reason they just never came together to gel into something truly satisfying.
I think one major problem were the characters. There was very little development in the Damon character so it was tough to care about him except as a result of the horrible fate that befalls him. The big problem though I felt were Copley and Foster's characters. Blomkamp seemed to be aiming for quite a serious movie with a message but they felt like they belonged to something much trashier and pulpier. Both were quite over the top and hammy and would have been more at home in something like Total Recall I felt. A shame
Sorry you had the same experience, very disappointing film. There might not be a more wasted actress this year then Foster in Elysium.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/18/Drstrangelove1sheet-.jpg/220px-Drstrangelove1sheet-.jpg
3.5
Director: Stanley Kubrick
"Gentleman, there is no fighting in the war room."
Kubrick knew how to do war satire, no doubt about it. Strangelove is biting commentary on the absurdity of war while at the same time still being fun. This film reminds me of Mash in that way. What I think is great about these films compared to something like Tropic Thunder is that despite the absurdity of a lot of the characters actions they still feel somewhat grounded at their core. The other thing that I love is that despite the age of this film it still feels relevant, which is no easy task in a nearly fifty year old comedy.
Quite a few of the characters in Strangelove are fantastic, but for me the standout is Scott's general. Every scene that revolves around him in the war room is priceless. His lines evoked the most laugh out loud moments for me and his character is certainly the reason that I will enjoy revisiting this film. Sellers was also good especially when he is interacting with the soldier who storms the antagonists office. Their debate over the Coke machine may be my favorite comedic moment. Strangely enough the only character that was not enjoyable to me was Strangelove himself.
Again similar to Mash what I liked a lot about the writing in Strangelove are the moments where the characters are not concentrating on war despite the severity of what is happening around them. Scott's interactions with his character's secretary are a great example of this. As is the presidents phone conversations with the Russian leader. Strangelove was not all positives for me. Like many satires there are lulls that take you out of the film. In my opinion those moments here were Strangelove's speeches and when Kubrick is showing us actual acts of war. For me these moments kept this film from being truly great.
Overall I really enjoyed Dr. Strangelove, it is definitely my favorite Kubrick film to date although I have a few to see.
The documentary-like scenes showing the attack on Burpelson AFB are funny and intense and presage both the '60s evening newscasts of Vietnam and Kubrick's own staging of urban warfare in Full Metal Jacket. The scene where Major Kong's plane tries to elude a Soviet missile is incredibly suspenseful and realistic. Strangelove blows MASH out of the water. :)
The documentary-like scenes showing the attack on Burpelson AFB are funny and intense and presage both the '60s evening newscasts of Vietnam and Kubrick's own staging of urban warfare in Full Metal Jacket. The scene where Major Kong's plane tries to elude a Soviet missile is incredibly suspenseful and realistic. Strangelove blows MASH out of the water. :)
Do you not like Mash at all or is it just that you love Strangelove so much? I would have to watch Mash again but I feel like its highs match Strangelove's highs. I just felt Mash went on too long, I would rank them about the same. Also, do you disagree with me about the character of Strangelove? I would be interested to know if others felt similarly.
The Gunslinger45
09-25-13, 08:45 PM
I am so happy you enjoyed my nomination for the MoFo Hall of Fame. It is truely one of my favorite movies.
I just saw MASH again recently and thought less of it than I had before. I thought it was only OK. I saw it for the first time in 1971 with my parents on a double bill with Patton. It might not be a fair question since Strangelove is one of my faves, and I think the good doctor himself is a hoot.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/18/The_Spectacular_Now_film.jpg/220px-The_Spectacular_Now_film.jpg
2013 Director: James Ponsoldt
"I like to think people are about more than one thing."
Not a lot of films have the guts to take an honest difficult look at teen alcoholism. We get more party hearty teen films involving alcohol then anything else. The Spectacular Now is certainly taking a harder more stripped down approach to this subject. At many points it succeeds, but ultimately I think it lets its protagonist off the hook a bit. Maybe it doesn't let him off the hook, but we get a couple of situations that are in the film for conflict. In real life these situations would have criminal consequences but here they are swept to the side when they are no longer necessary to the narrative.
Sutter is the life of the party. He has a great girlfriend, and on the surface very little to concern himself with. After he gets dumped things begin to change for Sutter, or rather his deep rooted issues begin to bubble to the surface. He meets a new girl, Aimee (Woodley), who is not at all like the girls that he usually dates. At first it seems as though he feels sorry for her, but soon begins to develop true feelings for her. Because of her personality the audience, I believe, is meant to feel as though Aimee is going to make Sutter into the man he could be. The Spectacular Now does not go the traditional route however. The characters have an effect on each other, good and bad. Throughout the film we see them influence each other, not just the good of one rubbing out the bad. This is where I feel like this film succeeds where others fail. It is willing to take an honest look at how we change each other where other films of this nature would just choose the traditional path to redemption.
Everything does not come up roses for this coming of age tale however.
The Spectacular Now is hampered by a ho-hum script and wooden acting. I did have a moment when I thought that maybe the acting was less than because of the script or direction, I liked Woodley in The Descendants after all. That thought was quickly laid to rest, however, when Kyle Chandler shows up as Sutter's father. Chandler knocks it out of the park the couple of short scenes he is in. Unfortunately that left me feeling unfulfilled for what the rest of the film could have been.
The Spectacular Now is a nice film and worth the time. I think it will be forgettable though. Which is unfortunate because the potential for greatness was there.
3
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/6/63/Prisoners2013Poster.jpg/220px-Prisoners2013Poster.jpg
2013 Director: Denis Villeneuve
"Pray for the best, prepare for the worst."
Prisoners is a fantastic looking well acted thriller. Villeneuve sets an unrelenting tone. Prisoners needs every bit of its two and a half hours to tell the story, but it never lets you relax for a moment. Outside of the first ten minutes there is no levity at all. The film is all tension and uneasiness. Prisoners takes a look at how far you would go to find your child if they were missing. It is not a new theme, and in my opinion has been done better. It is handled well here however, and is the best thriller I have seen thus far this year.
Jackman and Gyllenhaal are both great. There is a lot of tension between their characters, so their scenes together are the more memorable ones in the film. Villeneuve tells the story well. There are twists but I never felt as if I was simply being tricked. A couple of the twists were even fairly predictable but that did not take away from my enjoyment of the film. I can not over state how engaged my experience with Prisoners was. Every second felt vital which was very refreshing.
There are a couple of things that kept me from loving this movie. The first is some of the decisions made by the characters. I do not believe that I set my plausibility bar too high. If what is done in the course of a film seems to coincide with the values and personality of the character then I am on board. I feel like in Prisoners that this line was crossed on three or four occasions. I also was not a fan of Prisoners' script. Again I do not expect every film to be Kauffmanesque, I do think the dialogue in this film was flat though. Ultimately this will play a part in Prisoners being a forgettable film.
Prisoners is worthy of your time. We get very few well made thrillers, and Prisoners is certainly one. It looks fantastic, will keep you wondering, and has a couple of genuinely good performances.
3
honeykid
09-29-13, 09:42 AM
Prisoners needs every bit of its two and a half hours to tell the story,...
Every second felt vital which was very refreshing.
I was most interested in these sentences. Films being 2+ hours simply because that's what they are these days has been one of my bugbears for a good few years now.
I enjoyed reading both reviews. :)
I'm not a big that was too long guy. I feel you should take the time you need to tell the story. Prisoners needed all of its time. In fact there are some religious themes that are kind of just brushed upon. It actually probably could have been a three hour film as much as that may scare you.;)
honeykid
09-29-13, 07:14 PM
Sorry, I didn't explain myself very well. I'm fine with long films. That doesn't bother me at all. Two hours, three, four, that's fine. The problem is that I feel that a good many of the two+ hour films don't need to be that length. However, as that's become the standard, that's what they aim for. This means a lot of padding to sit through.
Movies have gotten about an average of 20% longer in the last 25 years, plus they've gotten needlessly complicated to boot. Contrary to some peoples' opinions, this is not necessarily a good thing.
honeykid
09-29-13, 07:41 PM
Preach on, brother! :)
To your point HK I don't feel Prisoners has a lot of padding.
To your point Mark, I am a character guy so as long as the director is spending his time developing them, I am good with that. As I am sitting here typing I was thinking that I agree with you on your complication point. However I love movies like Inception and Memento, so maybe I just like complication done right.
honeykid
09-29-13, 09:28 PM
I know you didn't, that's why it piqued my interest the most. It was a good thing. Here was someone saying that every second of a 2 and a half hour film had a place and a meaning. That's good. Unusual, but good.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/fb/The_Bling_Ring_poster.jpg/220px-The_Bling_Ring_poster.jpg
2013 Director: Sofia Coppola
"I think we just wanted to be part of the lifestyle. The lifestyle everyone kinda wants."
The Bling Ring is an uneven movie for me. At times I really liked it. At times it was like watching a bad MTV show. This is done on purpose, of course, but that doesn't mean it doesn't go on too long most of the time. The film follows a teenage ring of bandits. These kids learn when celebrities will not be in their residence and go to their homes. This is not just merely to rob them, but to live like them if only for a minute. Of course this becomes their obsession and quickly gets out of hand.
These kids are given no texture. We see them as spoiled brats and nothing more. Ordinarily this would drive me insane in a movie but I think it serves a larger purpose here. Coppola wants us to view them as they view the celebrities that they are violating. This comes across beautifully and makes the final third, when the ring gets their reckoning, the most enjoyable aspect of the film. Coppola also makes a couple of the robberies quite enjoyable with her directing decisions. My favorite example of this is when we are watching two of the teenagers robbing a mostly glass house. The camera is set a good distance from the home, there is absolutely no sound. We are watching the two figures run from room to room turning on and off lights and rifling through drawers. It is shot perfectly and a great example of how Coppola could have made this story more cinematic. We get a couple of small glimpses of that which makes it more frustrating when Coppola switches back to MTV mode.
Most of the film is five teens with nothing to say of any value, acting in very juvenile ways to music that if I never heard it would still be too soon. Mostly I think it is a movie that if you are a part of the MTV crowd you will get a kick out of it. If you think this behavior is abhorrent, you will feel the same way about the film. I think that is a shame, because Coppola is obviously a talented film maker. So The Bling Ring feels mostly like a missed opportunity.
2.5
[/URL]
[URL="http://letterboxd.com/seanc/film/the-bling-ring/likes/"]
(http://letterboxd.com/seanc/film/the-bling-ring/likes/)
honeykid
10-01-13, 12:08 PM
I thought the premise sounded interesting, but now I can't decide how I feel about seeing it. It's obvious that it's not to most people's taste, but the question seems to be is that done on purpose or not?
I think it is but it still was too grating for me, if that makes sense.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/7/7c/The_Kings_of_Summer.jpg
2013 Director: Jordan Vogt-Roberts
The Kings Of Summer is a perfect mixture of comedy and drama. It's themes are serious but are handled with a real world levity. This film does wander into the absurd at times, but never feels stupid. I think that is because it genuinely cares about its characters. It feels like a Wes Anderson film in that way, but the visuals are far different than an Anderson film so that may be a faulty comparison.
The story centers around two boys who decide to build a house in the middle of the woods to escape their parents. Neither of the boys' parents are treating them in a neglectful or harmful way. They are simply two normal teenage boys that at this point in their life can see nothing but the worst in them. Of course this experience teaches them a little about themselves, the real world, and their parents. None of this ever feels forced or melodramatic in this film though.
The Kings Of Summer was a breath of fresh air for me. Maybe the only film this year that I have laughed out loud at, and this did not just happen once but multiple times. The characters are genuine and I enjoyed every minute I spent with them. Certainly one of the five best film I have seen in 2013 thus far.
4
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/d0/Rush_UK_poster.jpeg/220px-Rush_UK_poster.jpeg
2013 Director: Ron Howard
One of the better films I have seen this year. Rush looks great and has great performances. It is an amazing true story and if what I researched is true does not embellish too much. If I have a gripe with this film it is with the script. At times it feels clunky, some of the themes are repeated multiple times by the characters. This causes some of the scenes to be less than organic. This is a small gripe though because Rush is doing everything else extremely well. Rush is a movie goers movie, it is hard to imagine many people not enjoying this film on some level.
4
honeykid
10-03-13, 11:14 AM
I don't think I'm going to get around to seeing Rush at the cinema. How much do you think I'll lose seeing it on the small screen?
BTW, there's a good documentary that was recently screened over here. Here's a bit about it and the story, which you already know and, if you can find it, you may well enjoy it too.
http://www.influx.co.uk/wordpress/features/1976-hunt-vs-lauda/#sthash.a8hhQWaC.dpbs
The visuals and sound are impressive. If you have a pretty good blu-ray setup I think that will be good enough for this film. It has that grainy film thing going on too, which I loved for this movie.
Thanks for the reco. Ill look it up.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/f/f6/Gravity_Poster.jpg/220px-Gravity_Poster.jpg
5
2013 Director: Alfonso Cuaron
"Gravity is an experiment in minimalist blockbuster film making."-Sound On Sight podcast
I heard this quote just a few minutes after leaving the theater, and I love it. First off I love it because it is true and secondly I love it because Gravity succeeds in a big way. Gravity proves that you can make a big budget film,with movie stars, that relies more on aesthetics than narrative, and that movie can be original, entertaining, and bottom line awesome. Gravity is the exception to the rule when it comes to blockbuster film making.
Immediately after seeing this film it is making me say two things that I have never said. I have never called a film a masterpiece upon a first viewing. I am doing so with Gravity. This film is the single best experience I have had watching a film in the theater. That does not mean it is my favorite movie of all time. That does not even mean that this is a film that I will revisit that often at home. It does mean that as a visual experience it did something for me that no other movie has. Now that I have experienced Gravity I can honestly say I don't think I had ever felt truly transported until now. I also have never told anyone to watch a film in 3D to truly experience it. In fact I am the guy that hopes that I will be able to see a movie in 2D, I have even waited a couple of weeks to go see a film just to avoid 3D. Go see Gravity in IMAX 3D. From the opening sequence I knew that this was going to be a different experience, and it was, every second of it.
The visuals are the most important aspect of Gravity but they are not the only thing the film has going for it. The narrative is simple, but it is engaging and tension filled. Bullock is as good as advertised. Clooney is perfectly cast as the perfect astronaut. There is even a voice performance easter egg that I caught right away and enjoyed. Cuaron out did himself. Gravity is genius, and a theater experience that all film fans must treat themselves to.
Frightened Inmate No. 2
10-08-13, 01:01 AM
this movie looks so good. i really hope i'm gonna be able to see it in theaters soon. good review.
http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x369/seancriswell/likesomeoneinlove.jpg
4
Director: Abbas Kiarostami
Cast: Rin Takanashi, Tadashi Okuno
Directing: 4 Kiarosatmi always delivers top flight pacing and sets great atmosphere.
Plot: 4 Very unique story line centers around a call girl with unorthodox relationships. Has the usual Kiarostami ambiguity.
Visuals: 3.5 Nothing to write home about, but Kiarostami does frame his shots very nicely. The scenes in cars are my favorites.
Script: 5 This is where Kiarostami excels and why I have grown to love him in the five films I have seen. His dialogue is so ambiguous it would surely drive me crazy in lesser hands. Kiarostami's writing is perfect however and what sets him apart.
Acting: 3.5 Like the visuals, nothing to gush over but also nothing to distract.
What I dislike: Kiarostami reminds me of Haneke in that his films are great but his writing and story telling style is such that I never fall in love with the characters.
What I like: Flawless dialogue centered around a great story line. Kiarostami's patented ambiguous ending will keep you thinking about the film for days. Almost certain to be in my 2013 top ten. I am anxious to see it again already.
[/CENTER]
Kiarostami has become a real director of the world. I'd like to see more directors do it - make films in different cultures. I think the results could be great. Scorsese doing a Korean revenge movie, Tarantino doing a movie with Iranian children going to buy fruit ...
I'm kind of serious, it would be interesting. Having said that I thought Certified Copy was one of Kiarostami's weaker films but I'm looking forward to seeing Like Someone in Love.
honeykid
10-16-13, 06:21 AM
Kiarostami has become a real director of the world. I'd like to see more directors do it - make films in different cultures. I think the results could be great. Scorsese doing a Korean revenge movie, Tarantino doing a movie with Iranian children going to buy fruit ...
Firstly, Scorsese has kind of done that already with The Departed. Secondly, considering how difficult to was for Scorsese to raise the money to make Shutter Island, can you imagine how difficult it would be for something like that? Unless he did it for a million or something like that.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a8/Captain_Phillips_Poster.jpg/220px-Captain_Phillips_Poster.jpg
3.5
Director: Paul Greengrass
Cast: Tom Hanks, Barkhad Abdi
Directing: 3.5 Greengrass tells the story straight and is excellent with action. One of those directors that makes me say,"a little less shaky cam please."
Script: 3 Nothing that stands out but nothing to hinder either. Sometimes less is more and it works in this film.
Plot: 4 Extraordinary true story. As tense as advertised.
Visuals: 3 I would have liked more of the large static shots. A lot of this film does take place in tight space though so Greengrass does what he can. Shaky cam knocks it down a half grade for me though.
Acting: 4.5 Hanks nails it especially in final third. Abdi holds his own and then some along side him.
What I disliked: Not much besides shaky cam. This is not going to be a film that comes up much in ten years probably. It is a solid film with some above average moments.
What I like: Hanks and Abdi playing off each other. The action sequences are tense and well done.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/3/3b/Trance2013Poster.jpg/220px-Trance2013Poster.jpg
3
"We keep secrets from lots of people, including our self - and that we call forgetting."
Director: Danny Boyle
Cast: James McAvoy, Rosario Dawson, Vincent Cassel
Directing: 3.5 Twisty thriller but Boyle never lets us lose our sense of where the characters and story are. I hate that in a thriller so I appreciate this.
Plot: 3 Extremely far fetched but somehow still feels grounded. Once again I appreciate that.
Visual: 3 Boyle is doing a lot with yellows and reds, some may get more out of that then it looks cool. In this film I did not.
Script: 3 Engaging, but nothing spectacular.
Acting: 3.5 The top three billed are all above average.
What I dislike: I was engaged but somehow that never led to me having any investment in the outcome of story or characters.
What I like: As I mentioned very far fetched plot but somehow everything still felt grounded in reality. Even when the hypnotist is talking as if it was science I never once shook my head as I tend to do when things are cooky. There are twists but they just feel as if they unfold as they should, as opposed to feeling as if your being tricked. Trance is what I refer to as a lazy Saturday afternoon movie.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/ad/Before_Midnight_poster.jpg/220px-Before_Midnight_poster.jpg
4.5
Director: Richard Linklater
Cast: Ethan Hawke, Julie Delpy
"Sometimes I feel like your breathing helium and I'm breathing oxygen."
Directing:4 It is just walking and talking, but kudos to Linklater for continuing to just let it be that, so nice to be with a film that breathes.
Plot:5 While I don't think the middle film got it right. The first and third film are perfect pictures of the beginning, and in this case, the trials of a committed relationship.
Visual:4 The set pieces are great. They set the tone extremely well. Greece was beautiful to look at.
Script:5 Could not be more perfect. We feel the frustration and love equally. Sunrise probably felt more fresh but Midnight is the greater writing achievement in my opinion.
Acting:4 Delpy is better than Hawke I think, but they play off each other perfectly.
What I dislike: Hawke's half tucked shirt and crooked belt. Nothing else to complain about.
What I love: The perfect dialogue. The feeling that I could be watching my own relationship. No matter your personality, where or how you live, we all go through the same things in a relationship. We hurt each other, we love each other. As upsetting as it may be this film feels as authentic as any film I have seen. I also love how they delved into Hawke's relationship with his son so much while at the same time keeping it about this couple. I would love to see another in ten years.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/8d/A_Hijacking_Official_Movie_Poster.jpg/220px-A_Hijacking_Official_Movie_Poster.jpg
4.5
Director: Tobias Lindholm
Cast: Pilou Asbaek, Soren Malling
Directing: 5 Stripped down thriller works perfectly for this material. Lindholm's approach created one of the most affecting thrillers of the last couple years.
Plot: 4 Very straight forward. A Hijacking excels because of the nuance brought to the story.
Visuals: 4 Most of the film is in confined space, but there are a few money shots.
Script: 4.5 The subtle approach fills nearly every scene with edge of your seat tension.
Acting: 4 No bad performances, none really stood out.
What I dislike: It will be interesting to see if this film holds up on re-watches, but there is nothing to complain about first time around.
What I like: I love the stripped down approach to the story telling. I hope other thriller directors take note at how well this can work for this type of film. Much of the conflict takes place off camera as well. You would think this would lessen the emotional punch but it has the opposite effect. One of my favorites of the year.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2b/The_Way%2C_Way_Back_Poster.jpg/220px-The_Way%2C_Way_Back_Poster.jpg
2
Director: Nat Faxon, Jim Rash
Cast: Liam James, Steve Carell, Sam Rockwell
Directing: 2 This film has no nuance. Blame it on the writing, blame it on the directing. I site both.
Plot: 2.5 Very simple coming of age story. Does nothing to set itself apart.
Visuals: 2 Sets the summer home atmosphere, not much else going on.
Script: 1.5 Really poorly conceived for a major production. All cookie cutter characters and story arcs.
Acting: 2.5 Pretty poor in spots, especially the child actors. Extra half point because Rockwell entertained me and Carell played a great a**hole.
What I dislike: Trite from start to finish. You understand each character and where they are going from the first line they utter. Really disappointing after some of the reviews that I have read.
What I like: Rockwell's relationship with our protagonist, though very predictable, saved this film from being grating and the worst of the year.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/e/e9/The_Counselor_Poster.jpg/220px-The_Counselor_Poster.jpg
4
Director: Ridley Scott
Cast: Michael Fassbender, Javier Bardem, Cameron Diaz, Brad Pitt, Penelope Cruz
Directing: 4.5 I love the tone, the way the story unfolds, and the look.
Plot: 4 Dour but engaging. Very McCarthy-esque
Visuals: 4 Scott is doing what he does. Creating a world that feels very grounded and lived in.
Script: 4 Superb dialogue drives the film, maybe a bit on the nose at times.
Acting: 4 Great cast and everyone is spot on. Bardem stood out for me while Diaz was solid but a bit out classed.
What I disliked: There are lots of characters and I could have spent more time with every single one to get more of their story.
What I liked: For me the best crime films care more about their characters than they do the crime. The Counselor sure does this well. The characters and dialouge are great. I also love films where the story unfolds slowly and we are not privy to all the information up front. This film also does this without being twisty or relying on trickery. This is a well above average film in my opinion. I am glad I did not listen to all the hate it has been getting and skip it.
Three Colors
Krzysztof Kieslowski
I enjoyed watching these films but I really wanted to love them after hearing so much about them over the last couple of years. I certainly appreciate and respect Kieslowski's approach. The subtle character development and ambiguous dialogue are rare and a breath of fresh air. There are small things to latch on to in each of the films but ultimately they just didn't give me enough to connect with.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/2/2c/Bluevidcov.jpg/220px-Bluevidcov.jpg
1993
My favorite of the three I think because 1) the theme is so easy to sympathize with and grab hold of 2) Binoche's performance is phenomenal. I loved the closing montage. My favorite moment in all three films.
3.5
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/d/dd/White_Poster.jpg
1994
My least favorite of the three films. Seems like maybe it is trying to be a comedy but really falters more often than not. I did enjoy a few of the moments between Karol and Mikolaj which kept the film from being a total bust for me. The suitcase caper and suicide attempt are what stand out.
2.5
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/0a/Three_Colors-Red.jpg/220px-Three_Colors-Red.jpg
1994
I know I am doing a good job branching out in my film watching because I am starting to recognize foreign film actors. Hey it's the guy from Amour. Red had some great scenes, particularly those between Jacob and Trintignant. I like the theme of truth and and how we perceive it. I have just seen those themes explored in more interesting ways. Red was good for me but I wanted it to be great. It is kind of a picture of the whole trilogy for me. I also could care less about the end of this film. The montage did not feel organic at all but rather something that was just thrown in to show that all these films are connected.
3
honeykid
11-08-13, 08:57 AM
I like the trilogy more than you, I think, but I think of them in similar ways and rate them in the same order. I adore Blue, though, as my top 100 will testify.
I'd like to sit and watch them again, but your point about the end of Red makes me want to do so even more because, when I first saw Red in the mid 90's, it felt organic. In fact, organic is a good choice of word for the feeling, but I wonder if that was the case because it was pretty unusual. In the first decade of the C21st we saw a lot more of this kind of thing and often they served no purpose other than to give the impression of quality or simply to create buzz.
I felt a similar thing happened in comedy. The ability to go back and pick up things from earlier in your act and include it towards the end became seen as a mark of quality. A well crafted, intelligent comedian. So every other comedian, it seemed at the time, started to write stuff that did it.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/7/7e/Thor_-_The_Dark_World_poster.jpg/220px-Thor_-_The_Dark_World_poster.jpg
2.5
Director: Alan Taylor
Cast: Chris Hemsworth, Natalie Portman, Tom Hiddleston
Directing: 3 Certainly feels like the Marvel universe has a blueprint that is being followed by now to me. These films look good and are entertaining but if they rotated directors would anyone notice?
Plot: 2.5 See above.
Visuals: 4 I love the look of the Thor universe. Very few moments that feel fake in these films which is an accomplishment.
Script: 2 Nothing fresh and some of the comedic beats border on grating in this one.
Acting: 3 Everyone knows what they are doing by now and Hiddleston stands out again.
What I like: The Marvel universe that has been built on film is fun. There is a ton of continuity and they are doing a better and better job of drawing from past films. All the characters appeal to me in some way.
What I dislike: I will continue to watch these films till I no longer enjoy them on any level but it is time for something fresh. What I am writing probably feels like a review of all Marvel movies instead of Thor 2 and that is because with the exception of the first Iron Man and The Avengers all of these movies feel the exact same. They look good, they have fun moments, and good action sequences. There is nothing else to glean from them because the stakes never change which is to say it doesn't feel like their are any stakes. Evil force wants to destroy the world, our hero stops him. There is no chance that our hero will not stop him so the conflict means nothing.
Would the average movie goer enjoy a movie that simply explores Thor and Jane's relationship without a super villain? I think they would. How about an Iron Man movie that takes a serious look at alcohol abuse. Captain America in a war film. An Avenger movie where The Hulk is the major conflict, which presents the others with some real dilemma. I don't actually think the cookie cutter scripts are gonna stop but it is nice to dream.
So after watching Three Colors I have made it through my watchlist for the year, except for the movies that have not been released in the theater yet. So I get to start my plan for 2014 a little early and get a head start. I will pick a director that I have watched a couple of films from, and enjoyed, and watch 10-12 movies by them before moving on to the next. I will probably end up spending 2 or 3 months with each director because I watch my share of new films and television as well. Since you MoFos are so much more knowledgeable than me I want to throw my list out each time and get some feedback as I will not be married to any of my film choices and can add and subtract as seems logical.
First up is Hitchcock. Why Hitchcock? Because when I talk about old films I always site Hitchcock as a director I am a fan of. However when I look at his filmography I realize that I have only actually watched three or four films of his. Plenty of Hitchcock Presents on Nick At Nite when I was teenager but that really does not count. Here is the ten I have settled on for now but would love to get some input:
1) Rebecca
2) Shadow Of A Doubt
3) Dial M For Murder
4) North By Northwest
5) Suspicion
6) Strangers On A Train
7) To Catch A Thief
8) Notorious
Two re-watches:
9) The Birds
10) Psycho
I have seen Rear Window and Vertigo recently enough that I don't feel like I need to revisit them. Whether I do or not will probably depend a lot on now much I enjoy the next couple of months of viewing. Rear Window is my favorite by Hitchcock and in my 100 fave list.
thracian dawg
11-10-13, 04:34 PM
Red was good for me but I wanted it to be great. It is kind of a picture of the whole trilogy for me. I also could care less about the end of this film. The montage did not feel organic at all but rather something that was just thrown in to show that all these films are connected.
I had a little problem with that also, Karol is seem earlier in the Red film, so the timeline is a little screwy and doesn't quite make sense.
One prime for the trilogy are the titles; which comes from the colors of the French flag: liberté, égalité, fraternité. Which Kieslowski boldly announces the theme for each film. Blue = freedom. Julie's quest to be free. White = equality. Karol's quest to be equal with his wife. And Red = brotherhood or community.
I recently rewatched these and I was a little surprised at the complexity of Red and White. Also, the funny thing is (if you add one star to each film) we had almost exactly the same impressions to the films.
Ratings are is arbitrary as films are subjective. I often look at my ratings and think I would take away a star here, add a star there. It is a lot of fun for some reason though.
honeykid
11-12-13, 09:13 AM
I'd recommend Frenzy and The Trouble With Harry, as they're a little different for Hitch and because, along with Psycho and Shadow Of A Doubt, they're my favourite Hitchcock films. But, as I've said many times, I'm not a fan.
Think you've hit most of the big Hitchcock films there sean. If I was to recommend some of his lesser known films I'd follow honeykid and say Frenzy and The Trouble With Harry, while also throwing in Saboteur.
rauldc14
11-12-13, 04:35 PM
I think you will really dig Dial M forMurder. I enjoyed To Catch a Thief and Strangers on a Train as well. I think you've picked his better films. I haven't seen Frenzy, Shadow of a Doubt, or Suspicion though, as well as The Trouble with Harry.
Thanks guys. I may just throw in a few extra for my Hitchcock viewing we will see how the first few go.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/5/5c/12_Years_a_Slave_film_poster.jpg/220px-12_Years_a_Slave_film_poster.jpg
5
Director: Steve McQueen
Cast: Chiwetel Ejiofor, Michael Fassbender, Lupita Nyong'o, Benedict Cumberbatch
Directing: 5 Everything is as and exactly where it should be. Perfectly done in all the best and worst ways.
Plot: 5 Feels as authentic as anything I have seen in a long time.
Visuals: 5 Looks as authentic as anything I have seen in a long time.
Script: 5 I can't imagine writing 160 year old dialogue. Ridley deserves a lot of credit for the tone created in this film.
Acting: 5 Ejiofor and Fassbender are perfect in a film where a lot of great actors show up. Ejiofor does so much to effect the film without using dialogue. Really amazing performance.
What I dislike: There are a couple of characters that I don't feel were fleshed out properly. That's a nitpick though. I don't think it would have stood out in another film but did here because everything else is so perfect.
What I like: I can't believe I am giving two films in the same year a pefect rating on one viewing. 12 Years A Slave is simply one of the most affecting films I have ever seen. It reminds me of Schindler's List in that it probably will not show up on a lot of my favorite lists, and I probably will not revisit it very often. It will always come up though when discussing the most poignant movies, or movies that have the most emotional effect on me. This man's story is beyond extraordinary. However if this was a fictitious account it would be no less an amazing film. That is a rare accomplishment. McQueen has his masterpiece.
cricket
11-18-13, 07:40 AM
This film really does look awesome; I look forward to seeing it.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/d8/The_World%27s_End_poster.jpg/220px-The_World%27s_End_poster.jpg
2.5
Director: Edgar Wright
Cast: Simon Pegg, Nick Frost
"A man of your legendary prowess drinking rain! It's like a lion eating houmous."
I have just entered the world of the "Cornetto Trilogy" this year. The premise simply did not appeal to me. My perception of it was that it was a slightly higher concept Scary Movie series. Listening to all the hype and love this year before The World's End was released I decided I had to give it a try. Shaun Of The Dead mostly lived up to the hype for me. The dry humor and likeable characters portrayed by Pegg and Frost were enough. Good, not great, comedy. That is enough for me these days 3.5 I'm in. Next up is Hot Fuzz. Where on earth did my laughs and likeable characters go? Way too much of the same garbage comedy being pumped out the last few years. 1 still knowing I will watch the third because now I am engrained and I have to see most of these things to the end.
Happily The World's End is more Shaun Of The Dead than Hot Fuzz. The first half hour is fantastic. I love the role reversal, with Pegg playing the low brow character this time around. Through the first half hour I am dying laughing. Watching Pegg recruit his buddies to complete the same pub crawl that they fell short of after high school. Of course they have all moved on with normal lives so it is hilarious to watch them interact with Pegg. It is beyond a stretch, however, that any one of them would actually show up. It's a comedy though, so we believe and we move on.
The first couple of pubs are as well done as the beginning of the film. The boys sitting and ripping on each other. This is where The World's End is at its best and where I wish it would have stayed. Unfortunately the action aspect enters into the picture and they lose me for the majority of the rest of the film. There are a couple of very funny scenes towards the end. Especially Pegg and Frost teeing off on the alien being who is responsible for the invasion. Lots of stuff to enjoy and I am sure I am mostly alone in wishing that the action aspects did not exist. Certainly see it if you enjoyed the others, if not there is nothing going on here that your gonna miss.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/12/Catching-Fire_poster.jpg/220px-Catching-Fire_poster.jpg
Director: Francis Lawrence
Cast: Jennifer Lawrence, Josh Hutcherson, Stanley Tucci, Woody Harrelson
I just don't have anything to say about this film that hasn't been said in the past couple of weeks. There seem to be two camps. Book readers who think it is an awesome adaptation and improvement. Non book readers who feel it is filler and unnecessary. I fall into the latter category. I enjoyed the first installment a good bit better than this one. There were a lot of logic jumps that I was unwilling to take. It really does seem like the first and second film could be condensed into one. It isn't and there are things to like so on we go.
2
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/a8/Dallas_Buyers_Club_poster.jpg/220px-Dallas_Buyers_Club_poster.jpg
Director: Jean-Marc Vallee
Cast: Matthew McConaughey, Jared Leto, Jennifer Garner
The story of Ron Woodroof is compelling unfortunately Dallas Buyers Club does not make it engaging. McConaughey does his best to make it as engaging as possible. He is as good as advertised as the homophobic, hard living man who finds out he has HIV and is given thirty days to live. After taking the drugs approved to treat the disease at that time and becoming sicker, Woodroof moves on to unapproved drugs. When they help his symptoms subside he begins the Dallas Buyers Club to help other HIV sufferers get the same drugs that he takes.
My issue with the film is not that it suggests the FDA drags its feet when approving drugs, I am sure there is a lot of truth there. My issue is not that this man would take unapproved drugs and sell them to others. I am sure if I was faced with the same circumstances that I would take whatever I felt helped as well, government be damned. My issue is that this films seems to want to demonize the very people that have continued the good fight and have helped to make the progress that we have against this terrible disease. At the end the film even tells us that the very drug that Woodroof is hell bent against is still used in smaller doses today. The issue is that it words it in a way that makes it seem as if Woodroof had something to do with this. In truth he is portrayed for the entirety of the film as if he would flush the drug down the toilet forever. Dallas Buyers Club is simply disingenuous when discussing the politics behind these drugs and it greatly hindered my enjoyment of the film.
There is some things to like in the film. In addition to McConaughey, Leto is really good as the cross dressing Rayon. Rayon and Woodroof's relationship is interesting and entertaining though at times it is also problematic. Dallas Buyers Club manages to mine quite a bit of entertainment out of a deadly serious subject and should be commended for that. At the end of the day the film is an uneven affair in my opinion. I will remember it for McConaghey's performance and little else.
2.5
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/a/af/Frances_Ha_poster.jpg/220px-Frances_Ha_poster.jpg
Director: Noah Baumbach
Cast: Greta Gerwig, Mickey Sumner
At many points during my viewing of Frances Ha I had the feeling that this might be the most pretentious movie I had ever seen. Twenty four hours later I am not so sure. I still think it is somewhat pretentious, just not the most pretentious ever. The characters are pretentious to be sure, I just seem to be going back and forth on how Baumbach wants us to view them. In reality that shouldn't make a difference. I should take the characters as they are written and come to my own conclusions. It was hard for me to do during Frances Ha.
Every single scene is shining a light on how dysfunctional these characters are. For me that was pretty grating at times. Many are bound to disagree. I am sure the plight of right brained twenty somethings struggling to obtain self centered perfection will appeal to many. I found little, if anything, to connect with in these characters. The last piece that made this film seem pretentious to me was the fact that it was in black and white. To me it simply gave me the feeling that it was trying to be Woody Allen's Manhattan. I see no reason for this movie to be in black and white, except for to say look at me.
There were things that I enjoyed in this film. Despite my dislike for them the characters are drawn and acted well. There are a couple of montages that are pure exposition and they worked quite well for me. The pacing is great. I always say it is better to end well than start well in a film and Frances Ha does that. The ending is one of the reasons I would be interested to know how Baumbach feels about these characters. It is quite good and moved Frances Ha up a couple of notches in my opinion.
2.5
(http://letterboxd.com/seanc/film/frances-ha/likes/)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/44/The_Hunt_%282012_film%29.jpg/220px-The_Hunt_%282012_film%29.jpg
3
Director: Thomas Vinterberg
Cast: Mads Mikkelsen
"The world is full of evil but if we hold on to each other, it goes away."
The Hunt is the story of a man who is a kindergarten teacher. When one of the students accuses him of pedophilia his life is turned upside down. The film places us firmly on the side of the accused man from the start and never wavers from that. I think this is what made the movie so intriguing and what will surely bring most viewers to anger. I believe it is to the films detriment as well however. Except for the scene where we see the little girl's accusation and another where she is questioned, which may be the most blood boiling in the film, we are given no insight into the process. He is also given little to no chance to defend himself throughout. As a viewer this is infinitely frustrating and at times makes it feel like the story is not grounded in reality.
There is plenty to love about The Hunt. The main character is very well drawn. He is meant to be sympathized with and always is. His ongoing battle to see his teenage son is also maddening and creates some of the more heartbreaking moments. The themes in The Hunt are also engaging. They are very of our time and more than a little frightening. The reality that someone could be railroaded this easily is more than a little disturbing. Even more disturbing is the reality that what this man is accused of goes on every single day in all corners of the world. This though is expressed by the man's friend in what is one of the most poignant scenes in the film.
The Hunt is a worthy watch. I am sure there are many who will love this film. Despite my being fairly lukewarm on it, I would definitely recommend it.
honeykid
12-18-13, 10:17 PM
Two films I've been interested in for a while now. Thanks for the reviews. :)
Good reviews dude, well written and to the point. Really look forward to seeing some of the films you reviewed.
Cobpyth
12-18-13, 10:42 PM
I didn't think Frances Ha was pretentious.
I thought it was funny, sweet and deliciously melancholic without overdoing it at all. The gorgeous black and white cinematography gave the film something timeless and arty, which worked very well with this kind of witty story and alienated characters.
It was certainly not trying to be Woody Allen's Manhattan, which is an example of a film that I understand being seen by some people as pretentious, but then again I personally think it succeeds in everything it tries to be and consider it a masterpiece.
Still a thumbs up for your review. It's always interesting to read different point of views! :up:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/0/0c/Anchorman_2_Teaser_Poster.jpg/220px-Anchorman_2_Teaser_Poster.jpg
3
Director: Adam McKay
Cast: Will Ferrell, Paul Rudd, Steve Carell
I love the first Anchorman and desperately wanted the sequel to work where most comedy sequels fail. This movie does retread a lot of the same jokes as the original. Anchorman 2 manages to breathe new life into them however. The movie somehow manages to feel fresh and original. The gags are absolutely non stop. It never gets bogged down taking the time to drive a narrative which is where a lot of comedies go wrong these days. Anchorman purely concentrates on the jokes, so if one or two don't land for you there is one right around the corner that will.
The film did make a couple of errors that keep it from being as strong as the original in my opinion. I know that Carell is a much bigger star than he was when the original was released. Brick is not a character that should be getting a lot of screen time though. The character is simply too stupid and doesn't work. Teaming him with Wiig and making that character just as dumb does not help. I can't remember laughing at any of the time spent with these characters at all. The station executive played by Meagan Good was also problematic for me. In retrospect I don't think it is because the gags don't work. I believe it is because Good is over matched. Her entire character is based on being dominant. Ferrell is simply chewing her up and spitting her out in their scenes together. The character never works for me as a result.
Despite those couple of flaws, Anchorman 2 is working the majority of the time. The laughs are plentiful and in the end that is what I want from a comedy.
Mmmm Donuts
12-21-13, 04:39 PM
This is good to hear. I've only heard generally positive things about it thus far.
Nice review! :up::up::up::up::up:
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/8/85/American_Hustle_2013_poster.jpg/220px-American_Hustle_2013_poster.jpg
4.5
Director: David O'Russell
Cast: Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Bradley Cooper, Jennifer Lawrence
David O'Russell cares about characters and his movies are better for it. Whether or not Wahlberg wins his last fight, whether Lawrence and Cooper end up together, or who wins the end game in Hustle. All these things become incidental because it is about the characters. The way they interact with each other is more important than why they interact with each other. I have to admit I was a little nervous the first twenty minutes or so of American Hustle. I wasn't hating the movie by any means, but I didn't connect with Bale and Adam's characters as quickly as I would have liked. I quickly settled in though. Once Cooper's character shows up and shortly after Lawrence's I was all in and enjoyed every frame of the film.
There is so much to enjoy and glean from every single relationship, and there are a plethora of them. Bale and Adams, Adams and Cooper, Cooper and Bale, Bale and Lawrence, Bale and Renner. Every single interaction is complex, humorous, intense, and most importantly intriguing. O'Russell has become a master film maker in my opinion. His dialogue is spot right down to each actor's accent being perfect. The way he dresses his characters adds a dimension to them as well. It may be trite to say, but everything about American Hustle just feels lived in.
I cannot do a movie like this justice by writing about it but I cannot recommend this movie enough. I know there are some ho-hum reviews out there and frankly I am baffled by them. I have fawned over the characters but would be remiss if I didn't mention the plot which is intriguing. O'Russell doesn't let it get too convoluted or step on the character's toes however which is why this film worked so well for me. The soundtrack is also phenomenal. In your face and fun when it needs to be but in the background when more appropriate. Great music used perfectly. I could go on about this movie all day. It's one of the year's, and possibly O'Russell's, best. See it now.
cricket
12-21-13, 05:44 PM
That's cool to see your review of American Hustle. I really like that director and can't wait to see it.
I also want to see Anchorman 2. I didn't like the first as much as I wanted to because of the ridiculous fights between the news teams. But overall I thought it was a strong comedy.
I didn't like the first as much as I wanted to because of the ridiculous fights between the news teams.
Uh, Oh
Cobpyth
12-21-13, 06:50 PM
God, I can't wait for American Hustle. Thanks for your review!
cricket
12-21-13, 07:37 PM
Uh, Oh
Does that mean there's more of the same in part 2, or does it mean you don't understand the comment? Or something else?
Does that mean there's more of the same in part 2, or does it mean you don't understand the comment? Or something else?
Another big fight scene. Not my favorite part of either film, they are okay though.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/1/1f/WallStreet2013poster.jpg/220px-WallStreet2013poster.jpg
4
Director: Martin Scorsese
Cast: Leonardo DiCaprio, Jonah Hill, Margot Robbie
Scorsese has created the film with the most debauchery in it that I have ever liked and possibly even love. A solid seventy percent of this film is nothing but men living in filth. It becomes too much and is overwhelming but if that is not the point than I don't know what the point is. It is certainly the feeling I came away with and the reason I think this movie is really good. That does not mean however that it is not relentless. Which has had me contemplating two issues. How re-watchable is this film? Where would I trim the fat? The first question matters to nobody but me. The second is more important in my opinion because there were moments in this movie when I was irritated and a couple when I was rolling my eyes. My most irritating scene involves Quaaludes and a Lamborghini. I have heard many pointing to this as one of the highlights,. I will give DiCaprio credit for the physicality of the scene. Beyond that though I found the scene immensely irritating mostly because it felt so implausible. My biggest eye roll involved the main players and discussion surrounding midgets. These were not the only two instances in the film but for me were the most egregious and took me out of the film the most.
On to the good of which there is an immense amount. Everyone in this movie is great, even the unknowns of which there are a few. DiCaprio shines brighter than the rest though. Maybe because he is given the helm but quite possibly because he is one of the best actors working today. He is non stop energy and mouth as the Wolf, and that is fun to watch. There are a slew of scenes that are standouts but one in particular would be my choice for the best scene I have watched in any movie this year. It involves Kyle Chandler, DiCaprio, and a yacht. At first you are not one hundred percent sure where the scene is going or how it will play out for the characters. It is masterfully constructed and as the tension in the scene builds I felt myself both shifting and smiling at the same time. Fantastic stuff and there are plenty more of that. McConaughey is great in the couple of scenes we get to spend with him. Hill also stands out as the best friend and business partner.
The Wolf Of Wall Street is very memorable film about the dangers of excess and the "American Dream". In fact it is a very good movie about those things but falls just short of being great. In fact I feel I watched a superior movie about those things by David O'Russell just a couple of weeks ago. Many have been comparing American Hustle to a Scorsese film. In my opinion O'Russell out-scorsesed Scorsese this year, even if it was just by a little bit.
The Gunslinger45
12-31-13, 09:22 PM
Glad you liked it! As for rewatch ability, I have seen it twice in the theater and I walked away with the same felling every time and I laughed at the same points! Great flick!
honeykid
12-31-13, 10:22 PM
I hope you weren't referring to Margot Robbie when you said the "unknowns" as she's the main reason I'll see it. :D
Only kidding. Anyone's who's not a Neighbours fan probably has no idea of who she is unless they watched, the short lived, Pan-Am. Which I also mainly watched for her. :D
http://media.screened.com/uploads/1/13390/532492-margot_robbie_pan_am_923_800_600_80.jpg
http://www3.pictures.zimbio.com/bg/Margot+Robbie+Pan+location+kmWMsTZjCM2l.jpg
http://neuewerbung.org/wordpress/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/Margot-Robbie.jpg
The Gunslinger45
12-31-13, 10:24 PM
She was an unknown to me. But know she is someone I am watching with intent. Girl did a hell of a job acting in that movie!
Robbie is very good in this movie and she is matched up against some heavyweights. Also she is decent looking.;)
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/4f/The_Hobbit_-_The_Desolation_of_Smaug_theatrical_poster.jpg/220px-The_Hobbit_-_The_Desolation_of_Smaug_theatrical_poster.jpg
3
Director: Peter Jackson
Cast: Martin Freeman, Ian McKellen, Richard Armitage
Oh Smaug, you are so powerful. You were well worth the wait but why in the world did it take us so long to get to you. I felt like the last Jackson apologist left in the movie world. I have loved the way he has built Middle Earth, so my vote was to let him keep playing until he doesn't want to anymore. I am finally beginning to see what all the complaining is about however. I still did enjoy myself for most of this movie. Smaug and Bilbo together was especially great together. In fact I knew I loved Freeman's Bilbo in the first film but after this one I think he may be the glue keeping me attached to the franchise.
Holy cow did I feel the length of this film. Most of the characters just don't click this time around so I didn't enjoy my time with them. The elves could not have been more useless. A new character named Bard is introduced and is intriguing, but the time spent with him is wasted. I still am not sure of his motivation and whether I am supposed to be rooting for him or not. I am sure of what his role in the next movie will be however. That is bad character development and a waste of what could have been a cool addition to the universe. To be honest I think I am even growing weary of Gandalf's shtick. The guy knows absolutely everything except for when he will be in imminent danger. I have bought it in the past but it was a bridge to far in this one.
My biggest surprise watching this film is that even the effects left much to be desired at times. Many will probably disagree but I never remember feeling the CGI in the previous films. Or at least they never made me think about them while I was watching. There were three or four instances when it was very noticeable this time around. One extended sequence in particular was difficult for me to watch because of it. There are still plenty of visuals to love. As much as I disliked the characters, the Elvin kingdom is beautiful to look at. The Lake-town of Esgaroth is also stunning. Smaug himself is incredibly well conceived, his scenes being by far the best in the film for me.
At the end of the day I still love this world and will happily take the last ride with Jackson. This time around I loved Bilbo and Smaug. I was simply feeling the length. Still a three star movie for me but that is a long way from the five stars that I was giving to the original trilogy.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/b/b8/Short_Term_12.jpg/220px-Short_Term_12.jpg
2.5
Director: Destin Cretton
Cast: Brie Larson, John Gallagher Jr.
I have been dying to see this movie since all the critical hype started a few months ago. I love an engaging and effecting drama, Short Term 12 had all the makings of one. The film had it's moments and is not a bad watch. At the end of the day I was not willing to take some of the journeys that the protagonist takes. The central relationship is solid. The two characters feel right together, they are well acted, and the conflict in their relationship is the most engaging aspect of the film. When they are together I truly cared what was happening and was invested in where the story was going.
The second most important relationship in the film is where most of my issues lie. The main character befriends a new young girl that has come to the group home. She fears she is being abused and sees so much of herself in the girl that she begins to regress into her former self. Some of the actions that result from this regression were just a bridge too far for me. Her behavior simply does not seem organic to the character's arc in light of the strong, no nonsense, women that is set up at the start of the film. A lot of what transpires with these two characters seems to just be there to fabricate stakes. The relationship is not useless, it would have just been better served if it would have been more subtle in my opinion. There are quite a few characters who are given lesser time who I would have liked to get to know better. Some of the more emotional scenes would have had more impact if we would have gotten to know them better.
Short Term 12 is not a bad film. It is a film that does not live up to its potential. It has interesting characters and capable actors. For me that was enough to make it average, but not to elevate it.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/d/df/Inside_Llewyn_Davis_Poster.jpg/220px-Inside_Llewyn_Davis_Poster.jpg
4
Director: Joel and Ethan Coen
Cast: Osacr Isaac, Carey Mulligan, John Goodman
"If it was never new and never gets old, it's folk music."
I loved my time spent with Llewyn Davis. Which is no surprise considering the directors. Time and again great directors prove to me that it is not the complexity of the narrative that makes a film great. It is the characters that you fill your narrative with. Llewyn Davis is going to go down as one of my most memorable Coen brothers characters, and that is saying something because there have been tons.
There is not a lot to say in a review of Inside Llewyn Davis. Llewyn is a homeless folk singer who is lost and wandering, wondering not only if he will ever make it big but where he is going to sleep from night to night. He has people in his life who care for him. Llewyn seems to burn those bridges as often as he utilizes them however. Everything in Llewyn's life is a mess, except for his music which it must be said is great. You either enjoy going on the journey with our protagonist or you don't. If you do you will enjoy this film as much as you will enjoy any film this year, which I did. If you don't then you are in for a long couple hours.
If I have a complaint about Inside Llewyn Davis it would be that I would have made a longer film and fleshed out the peripheral characters more. There are many of them and they are all great. There is a key one who we don't even get to meet that I would have really liked to get to know. It would have made this a much different movie however and I need to trust that the Coen brothers have a better handle on storytelling than I do.
As it is there is a lot of mystery to the film that not only makes it interesting in the moment but will keep you thinking about it long after it is over. Inside Llewyn Davis is already one of my top five Coen brothers films and is sure to grow upon further viewings. It is the type of film that is going to be fun to talk about and recommend to others. Definitely one my favorite films of the year.
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/en/thumb/4/44/Her2013Poster.jpg/220px-Her2013Poster.jpg
3
Director: Spike Jonze
Cast: Joaquin Phoenix, Scarlett Johansson, Amy Adams
I was so sure Her was going to be one of my few favorite films of the year. I love Adaptation and Malkovich. Phoenix never disappoints me outside of the idiotic I'm Still Here. The subject matter is relevant and intriguing. I did enjoy Her but something kept me from engaging fully and falling in love. After thinking about it for a few days I think my main issue is that the central relationship is so far removed from my reality that I could not engage fully. The relationship is well written and well acted but I never once felt invested in where it was going.
I was drawn to this film in many ways. The world that Jonze created feels other worldly while at the same time feeling like a natural progression of where we are headed in our culture. The aesthetic is great. Jonze use of color and style is great. Much has been made of clothing but I feel it gave Her a more realistic feel of the future. Clothing trends run in cycles which I think is what Jonze was going for as opposed to trying to create a completely unique style which usually comes off as cartoonish in other futuristic films. The writing is really good and I don't think what kept me from engaging at all. I thought Adams and Phoenix were great together. It would have been nice to see a little more of them together even if I am glad that they didn't go with a romantic angle here.
If there had been more characters who had reacted the way Mara's character did to the relationship I may have been more on board with Her. As it is we get a lot of people thinking there is nothing noteworthy going on. Even worse acting shocked when it turns out that computers are not looking for the same things in relationships that we are. It was a little too much for me to heap the accolades upon it that other have. It is a good movie however, and well worth a watch.
honeykid
01-20-14, 09:45 PM
It sounds like another viewing will tell you a lot more about how you feel about the film, Sean.
It sounds like another viewing will tell you a lot more about how you feel about the film, Sean.
I hope I get more out of a second viewing. It would not be the first time.
It sounds like another viewing will tell you a lot more about how you feel about the film, Sean.
Have you seen it yet?
honeykid
01-20-14, 10:10 PM
Have you seen it yet?
No, I've not seen it. I'm not particularly interested, tbh, not that I think I'll dislike it or anything. It just doesn't excite me. I'm most interested in how much alike it is/isn't to the Black Mirror episode, Be Right Back.
No, I've not seen it. I'm not particularly interested, tbh, not that I think I'll dislike it or anything. It just doesn't excite me. I'm most interested in how much alike it is/isn't to the Black Mirror episode, Be Right Back.
Ill have to check and see if that one is on the DVR. We are just getting that show over here.
honeykid
01-20-14, 10:37 PM
Do. I'm not a big fan of it, but I am a fan of Charlie Brooker. I quite like it and the premise of each episode is usually quite interesting. Did you see Dead Set? It's the same writer as that.
Do. I'm not a big fan of it, but I am a fan of Charlie Brooker. I quite like it and the premise of each episode is usually quite interesting. Did you see Dead Set? It's the same writer as that.
So far I have only watched one. Don't know the name. Everyone's life is recorded through implant and can be rewound, watched, and deleted at will. I quite enjoyed it. Just have not been in a hurry to watch all of them since they stand alone. I am going to see if I have access to Be Right Back.
Cobpyth
01-20-14, 10:49 PM
No, I've not seen it. I'm not particularly interested, tbh, not that I think I'll dislike it or anything. It just doesn't excite me. I'm most interested in how much alike it is/isn't to the Black Mirror episode, Be Right Back.
That TV series looks interesting. I added it to my watchlist. Thanks for mentioning it!
And Seanc: Great reviews as always. :up:
No, I've not seen it. I'm not particularly interested, tbh, not that I think I'll dislike it or anything. It just doesn't excite me. I'm most interested in how much alike it is/isn't to the Black Mirror episode, Be Right Back.
Interesting episode, I can see why you would be wondering how similar they are. I suppose the arc of the theme could be considered pretty similar but after that they feel much different. Be Right Back had a much creepier feel than Her. It is also more of a tragedy I think. Her feels more like an organic relationship, which seems weird to say, but I think if you watched it you would understand. The writing in Her also blows this episode away which is to be expected but still makes a difference when you are comparing them. Be Right Back probably made me appreciate Her a bit more.
honeykid
01-22-14, 09:00 PM
Thanks for that. :)
I didn't know how similar they were, obviously given how dark Be Right Back is I wasn't thinking they'd be too close, but I was interested to see how they compared. I'm pleased (and find it interesting) to hear that watching it helped you appreciate Her more, too. You may not want to answer here in this thread, but how so?
Thanks for that. :)
I didn't know how similar they were, obviously given how dark Be Right Back is I wasn't thinking they'd be too close, but I was interested to see how they compared. I'm pleased (and find it interesting) to hear that watching it helped you appreciate Her more, too. You may not want to answer here in this thread, but how so?
Made me appreciate the world Jonze created a lot more, it felt so organic. That is mainly what I think people are responding to so strongly. This is a hard subject to make feel real, and Her does. I realized how good the script and performances in Her were, but watching Be Right Back with an eye towards comparing the two really made it stick out. Also while Her felt dour. It did so in the way that real life and relationships do, while Be Right Back simply felt tragic.
Best Of 2013
The only movie I really wish I had watched before the end of the year is Nebraska. It was one of my most anticipated as Payne is one of my favorite directors. It will have to wait a few months however. Some honorable mentions that didn't make my top 10: Wolf Of Wall Street, The Great Gatsby, The Place Beyond The Pines, The Counselor, and Like Someone In Love. There were quite a few others that were above average to me but these were the ones that stick the most.
My Favorite Scene 2013:
http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x369/seancriswell/movie%20posters/Wolf.jpeg
The yacht scene in Wolf Of Wall Street. I love Kyle Chandler, pit him against DiCaprio in this scene directed by Scorsese and you have magic. I was engrossed every second as the tension built. This is the one sticking with me. Wolf Of Wall Street was very good, if Scorsese could have strung two or three more scenes this powerful it would have been beyond great.
Favorite Female Performance:
There were some great performances in 2013, which I guess is stating the obvious. There seemed to be even more than normal this year though. Honorable mentions: Streep- Osage County, Adams- Hustle, Bullock- Gravity, Delpy- Before Midnight
Cate Blanchett- Blue Jasmine
http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x369/seancriswell/movie%20posters/bluejasmine.jpeg
As good as advertised, one of my favorite Allen characters in one of my favorite Allen films.
Favorite Male Performance:
This one took a bit of thinking. I could have went four different ways and been satisfied. My favorite ended being from an actor that doesn't always blow me away despite the fact I love a lot of his movies. Honorable mentions: McConaughey- Dallas Buyers Club, DiCaprio- Wolf Of Wall Street, Phoenix- Her, Ejiofor- 12 Years A Slave
Christian Bale- American Hustle
http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x369/seancriswell/movie%20posters/ChristianBale.jpeg
Top 10 Of 2013:
10) Blue Jasmine
http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x369/seancriswell/blue.jpg
9) The Stories We Tell
http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x369/seancriswell/storieswetell.jpg
8) The King Of Summer
http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x369/seancriswell/kingsofsummer.jpg
7) Before Midnight
http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x369/seancriswell/beforemidnight.jpg
6) A Hijacking
http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x369/seancriswell/ahijacking.jpg
5) 12 Years A Slave
http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x369/seancriswell/12years.jpg
4) Inside Llewyn Davis
http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x369/seancriswell/insidellewyndavis.jpg
3) Mud
http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x369/seancriswell/mud.jpg
2) American Hustle
http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x369/seancriswell/hustle-2.jpg
1) Gravity
http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x369/seancriswell/movie%20posters/gravity.jpeg
The best theater experience I have ever had. I know people have issues with the story, I really didn't. I thought it flowed nicely. I didn't know what being immersed in a movie felt like until Gravity.
http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x369/seancriswell/movie%20posters/gravity2.jpeg
2013 is in the books. I look forward to writing more, seeing more, and loving more in 2014. Thank you MoFo land for making my movie life a little better everyday.
http://i1178.photobucket.com/albums/x369/seancriswell/godzilla.jpg
2
Director: Gareth Edwards
Cast: Bryan Cranston, Juliette Binoche, Ken Watanabe, Aaron Taylor-Johnson, Elizabeth Olsen
"They call him...Godzilla"
I went into Godzilla with no expectations whatsoever. I am a total rookie having not even seen the '98 Emmerich version. Characters are what make my film life click so the idea of the biggest creations possible simply wreaking havoc is not very appealing to me. I am a sucker for hype however, so I see a lot of films knowing full well they may not be made for my sensibilities. Godzilla also peaked my interest in a couple of other ways. I really liked the first trailer. Trailers do not usually grab me the way the one for Godzilla seemed to. It really appeared it was going to do something different with the audiences expectations of a Godzilla movie. The fact that Cranston and Binoche were involved appealed to me as well. I love both of these actors and was excited to see them here. Godzilla sets out to subvert the audiences expectations at every turn. It does a good job of doing so. That is not to say that you won't see certain moments coming, you will, but as far as blockbusters go Godzilla feels fairly fresh. What I liked most about the film is the aesthetic. Edwards sets and old school feel with modern visuals. The monsters look cool and are presented in an ominous tone. When the violence comes it devastates. Whole cities are laid to waste, it's not what I wanted from the film but from the reaction of the audience it is what they wanted and it is effective.
Where I have an issue with Godzilla and probably where my expectations were unrealistic is in the story telling. Basically what we get over and over again is a scene of clunky science, a scene of an actor telling others we have no idea what is coming, a scene of everyone staring in awe as a little more of the creatures are revealed, repeat-repeat-repeat. There is never a moment when we are not seeing the strings being pulled. Instead of having any characters that we care about in this world that is on the brink of annihilation we get scenes propelling us to the next reveal. One of the main scientists is Dr. Serizawa (Watanabe), he constantly reveals pertinent information based off of sound charts that he has and then runs out of the room to see what is happening next. This happens no less than three times. He is treated as insignificant by the military and then can be the most important person in the room minutes later. Maybe he deserves to be treated this way however, because this is exactly how he treats Joe Brody (Cranston). He refuses to listen to anything Brody has to say until the monsters begin to show up, but he already knew the monsters existed. It is all very confusing if your interested in narrative. One of the most egregious examples of this come in about a 30 minute stretch. Ford Brody (Taylor-Johnson) has to leave his family to go bail his father, Joe, out of jail in Japan. He tells his wife (Olsen) that his father is a crackpot. He has never recovered from a devastating event that he believes the government is unwilling to divulge the truth about. Ford travels from San Francisco to Japan to tell his dad the world is round and drag him back to California with him. Joe convinces Ford with some clunky science that something outrageous is happening and they must go investigate. Ford concedes and their adventure begins. Not more than three scenes late Ford is asked what pertinent information his father has that could help them understand what is transpiring. His responds by telling them that he never listens to the old man, he thinks he is off his rocker. Yet you just followed him into the abyss because he convinced you Ford. Talk about unclear character motivations.
Ford remains the most problematic character throughout. There are some very contrived scenes that I won't discuss so as to not get into spoilers. What I can say is that he is a Navy officer who has a job that involves bomb dismantling. Seems similar to Renner's character in Hurt Locker, although we never see him in action till the climax of the film and that is an altogether different situation. What bothers me about it is he is framed as about the only person who can do this type of work. As if this is not problematic enough, he basically has to beg his way onto the mission of which apparently only he is trained for. These are the types of moments in movies that frustrate me to no end. There are two other scenes involving children that are so take me so far out of the movie I may as well have been in another theater. Ford's moments with his wife and son are heart warming enough and are pretty much the emotion of the film. Besides that his character did nothing for me and the Taylor-Johnson's acting did not help that.
Godzilla is not a horrible film. I give it props for looking great and being entertaining but beyond that there is just not much there. It reminds me of Pacific Rim from last year in that I think audiences will flock to it and critics will give it some points for being more original than most summer blockbusters. Overall it is just not made for me. Bay, Abrams, and Emmerich to please the summer masses. I have both Andersons, O. Russell, and the Coen brothers to keep me entertained
christine
05-18-14, 02:04 PM
Sean - totally agree with you . I've just posted briefly on the other Godzilla thread.
One of the scenes that took me right out of the film is the same one as you I guess?
Ford saves the kid on the train, then when they get in the city amongst the chaos he tries to approach the authorities to find the kids parents but like magis they're standing right there! yeah right. A horrible trope that is - use a kid for traumatic scenes then get rid of them asap no matter how ridiculous the method
Who could know that Juliette Binoche and Sally Hawkins could be so underused. They might as well have saved their money and used two unknowns for all the contributions they made.
Monsters were great tho :)
Masterman
05-18-14, 02:07 PM
That's some of the problems I have to Christine. The story wonders sometimes. The scene you mentioned is one of those scenes I was thinking... What was the point in that.
That's the scene @Christine. Terrible. And then:
The end where he is all of a sudden is holding his son and the wife magically appears.
I can't handle things being that canned.
christine
05-18-14, 02:46 PM
yep know what you mean!
I need to rename my review thread. I thought maybe some of you creative types could help me come up with a cool name. The winner receives my admiration.
Admirable seanc's Reviews & Omelette & Waffle Bar
Seanc Sees C's on a See-Saw by the Sea
Seanc's Motion Picture Professional Critique Thread ? xD
vBulletin® v3.8.0, Copyright ©2000-2025, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.