Iro's One Movie a Day Thread

→ in
Tools    





Welcome to the human race...
#145 - Edge of Tomorrow
Doug Liman, 2014



During a cataclysmic alien invasion, a military spin doctor is drafted into a squad of mechanised soldiers and soon finds himself reliving the day of a catastrophic battle over and over again.

You'd think that I'd have learned to be more than a little cautious of Tom Cruise sci-fi blockbusters after watching the slick but extremely derivative and empty Oblivion, yet here I am spending time on a movie where the whole premise can very easily be summed up as "Groundhog Day meets Starship Troopers" (though that is still preferable to the mishmash of influences that made up Oblivion). Despite the presence of all the gaps in internal and external logic that would make such a premise possible in the first place, to say nothing of the many things that happen as it plays out again and again, Edge of Tomorrow is actually surprisingly decent.

Let's leave aside the derivative premise and nonsensical developments for a moment (especially the latter, which includes events that admittedly have to happen in order to generate some drama). Tom Cruise's action-hero protagonist at least gets a bit more development than usual because he starts off as a self-absorbed fool who takes a lot of physical and mental punishment thanks to his actions at the start of the film getting him thrown into the fray against his wishes, complete with tough-talking sergeant (Bill Paxton), squad of bitter misfits, and of course Emily Blunt as a legendary soldier who mentors Cruise about combat and his newly-acquired power. Though the relationship between Blunt and Cruise does result in the film falling prey to the unfortunate and overly familiar narrative of the competent female lead teaching the incompetent male lead how to be the hero of the movie, it's generally played with a sparseness of sentimentality that makes it seem tolerable.

As far as being a high-concept action blockbuster goes, Edge of Tomorrow gets its action looking fairly good. The combination of eldritch-looking aliens and high-powered suits of armour means that there is a lot of CGI at play and so most of the action sequences almost feel like watching someone else play a videogame were it not for the well-executed editing. It's a credit to the film that the rapid editing goes hand-in-hand with Cruise frequently dying sudden deaths and thus keeps the main plot going at a brisk pace without becoming incomprehensible. Of course, that doesn't stop the first act feeling sluggish even thought it includes the first couple of action sequences. Edge of Tomorrow gets credit for taking a familiar fantasy trope and using it as a springboard for a flashy and reasonably entertaining action movie, and though that's not quite enough to make it significantly transcend its blockbuster trappings, it's certainly a lot better than I would have guessed.




I bought this the other day and rate it a
. Solid popcorn fodder with a smattering of brains, and Bill Paxton...bonus. What did you make of the ending? I agree with your Oblivion comments. It felt like they blatantly ripped the main plot twist from Duncan Jones' Moon and thought no one would notice.



Welcome to the human race...
I bought this the other day and rate it a
. Solid popcorn fodder with a smattering of brains, and Bill Paxton...bonus. What did you make of the ending? I agree with your Oblivion comments. It felt like they blatantly ripped the main plot twist from Duncan Jones' Moon and thought no one would notice.
The ending did come across as egregiously convenient in a movie that was already rife with conveniences, but I guess it makes some kind of sense how

WARNING: "Edge of Tomorrow" spoilers below
there's no telling exactly how the Omega blood worked so if it's easy enough to buy that if Alpha blood can keep Cruise in a time loop then there's no telling what Omega blood might do to him - sure, it's vague while also wrapping things up rather neatly, but what can you do?


As for Oblivion - yeah, Moon is definitely the most obvious source of "inspiration" for the plot, but I guess the makers figured that the overlap between the people who had seen a small arty film like Moon and the people who shelled out for big-budget Tom Cruise blockbusters was going to be too insignificant to care about. It doesn't help how you can pick apart smaller things such as the fact that the whole love triangle was virtually the same as the one from Total Recall (guy has perfect girlfriend but daydreams about some other woman and hey, turns out she's real but he can't actually remember her).



Yeah, I thought it was a bit cheap, much like Nolan's Interstellar. Not enough to spoil an otherwise good film, but as you say convenient. I feel like too many modern sci-fi and horror movies do this. They throw out a great premise without thinking up a clever, satisfying or just plain credible ending. It feels like some exec just told the script writers to bamboozle the audience and cut to credits. It's still better than vaseline lensed heavy petting though.



Welcome to the human race...
Yeah, I thought it was a bit cheap, much like Nolan's Interstellar. Not enough to spoil an otherwise good film, but as you say convenient. I feel like too many modern sci-fi and horror movies do this. They throw out a great premise without thinking up a clever, satisfying or just plain credible ending. It feels like some exec just told the script writers to bamboozle the audience and cut to credits. It's still better than vaseline lensed heavy petting though.
Well, as far as "convenient" endings go, I do have to wonder whether or not it was better or worse than

WARNING: "Oblivion" spoilers below
the main Cruise clone blowing himself up to take down the alien hive-mind (so many hive-minds) only for the other Cruise clone that he fought earlier on in the movie managing to find his hidden log cabin and live happily ever after with Olga Kurylenko.


Which naturally brings us to...




Welcome to the human race...
#146 - The Zero Theorem
Terry Gilliam, 2013



In a futuristic cyberpunk world, a low-level computer programmer obsessively works to prove a theory that would reveal the meaning of life.

I haven't been keeping up with Terry Gilliam's recent directorial output - this is the first post-Fear and Loathing film of his that I've seen - but given its stylistic and thematic similarities to Brazil and Twelve Monkeys (my two favourite films of his), this seems as good a place to jump back in as any. On a visual level, The Zero Theorem is a stunning piece of work with its vision of a future that is riddled with filth and fluorescence that is effectively depicted by captivating art direction and vivid cinematography. The technical perfectionism on display makes me think of Gilliam as a funhouse version of Ridley Scott. The sci-fi elements are very heavily rooted in contemporary technology (computers are apparently similar to giant smartphones and are interfaced with using oversized game controllers) in such a way that it does feel like the film might date very quickly, but for the time being they make for amusing props and are still secondary to the general bedlam that's going on with the story.

As you've probably guessed from the title, the film's main plot revolves around developing a scientific formula but that bare-bones plot is still convoluted by religious, philosophical and satirical layers. Christoph Waltz plays a protagonist that is a far cry from the charismatic rogues that won him two Oscars; here he is an introverted ascetic who struggles to keep his frustration with his work from spilling over into his everyday interactions with other characters. A host of other characters show up - Waltz's sinister white-haired boss (Matt Damon), a sarcastic teen genius (Lucas Hedges), a cheery supervisor (David Thewlis) a bubbly partygoer (Melanie Thierry) and even a computerised psychologist (Tilda Swinton). They all help or hinder Waltz to some degree and make interesting foils for Waltz's own particular brand of weirdness. It's still ultimately Waltz's film, and since Gilliam has never quite been one for prioritising acting and characterisation it helps that such a talented actor is able to carry what could have been a very dry or very hammed-up role (though it's not like Waltz isn't prone to overacting at times). The story itself naturally gets a little convoluted and not always by design - keeping up with the verbose characters and their scientific jargon can prove a little confusing to follow completely but the basic plot remains relatively easy to follow. Waltz has to solve the problem. Waltz gets delayed by something happening and occasionally thinks of giving up on the problem. Being a Gilliam film, things get weirder and weirder and there are hints that the protagonist may or may not be losing his grip on reality. Standard stuff, but I didn't mind.

The Zero Theorem definitely isn't the best movie Gilliam's ever directed and it is hard not to think of it as a blatant attempt to recapture the same dystopian vibe of better movies. If one were to think of it as the third film in a loosely-connected trilogy that includes Brazil and Twelve Monkeys, it is definitely the weakest but that doesn't necessarily make it bad. The years haven't diminished Gilliam's capacity for capturing strikingly surreal visuals in the context a bizarre and amusing (if not especially clever) satire on the search for meaning and purpose in a technological new age, and it gives Waltz a chance to do something completely different to the charming roles he has become known for playing, even if the characterisation does seem like a bit of a misfire. This is definitely one for viewers who are already familiar with Gilliam's idiosyncrasies as a filmmaker - a neophyte might still find something of worth here, but this definitely feels like a film designed to appeal to long-time fans of his work.




Good review; I really dug Edge of Tomorrow. Poorly marketed, and it seems like that stopped it from getting its due, because it's a lot funnier and smarter than you'd have expected. Not brilliant, I agree, but really incredibly well made and genuinely unpredictable for most of its runtime. Christopher McQuarrie always gives you something clever and new.



Nice review. I really liked Edge of Tomorrow, too (4 and a half stars in my review). I think it's a sci-fi cult classic in the making - just give it 20 years. Zero Theorem is 2 stars for me, and that's pushing it, didn't like it at all.



Welcome to the human race...
#147 - Patton
Franklin J. Schaffner, 1970



Centres on General George S. Patton as he commands troops during World War II, starting in North Africa before finally making it to Europe.

Despite its fairly straightforward premise of following an American general as he waged war across multiple countries during World War II, Patton has a fairly surprising take on its titular protagonist. It's easy to think of the film as an actor's film where the film as a whole is practically subservient to its lead thanks to the indelible performance of George C. Scott. As Patton, Scott makes for a rather intimidating presence even now - from the opening monologue playing out against the backdrop of an American flag through to its final moments in the wake of European victory, he dominates every frame he's in (and sometimes some he himself isn't in). It helps that, despite his role in World War II, the film doesn't exactly present him as a wholly sympathetic figure. His toughness on every single one of his subordinates is a thing to behold, and yet it is still treated as ambiguous thanks to the Greek chorus that is Nazi intelligence following his every move (at one point, they remark condescendingly on the U.S.'s decision to suspend the extremely effective Patton over such an apparently insignificant act as physically attacking an enlisted soldier). Though one could argue that the film ultimately comes out in favour of Patton's methods, it still showcases the general's flamboyant tendencies such as his fervent belief in the power of prayer contrasted against his openly displayed convictions about how he is a reincarnation of various legendary warriors, thus conveying his eccentricities in such a way that one might be inclined to wonder in bafflement how such a person could ever become a general.

Aside from Scott's Oscar-winning turn, this is a pretty solid (if long) war film with plenty of battles and war-torn scenery to counterbalance the behind-the-scenes moments where Patton alternately hands out and receives discipline. Most of the other characters are fairly insignificant, save perhaps for Karl Malden as Omar Bradley, who here serves as a calmer and much more dutiful foil to the passionate and eccentric Patton. It may not need to be quite as long as it is, but if you want some well-shot WWII sequences and a lead performance that commands your attention, then this is definitely the film for you.




Welcome to the human race...
#148 - Signs
M. Night Shyamalan, 2002



A former pastor, his children and his brother are terrorised by the increasing threat of an alien invasion.

I think it's pretty telling that this is actually the first time I've watched a Shyamalan film in almost a decade and also the second actual Shyamalan film I've watched (after The Sixth Sense, which was alright at first even though I already knew the twist before watching and haven't given much thought to since). Of course, given the unfortunate reputation that both this film and its creator have earned over the course of the past decade or so I was naturally skeptical as to whether or not this would actually be any good, but I decided to try and put as much of that out of my mind while watching this (though knowing this particular film's twist did not work in the film's favour).

Even leaving aside the low expectations, Signs is still rather underwhelming. The dialogue is incredibly stilted and the acting isn't good enough to sell it (even when it comes to generally solid actors like Gibson and Phoenix). Though the film is ultimately more about Gibson's retired pastor (who has recently been widowed and has to care for two young children) having a crisis of faith than it is about the gradual appearance of aliens, the dragged-out revelations in regards to both sides of the story is still handled fairly badly (especially when they inevitably converge at the very end of the film). There's also the poor handling of the reveal about the aliens' true nature. I get that the truth has to be held until the very end for dramatic purposes despite there being several instances where it could've been revealed with ease but that just feels especially contrived during an already contrived third act, especially considering the clumsy foreshadowing from the rest of the movie. I can see the potential at work here, but it's all squandered as part of some half-baked religious dilemma. Even the occasional instance of tension being generated by the presence of the aliens is undercut by various reasons such as poorly-executed scares, illogical decisions or exposition that is either too vague or too heavy-handed. The CGI effects, well, it's a testament to the rest of the movie that I barely register the quality of the CGI on display.




I saw Edge of Tomorrow recently and thought it was the best Sci-Fi action movie I've seen in a while.

It's a shame Patton was the only best picture winner to not make the 70's list. It's an excellent movie.



Welcome to the human race...
#149 - Fruitvale Station
Ryan Coogler, 2013



Based on the true story of Oscar Grant, who was shot and killed by police in the early hours of New Year's Day, 2009.

Fruitvale Station is a film that still feels sadly relevant considering how many highly publicised incidents of lethal force have been used against black people by white police officers even after this film was released. Unfortunately, its attempt to depict Grant's last day doesn't make for that good a film. Granted, the film goes some way to establish its inevitable conclusion - it does open with actual camera-phone footage of Grant being shot by police before launching into its dramatised account of the 24 hours or so leading up to the shooting. The film's main problem is its attempt to build up a thoroughly compelling narrative for the bulk of its running time, which is a problem when it's barely 80 minutes long and spends at least half its running time showing Grant going about an otherwise mundane kind of day, foreshadowing of its climax notwithstanding.

The quasi-documentarian approach to the material works in the film's favour and it helps that the performances are naturalistic. Michael B. Jordan does alright as Grant, who is given enough development to sufficiently humanise him - he leads a cast that aren't amazing but are decent enough in their roles (including Octavia Spencer as Grant's mother, whose birthday also happens to take place on New Year's Eve). Ultimately, Fruitvale Station is nothing more than a well-crafted dramatisation of a tragic event where the first half feels a bit too much like padding (there's even a flashback thrown in) in order to get the film to feature length - it's almost a bit too contrived how virtually everything that happens to Grant during the daytime becomes dramatically important during the film's final 20-30 minutes. While it's a striking portrayal of injustice against a young man who was far from perfect but still didn't deserve to die and definitely has an emotional resonance on that level alone, on a cinematic level it's just a decent but not amazing piece of work.




Welcome to the human race...
#150 - Prisoners
Denis Villeneuve, 2013



When a pair of preteen girls are kidnapped, a detective is assigned to find out what happened while the father of one of the girls decides to take justice into his own hands.

Prisoners is a decent enough twist on whodunits thanks to the moral ambiguity on the part of its protagonists. Hugh Jackman has played gruff characters before, but here he gets to show some serious menace as a single-minded vigilante who is driven to find his daughter by any means necessary. Jake Gyllenhaal is decent enough as the detective following the case, even if he doesn't do anything particularly groundbreaking with either his ability or the role. That more or less goes for the rest of the cast - there are talented performers, but they're ultimately kind of wasted here. Terrence Howard is the father or the other missing girl and he believably conveys discomfort with Jackman's plan while assisting him with carrying it out. Viola Davis and Maria Bello are more or less relegated to playing worried spouses, but at least Davis gets the chance to make more out of the role. Paul Dano plays the mentally impaired prime suspect, which is a fairly thankless role but at least he does alright with it, while Melissa Leo rounds out the main cast as Dano's kind and understanding aunt.

The film as a whole is a grim and considerably violent affair, all of it photographed with aplomb by the legendary Roger Deakins (I'm pretty sure I've posted before about how any film where he serves as director of photography gets points for that alone). There are strong contrasts, good use of different types of light, the usual slow and purposeful camera movements - all of which are used to build a fairly unsettling atmosphere around one fairly twisted premise. Unfortunately, the film's story doesn't quite feel like it deserves to be two-and-a-half hours long and, while it does stay unsettling for the most part and is fairly well-performed, the climatic reveal and falling action do feel a little underwhelming considering how the rest of the movie had progressed. Prisoners is definitely worth one viewing due to its rather unusual take on a familiar genre (and, of course, that Deakins cinematography) but otherwise I don't think it being a great film.




Welcome to the human race...
#151 - Inherent Vice
Paul Thomas Anderson, 2014



In early-1970s California, a burned-out private investigator is contacted by his ex-girlfriend and made to look into a convoluted mystery involving a real estate baron.

Is it a good thing or a bad thing that Inherent Vice played out more or less how I expected it to? It's not hard to pick the similarities to certain other films that work in a similar vein and work out how it'll pan out from there - the increasingly complicated mystery plot with many inter-connecting strands, the cavalcade of bizarre characters that populate the film's cartoonish setting, etc. It's all here and it's all executed rather well. Anderson shows how well he can work with an ensemble of great and not-so-great actors. Joaquin Phoenix makes for a great lead as Doc, the defective detective whose drug-fuelled attitude frequently allows him to react to the plot in a variety of amusing ways and he more than carries the film. Josh Brolin plays yet another stone-faced law enforcement type who deserves acknowledgement for playing some of the film's most ridiculous moments with the straightest face possible. Musician Joanna Newsom pops up in a supporting role as one of Phoenix's friends and also the narrator who peppers her voice-over with frequent spiritual references of debatable relevance (hey, just like Justin Timberlake in Southland Tales). Owen Wilson does his whole Owen Wilson thing, while Benicio del Toro plays the main character's eccentric attorney (why does that sound familiar?) and Katharine Waterston gets a solid role as the closest thing the film has to a femme fatale, even getting in one lengthy and well-delivered monologue at one point. Even glorified cameos such as Martin Short as a depraved dentist stand out.

On a technical level, the film is well-shot (Robert Elswit is another great cinematographer and is perfectly suited to capturing some truly garish scenery) and Jonny Greenwood provides yet another great instrumental score that properly fits the mostly-chilled atmosphere. It was a little distracting how the film apparently takes place in 1970 yet the soundtrack features songs from 1972 on it, though (fortunately the songs fit the film well aside from that). The story is a bit convoluted, sure, but at least it's funny - for the most part. Things take a darker-than-expected turn in the final hour (starting with the scene that features the aforementioned Waterston monologue) and, though it's still reasonably solid, it doesn't quite retain the same comedic vibe that permeated the bulk of the film. Even so, iIt wasn't quite enough to truly sully my enjoyment of the film, and I definitely appreciate this film enough to want to watch it again.




I loved Prisoners; it's the kind of movie that naturally appeals to me anyway, so it's easier for me to overlook any flaws.

Looking forward to Inherent Vice.



Welcome to the human race...
#152 - Midnight in Paris
Woody Allen, 2011



A nostalgic American screenwriter is on holiday in Paris with his fiancée and her parents when he discovers a way to travel back in time to the 1920s.

How many Woody Allen films am I going to put myself through before I finally decide to say "Screw it, this just isn't worth it"? Whatever the answer is, I am now one film closer to it. Owen Wilson plays the protagonist, who once again seems to be yet another Allen-like protagonist who's a nervous, talkative romantic with niche interests. At least this doofus is being played by somebody other than Allen himself. It doesn't help that so many other characters in this film tend to be extremely one-dimensional even for a supposedly light-hearted low-fantasy comedy. Rachel MacAdams is Wilson's self-absorbed American fiancée whose cheerful callousness towards him suspends one's disbelief as to how they ever ended up together, while Marion Cotillard gets little more to do than play a classy Parisian variation of a Manic Pixie Dream Girl with only the slightest fragment of extraneous development (which I'll talk about further later on). The magical realism extends to Wilson's aspiring novelist meeting various literary and artistic legends, though a lot of those don't extend past some predictable caricatures (Ernest Hemingway wants to drink and fight people, Salvador Dali is a complete weirdo, etc.) That'd be fine (in a manner of speaking) if it was confirmed that this was just Wilson discovering some sort of magic wish-fulfilment world where his heroes are exactly how he idealised them but...

WARNING: "Midnight in Paris" spoilers below
...no, it turns out that his time-travel is apparently having an impact on the real world, as evidenced by the fact that when he returns to the present day he finds an old book written by Cotillard that mentions him by name, which conveniently skips over any questionable implications to get back to the plot as quickly as possible...


...and thus the 1920s sequences and Wilson's behaviour in them do prompt derisive eye-rolling more so than genuine mirth. Even the climax seems to drop the ball in this regard:

WARNING: "Midnight in Paris" spoilers below
It turns out that Cotillard idealises the 1890s and dislikes the 1920s in the same way that Wilson idealises the 1920s and dislikes 2010, which prompts Wilson to have an epiphany (that got pointed out to him by another character at the start, no less, but that character was blatantly antagonistic so who cared what he thought?) that people are always going to think the good old days were better than the present. So he decides to stay in 2010, which entails breaking up with his fiancée and meeting up with that one random French shopgirl from earlier in the movie who also happens to be interested in old-fashioned romantic stuff anyway, so...yay for compromise, I guess?


Midnight in Paris has a decent premise, but it's let down by underwritten characters, lacking humour, and a frequently inconsistent treatment of its themes and messages. I concede that there is something ever-so-slightly charming about the over-saturated period-piece setting full of famed artistic figures, though even those tend to make me think of the premise's wasted potential. The fact that it starts with several minutes' worth of establishing shots of Paris may be intended to be part of a cinematic love letter to the city (both past and present) but it just comes across as especially indulgent in a film that seems to do nothing but indulge the whims of its creator and his self-insert protagonist for a good 90 minutes or so.




Bright light. Bright light. Uh oh.
Although there are a few people here who will agree with you, I just thought I'd mention that I believe that almost every one of Woody Allen's movies is better than Inherent Vice. The fact that you believe the opposite and approach your reviews accordingly makes me appreciate your reviews less than I remembered. I know you don't review movies for me, but we seemed to agree more often than not before, but now we're quite far apart, and the glee you seem to get from tearing down Woody and some others lately makes no sense to me when I read your even-handed review of, say, Patton. Well, it's probably no biggie to either of us, but it's worth mentioning.
__________________
It's what you learn after you know it all that counts. - John Wooden
My IMDb page