Iro's Film Diary

#468 - The Purge: Election Year
James DeMonaco, 2016



In a world where all crime is legalised for one night a year, a senator dedicated to eliminating the practice must survive the latest night.

I suspect that the Purge series may not ever truly achieve greatness, but I do appreciate that each new entry has managed to improve upon the last (even if it in rather slight in each instance). Election Year may effectively recycle the core narrative of Anarchy by having a ragtag group travel across the city trying to survive the murder-happy population, but it offers enough tweaks to make it work at least as well this time around. It may not be subtle or especially nuanced in how it leans even further into its politically-charged premise than its predecessors did, but it's strong enough to uphold another straightforward piece of genre mayhem that wisely relies on action more so than horror.

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

#469 - Hell or High Water
David MacKenzie, 2016



Two brothers - one an ex-con, the other a divorced father - team up to carry out a series of bank robberies.

Admittedly, this had a bit of trouble living up to the considerable hype that had built up around it, but it still managed to be an appreciable neo-Western that manages to maintain its momentum rather well. It's got a couple of good duos to build around - Chris Pine and Ben Foster put in good turns as the bank-robbing brothers whose actions and motivations drive the film on a narrative and thematic level (especially given the rationale behind their scheme), but it's Jeff Bridges and Gil Birmingham as the comically caustic rangers who give this film even more heart than the nominal anti-heroes do.

Surprised by the three stars for the most recent Purge. I thought Anarchy wasn't good but fun and somewhat interesting. May have to check the most recent one out.

#470 - Arrival
Denis Villeneuve, 2016



When a group of alien vessels suddenly appear at different locations all over Earth, a linguistics professor must figure out a means of communicating with the aliens.

2016's status as an election year has effectively made it so that viewing each new release with an increased focus on identifying political subtext has become less and less laboured. Everything from micro-budget genre pieces to nine-figure blockbusters has become ripe for the picking to some extent or another, so it's especially noteworthy how Arrival is coming from a filmmaker like Denis Villeneuve. The other Villeneuve films I've seen have varied quite a bit when it comes to political engagement, whether it's a direct approach to contentious subjects such as the War on Drugs (Sicario) and refugees fleeing war-torn countries (Incendies) or if it's subtext buried within grim suburban drama (Prisoners) or even just one man's existential crisis (Enemy). Considering his tendency towards creating such outwardly dour and cynical films, Arrival seems downright accessible in comparison. I won't deny that its premise is a simple one that can and does lapse into cliché, but in the hands of a director like Villeneuve it does become something more.

The textual narrative of Arrival does make it extremely easy to identify the subtext, especially when it starts getting into familiar territory. After a maudlin prologue introduces our protagonist (Amy Adams), it quickly sees her academic routine interrupted with the revelation that a dozen separate spaceships have appeared at random around the world. Before too long, she is contacted by the U.S. military (as personified by Forest Whitaker's no-nonsense colonel and Michael Stuhlbarg's perpetually suspicious government man) to figure out a means of communicating with the aliens on the ships. As a result, she gets teamed with a physicist (Jeremy Renner) who naturally embodies a different yet fundamentally agreeable perspective. Of course, their attempts to develop a method of communication are complicated not just by the lengthy process but also by multiple rising tensions not only between the humans and the aliens but also between the different countries who all have different ideas about how to deal with the aliens (most obviously in leaning towards military retribution). Though these developments obviously suggest a sub-textual criticism of xenophobia, it is to Arrival's credit that this is not the sole issue it attempts to address (though that does not mean that it should be wholly disregarded either). Instead, moments of international friction and authoritarian distrust only feed into a greater point about the importance of communication that is not only reflected in the need to understand the aliens but also in how Adams' character is haunted by personal traumas rooted in miscommunication. It's not just a matter of being pragmatic, it's a matter of healing; the size of the wound is irrelevant.

Given its compact production and thoughtful subject matter, it's just as well that a director like Villeneuve is not only on hand but also willing to push himself even when making what could very well be his most accessible work yet. This much is most obviously reflected in his visual style, which marks a notable departure from the high-contrast professionalism of Roger Deakins due to the more balanced work provided by Bradford Young. The images don't exactly lack for clarity even when they involve deliberate obscurity (such as the alien creatures residing within clouds of brilliant white fog), but they are striking not so much for their strangely naturalistic compositions so much as their remarkably smooth alchemy they form with the editing. There are many instances where Joe Walker's editing is doing just as much of the film's legwork as the shots themselves, with the emphasis on complex montage reflecting the aliens' own esoteric language while also connecting the characters' gradual understanding with the audience's. Villeneuve collaborator Jóhann Jóhannsson contributes a score that doesn't trade on orchestral bombast to convey a sense of awe so much as mix atonality and ambience to subtly strong effect, which is what such a low-key take on the alien invasion narrative definitely needs.

Arrival isn't quite the masterpiece I'd hoped it would be, but I can't fault it too hard either. Though the broad strokes are undoubtedly familiar, they are virtually inconsequential as Villeneuve assembles a multitude of talented collaborators on all sides to make for a wholly remarkable execution. The always-capable Adams provides a good emotional centre to build things around from the very first minute and only continues to maintain that strength throughout a story that comes up with a fascinatingly detailed approach to its subject. I must admit that I personally thought that the emotional centre of the film worked better in theory than in practice but that's not to say that it's completely ineffective either - if anything, it does feel like it's been overshadowed by recent events and I still in too much of a funk to truly appreciate the deftness with which it is handled. It will be interesting to see how Arrival holds up (or possibly improves) on a subsequent viewing, but its focus on cerebral plotting and character-driven content are definitely enough to make a single viewing not only worthwhile but sincerely recommended.

To be fair, it's something of a low (this is what I get for both using a four-popcorn cap while also refusing to use pluses and minuses, I guess). It's not exactly a huge step up from Anarchy but I liked that enough to want to see more. Hard to say how much you'd get out of it if that's your take on Anarchy - as noted, they share very similar plots only with more world-building and curious politics. I feel like DeMonaco may benefit from having some collaborators - he's the sole writer-director on all three but I feel like they may need some new blood to keep it fresh for a part four (let alone an actual TV series).

The Purge franchise is a strange one.

Because of the reception of the first film and particularly the talk about the immense stupidity of the characters, I never bothered. But with each new entry, it seems to get more and more well received and slowly building a new popular franchise out of an admittedly good concept.

With how things are going, I might finally have to dive into those films some day...

__________________
/watching movies for mark f/
MovieMeditation's Cinema Reviews // Film Diary 2015 // Letterboxd Profile // MovieMeditation's Top 50 Horror

Yeah, the first film really isn't good - I gave it a so it's hard to tell whether or not you'd give it more or less leeway than I did. It's a decidedly mediocre home-invasion horror that doesn't really reflect the action-thriller direction that the next two movies would take (to the point where I'm trying to decide if you can skip it entirely since the story is effectively self-contained).

#471 - I Know Where I'm Going!
Michael Powell and Emeric Pressburger, 1945



A headstrong young Englishwoman heads to Scotland in order to marry a wealthy older man but her plan is complicated when she meets a young naval officer.

Definitely one of those films where there's nothing especially wrong with it but I just can't get into it. It's a decidedly dry romance that may allow Powell and Pressburger to show off some of their usual filmmaking flair even in black-and-white and at least has a couple of strong leads, but there's hardly anything else of note about it.

#472 - Cosmopolis
David Cronenberg, 2012



A young businessman plans to do some errands that take him around New York City.

I don't think it's possible for a filmmaker like Cronenberg to ever truly become complacent, but that's still the impression I tend to get from his late-period output. Cosmopolis seems intriguing at the outset, but it quickly gives the impression that it's a little too obtuse for its own good and never quite manages to shake it. There are a few strong moments scattered throughout the film (often in the form of verbose diatribes that manage to own their pretentiousness and work because of that - the scene with Samantha Morton comes to mind) and I feel like it may yet improve on a second viewing (which is an impression I get from virtually every Cronenberg film). For the time being, though, I don't think its tale of a disaffected billionaire having a gradual psychological breakdown offers quite enough of substance to make the whole film seem especially good.

#473 - Leonard Cohen: I'm Your Man
Lian Lunson, 2005



A documentary about Canadian singer-songwriter Leonard Cohen.

I'm Your Man alternates between being a conventional documentary about Cohen and a concert film where various musicians pay tribute by covering his songs. The former part is okay - Cohen's gravelly delivery can only benefit his recounting of various formative anecdotes and recitations of important material. The latter part gets a little dicey as the wide variety of guest performers wavers a bit in terms of quality, resulting in numbers that range from the brilliant to the boring to the bad. While the high points are definitely worth some consideration, they are scattered pretty sparsely across a generally dull film.

#474 - Elle
Paul Verhoeven, 2016



A woman who is already dealing with an extremely dysfunctional social circle must also contend with a rapist who is stalking her.

Considering how I mainly know Paul Verhoeven for his forays into Hollywood genre fare, actually getting around to watching one of his non-Hollywood features has made me realise that I'm doing the man a disservice. Elle marks quite the introduction to this side of Verhoeven as it delivers a complex psychological drama that weaves together many disparate threads in constructing protagonist Michéle (a magnificent Isabelle Huppert). It begins with Michéle being violently raped in her own home by a masked man; though she attempts to go on with her life, she still keeps receiving threatening messages and worries that her attacker could be any one of her male acquaintances. This only adds to the many existing sources of conflict in her life, many of which come down to strained relationships with other people. To list them all would take up a paragraph on its own, but needless to say there are a lot of characters with a variety of complicated connections to Michéle. Parents, children, friends, neighbours, lovers (past and present), co-workers...the list goes on. It is a testament to Verhoeven's capabilities as a filmmaker that he is able to juggle so many disparate threads without any of them getting entangled and confusing. That's not to say that credit shouldn't go to the supporting cast, all of whom are at least capable of holding their own against Huppert and distinguishing themselves for the better.

Elle frequently invokes discomfort on both a visceral and psychological level, but none of it ever comes across as excessive or exploitative. Its treatment of a volatile subject like rape is as complicated as its protagonist; it may not go for easy answers, but that doesn't mean that it settles for baseless harshness either. The mystery of the attacker's identity may drive the plot to an extent but it's far more than a simple whodunit; at times, it seems like little more than a rudimentary backbone to a film that is more concerned with examining the aftermath of such a heinous act and how it impacts on every single relationship in Michéle's life; not only does she start to suspect people, but it only heightens many existing tensions that involve everything from infidelity to decades-old traumas. The technique involved reflects the perpetual uncertainty of a trauma survivor's mindset with competence, resulting in a film that is often jarring without ever becoming incoherent. The film may have some unusual developments (such as a sub-plot involving a videogame company) but Verhoeven never plays anything for more absurdity than is absolutely necessary, resulting in what may just be one of the best films of the year.

#475 - Seance on a Wet Afternoon
Bryan Forbes, 1964



A woman who works as a professional medium conspires with her husband to kidnap the daughter of an affluent couple.

This is a sufficiently interesting variation on the "simple plan" suspense thriller that works mainly because of the performances by the leading duo. Richard Attenborough is remarkable enough as a perpetually nervous and uncomfortable accomplice, but it's Kim Stanley who naturally delivers the stand-out performance as the medium whose motivations and actions truly drive the plot. She definitely manages to deliver one extremely layered performance that makes her out to be far more than a pantomime villain even before the film reaches its peak. These performances definitely work together to make a seemingly standard kidnapping plot become especially compelling.

Some nice films here. Elle, Arrival and Hell or High Water are all high up on my 2016 watchlist so I'm jealous you've watched them all already, I'll check out your reviews properly when I've seen them

__________________

I'm looking forward to Elle and might see it this weekend. Your rating only made me more excited. I'll read the review after.

#476 - Nocturnal Animals
Tom Ford, 2016



An art gallery owner receives a novel from her ex-husband and becomes disturbed by its tale of a family being terrorised by sadistic criminals.

These days, when I'm watching a film and can feel myself not liking specific filmmaking choices, I try to consciously ask myself why those particular choices don't work and even actively think about whether there's a way in which they do work that I'm not immediately grasping. A film like Nocturnal Animals definitely demands such a degree of critical thinking as it mounts a rather ambitious story-within-a-story narrative that takes a heavily stylised approach towards the divide between high and low art (which is instantly evident from an opening sequence that layers a dramatic orchestral score over a slow-motion montage of obese women dancing naked in an art gallery). It is this gallery's owner, Susan (Amy Adams), who serves as our ostensible protagonist. Though she is concerned about her gallery's faltering business and the fidelity of her current husband (Armie Hammer), these problems become less important once she receives a package in the mail from her ex-husband Edward (Jake Gyllenhaal). The package contains a copy of Edward's soon-to-be-published novel, which he claims was inspired by Susan herself. This lends an uncomfortable subtext to the plot of the novel itself, which sees family man Tony (Gyllenhaal again) driving his wife (Isla Fisher) and daughter (Ellie Bamber) cross-country only to encounter a gang of threatening low-lives. As the novel progresses into darker territory, Susan wonders exactly what Edward is trying to say both to and about her through this novel - so does the audience, but that's where Nocturnal Animals starts to come apart.

Considering how much importance Nocturnal Animals places on story as a concept, it is disappointing to notice flaws in the construction. This can be observed in the editing, not just when it becomes a distraction during individual scenes but also when it comes to alternating back and forth between Susan's plot and Tony's plot (especially when it comes to the former having multiple flashbacks to her own past or having encounters with multiple characters who only appear in one or two scenes each). There's also the matter of Edward being set up as an aspiring writer whose novel does play into tropes associated with revenge-driven potboilers, which tends to be a hindrance more so than a help. It may be able to mine its pulpy set-up for some moments of tension and decent characterisation (most notably through Michael Shannon's taciturn lawman) but it has trouble maintaining that strength and only grows more tedious as it progresses. While I may be willing to accept that this weakness could be a deliberate reflection of Edward's own shortcomings as a novelist, this only makes the ways in which it ties into Susan's own narrative especially questionable. The potentially deliberate weakness of Tony's plot can't help but feel like it negatively impacts upon Susan's plot, rendering emotionally-charged revelations anticlimactic and character interaction inert in the process. A subtle commentary on how damaging relationships can be in both the short and long term? Perhaps, though in this particular case it may have worked a little too well and undermined the film proper.

Even when I try to assess Nocturnal Animals on an artistic level more so than a narrative level, I still find myself questioning whether or not its actually accomplishes its particular goals. It definitely carves out different visual approaches for both narratives, with Susan's plot naturally emphasising stark post-modern aesthetics while Tony's plot showcases a grim neo-Western sensibility. Though there are moments of flourish here and there, it seems especially disappointing that it ends up looking so dull for the most part. I might even be willing to forgive the aforementioned editing issues if the film was able to compensate on a cinematographical level, but that doesn't seem to be the case here as it burns through both plots without any particular concern. This even extends to the performances themselves; Gyllenhaal in particular pulls double-duty and gets to emote a whole lot as either the idealistic Edward or the burnt-out Tony, though both characters end up feeling like they exist in a vacuum as little more than talking props for both narratives. Adams doesn't fare any better as she has to play another character who is barely maintaining a calm facade over inner turbulence, but that almost seems preferable to Gyllenhaal's grand-standing. Other characters frequently get exposed for the stock characters that they are, whether by design or not; Shannon is a treat as always even as he plays such a straightforward frontier justice role, whereas Aaron Taylor-Johnson has to make do with playing a by-the-numbers white-trash villain. Those are just the characters that make a significant difference to the story; while this film will understandably invite comparisons to the films of David Lynch, to me the most Lynchian thing about this movie is that Ford also has a habit of casting famous faces in brief, semi-forgettable scenes (with the most notable example involving Laura Linney popping up in one scene as Sarah's snobby mother).

Nocturnal Animals is a strange little beast of a film that constantly seems like it's on the verge of tearing itself apart completely but never manages to do so. It is polished in certain areas while seeming notably sloppy in others. There's enough of a sense of purpose that you can sort of forgive the ways in which certain set-ups don't seem to go anywhere (such as the extremely sudden introduction of upper-class eccentrics played by Andrea Riseborough and Michael Sheen), but more often than not the sense that I'm missing something special about this film is vastly overshadowed by the suspicion that there's not all that much going on here anyway. The film feels like the sort of semi-abstract artwork that you have to mull over a bit in order to form a proper opinion about, which I suppose can be considered a strength; however, this just begs the question as to how much you can consciously interpret a film's overt weaknesses as hidden strengths before you're just trying too hard to convince yourself that the film you watched was genuinely worth your attention. Nevertheless, I feel like there may actually be a degree of nuance to Nocturnal Animals that I may not be perceiving after a single viewing and a relatively detailed review that is more about processing my own thoughts than encompassing the film for others. Given its focus on how even the pulpiest of fiction can affect one's own thoughts and perspectives, I'd like to think that there's more to it but also can't help but feel that its inability to make any significantly immediate connection with me may ultimately scupper its apparent thesis.

Sorry i don't post here more, like Citizens thread it's usually because i haven't seen anything you are reviewing except it is usually the opposite; his films are too old and yours are too new haha.

I hadn't seen anything on this page and had to go back to the last. Anyway.. Creepshow is solid, the Leslie Nielsen short is my favourite.

Got to say i'm amazed that Midnight Special is your favourite of his, or that you are at least leaning towards it. I used much more words to say not much more but i'm curious if you disagree with any of this - http://www.movieforums.com/community...90#post1603890

I agree with you completely on Idiocracy. I get the point you are trying to make and it may be true but it doesn't make it any less obnoxious to watch when you are trying to be obnoxious about it.

That's all the ones i've seen on that page.

Can't really argue with any of your comments about Midnight Special. I think I may rank it roughly on par with Take Shelter and definitely higher than Mud. Still interested in checking out Shotgun Stories and Loving, obviously, but yeah, Nichols is in that weird zone where his work doesn't feel especially remarkable but I still feel compelled to keep giving him chances in case he does come up with something that I do seriously like.

I feel exactly the same about Villenueve.

I actually watched Take Shelter a few days after that but it's even longer (my post) without saying much and i've been considering deleting it haha. Hope you watch and like Shotgun Stories, it is still my favourite of his i think. It is alot simpler than the others and because of this i think it got to me more.

#477 - Woodstock: 3 Days of Peace & Music
Michael Wadleigh, 1970



A documentary about the famous Woodstock music festival of 1969.

Woodstock is very much two films in one - the concert film that only adds to the legends surrounding many of its stars and the fly-on-the-wall documentary that provides a warts-and-all account of one of the most iconic counter-cultural events of the 20th century. Unfortunately, it seems like the former is considerably more engaging than the latter in almost every regard except perhaps the stolidly historical. There are some good performances included here - my personal highlights include The Who, Joe Cocker, Sly and the Family Stone, Santana, and Jimi Hendrix - but there are wedged into a film that is at least three hours long and which is just as likely to give time to showcasing the various attendants and off-stage antics, which are rarely interesting in their own right except as anthropological curiosities. It's not the worst film, but between the rather tedious focus on the minutiae of the festival and the fact that not every performer on the marquee manages to deliver the goods, it's hardly something I'd consider out-and-out appreciable.

#478 - My Scientology Movie
John Dower, 2015



A film by British documentarian Louis Theroux about the Church of Scientology.

Considering how Going Clear already provided a rather exhaustive documentary about Scientology's storied past, there's really not much more that Theroux can do except provide a more personalised and accessible approach to the subject. His unflappably British demeanour is somewhat amusing to watch as he gets into all sorts of sticky situations ranging from encounters with obtuse Scientologists to getting caught up in his own dramatisations of various horrifying allegations against Scientology leader David Miscavige, though it never gets to the point where the more humourous aspects manage to neuter Scientology's inherently troubling nature. Also, the sudden appearance by Paz de la Huerta might just be the weirdest part of this whole movie.