Movie Tab II

Christmas Office Party(2016) - such a promising premise and such a disappointing movie. Had a 1/2 handful of moments but who cares?

David Bowie: The Last Five Years(2017) + - Did the usual flashback and random history editing that I hate since it CLEARLY states it's about "The Last Five Years", but..whatever...the Tony Visconti segments are priceless because he breaks down the multi tracks of Bowie's last album (which is phenom)!


Wind Chill(2007) - Not a bad ghost story but hindered by mechanics that seem to kind of go nowhere. I hated the two leads at first. I grew to tolerate them. Ring a bell? It's a good movie for atmosphere alone.

Tales From the Crypt: Demon Knight(1995) - Stupid but something about it worked for me. It's a late night before bed horror film elixir. It hits its marks but never overwhelms. It's not bad, but it is absolutely not good, either.

Hostiles



A legendary army captain forced to escort his arch enemy to his sacred burial ground as a PR stunt by politicians comes to terms with his demons.

Scott Cooper fell into my radar during the abysmal box office performance of out of the furnace. Its one of the two Christian bale movies that came out in the fall of 2013. While American Hustle took off this movie was DOA at box office and also critically.He is an actor turned director who is trying to create a directorial style that particular to him.He definitely has something to say as a director and that comes through in his movies.He is not one of those directors like peter berg or Gavin O'Connor or Antoine Fuqua who make movies that feel like a cookie cutter studio movies but very well made. Scott Cooper has a style and vision that is unique. But the only problem is that his vision and skills are not experienced enough and honed enough to be making movies that star some of the very top movie stars in the world.

Hostiles deal with highly ambitious concepts of "respect the others" and "learned hatred" and "origin of trauma of soldiers" because these could have easily failed. There is no point in praising the physical violence in the movie because its done very often. But some of the scenes depicts emotional trauma like never before. There is some risk taking there. Aggregate review on rotten tomatoes points out the unevenness of the movie and movie is uneven not just in terms of story but pace, emotional punch and descent into misery. Some scenes are very powerful where as some scenes feel amateurish in emotional depth.

One of the tricks done by master filmmakers in dealing with political subject matters is to go about it indirectly.Same concept as in this movie is dealt in a round about way in the Revenant. The main story is of revenge but in doing so they touch upon topics of treating nature and natives with hostility. Even Unforgiven starts as a revenge and it slowly descents into the core of westerns.When you have movies with the sole concept of hate, the director has to be very careful how they make the movie without being too obvious. Due to that I feel that the director has to be more experienced than him to make a movie that is so tricky.

The dissection of story gives us lot of threads. The reflection of different people christian bale could be is seen in rory cochrene and ben foster as all 3 men love doing what they do.The origin of divided america. The effects on soldiers for following the orders and doing their job.But the problem is , the director is not talented enough to make them feel natural and instead they all stick out way too on the nose.

So all in all this movie doesn't deserve the treatment it got during awards season with seemingly no major studio willing to give Oscar campaign and release for this movie and all the awards organisations shunning it.Luckily they were saved by entertainment studios to give Oscar push which didn't pan out in terms of acclaim.But the release schedule did help it financially.

There will be blood



This movie chronicles the rise of a ruthless oil tycoon and at the same time it dissects him to show the invincible drive it took to claim what's his in the land of opportunities.

People call Daniel Day Lewis one of if not the greatest actor ever.One of the key things people forget about acting is that however great a performance is, it should land in a great movie for it to receive the universal acclaim. A performance will never be good enough to make a bad movie great.It might make it watchable at parts when the actor is on screen but it cannot lift the whole movie.Actors that are considered to always knock it out of the park are often times in movies by auteurs.Jared Leto is an example for the opposite case. He is one of those actors who dreams big, he isn't afraid to follow heath ledger as joker or gain obscene amount of weight to play a murderer in a movie by a first time director. I think that is one his biggest mistakes. An actor can be talented enough to play a role but if the filmmakers are not talented enough to surround the performance with a great movie then it's all a waste.To me one of the main differences between actors like DDL and others who are equally talented and much more versatile is that DDL is the chosen one by hollywood. His public persona is what Hollywood highlights as what every actor should aspire to be - should not be a fodder for tabloid culture , should not make movies for pay check and should commit yourself to your character. This is one of the most important aspects of his legendary status.

Paul Thomas Anderson(PTA) is one of those directors that I hate and respect at the same time. He is what is wrong with auteur culture. He has a cult following who will embrace his movies no matter what but his cult is not large enough to make 100 million at box office but its large enough to get his movies awards recognition. Since people who vote him into nominations for awards are filmmakers themselves he must be talented. That sort of forces film buffs to like his movies because film community says so and not because you think his movies are great.

Having said all that,this movie is a masterpiece. The performance of DDL is little over hyped but the movie is so fresh and epic and actually deep that the character at the center of it shines brighter than it actually is.This is the story of a winner that feels most relatable to winners in real life. A movie like Wolf of wall street feels relatable as a success story if you are a 15 yr old. But if you are CEO of a company, then this movie will feel like a relatable success story. Meanness, lack of empathy, drive, focus are all essential parts of being a leader.The movie was made at the lower end of mid-level budget but it has the feel of an epic.The antagonist does what he is intended to do. The antagonist in this movie is not on the same level as protagonist but he is significant part of the power the protagonist gains in the movie. The antagonist is a metaphor for small reporters who can take down a president or CEO of a company with a news article. No matter how powerful a CEO of a company is, the moment a no name reporter exposes his dark secrets of sexual abuse, he/she will be taken down. Relationships are everything and people take advantage of it for their own gain. That to me is the essence of characters in the movie.


So this movie is so unique and original in terms of the canvas used to study capitalism.It could have been set in field of marketing or wall street , but PTA choose to do in this era and it lend itself to epic film making. DDL despite overacting at times and camera lingering long enough to show us that he is "acting" still puts out an impressive performance for ages.

The Color of Pomegranates 1969 ‘Цвет граната’ Directed by Sergei Parajanov ★
Black Sabbath 1963 ‘I tre volti della paura’ Directed by Mario Bava ★★
Halloween II 2009 Directed by Rob Zombie ★
Winter Sleep 2014 ‘Kış Uykusu’ Directed by Nuri Bilge Ceylan ★★★★★
Federal Police – No One is Above the Law 2017 ‘Polícia Federal - A Lei é Para Todos’ Directed by Marcelo Antunez ★
Aquarius 2016 Directed by Kleber Mendonça Filho ■
Fitzcarraldo 1982 Directed by Werner Herzog ★★★★★
Burden of Dreams 1982 Directed by Les Blank ★★★★
Family Nest 1979 ‘Családi tűzfészek’ Directed by Béla Tarr ★★★★
Children 1976 Directed by Terence Davies ★
Madonna and Child 1980 Directed by Terence Davies ■
Death and Transfiguration 1983 Directed by Terence Davies ■
Kalifornia 1993 Directed by Dominic Sena ★★★
Stay 2005 Directed by Marc Forster ★★
Cliffhanger 1993 Directed by Renny Harlin ★★
Barry Lyndon 1975 Directed by Stanley Kubrick ★★★★★
Assassination 2015 ‘암살’ Directed by Choi Dong-hoon ★★★


The Silence Trilogy ★★★★★
Through a Glass Darkly 1961 ‘Såsom i en spegel’ Directed by Ingmar Bergman
Winter Light 1963 ‘Nattvardsgästerna’ Directed by Ingmar Bergman
The Silence 1963 ‘Tystnaden’ Directed by Ingmar Bergman

Rating system:
★★★★★ Masterpiece
★★★★★ Great
★★★★ Very Good
★★★ Good
★★ Bad (sometimes interesting)
★ Very Bad
■ Atrocity

__________________
"This Would Sharpen You Up And Make You Ready For A Bit Of The Old Ultra-Violence."

@Mr Minio

Mr Minio rage in
5
4
3
2
1...

I havent seen it but why dont you like it

Eh, I have to rewatch The Color of Pomegranates. Seen it years ago and only liked it. Black Sabbath is sooo good.

__________________
San Franciscan lesbian dwarves and their tomato orgies.

I did a lot of research on Sayat-Nova's work and life before watching the movie. It is a biography that attempts to reveal the poet's life visually rather than literally. In my view the film can't capture the depth of Sayat-Nova's thoughts (For the books: I'm not comparing poems and music with cinema). I was very attracted to his music and poems. They are beautiful, deep, provocative. The film does not reach any of these levels.
This is considered one of the best movies ever made. I can see its aesthetic beauty, maybe if I had seen this movie at another time in my life, or if I had seen it fifty years ago, maybe I had a different view. But today, I find it empty.





Now take a look at this:

I beheld my love this morning

I beheld my love this morning, in the garden paths she strayed,
All brocaded was the ground with prints her golden pattens made;
Like the nightingale, I warbled round my rose with wings displayed,
And I wept, my reason faltered, while my heart was sore dismayed.
Grant, O Lord, that all my foemen to such grief may be betrayed !

Love, with these thy whims and humours thou hast wrecked and ruined me.
Thou hast drunk of love's own nectar, thy lips speak entrancingly.
With those honeyed words how many like me thou hast bound to thee!
Take the knife and slay me straightway-pass not by me mockingly.
Since I die of love, 'twere better Beauty stabbed and set me free.

For I have no love beside thee-I would have thee know it well.
Thou for whom e'en death I'd suffer, list to what I have to tell.
See thou thwart not thy Creator,-all the past do not dispel:
Anger not thy Sayat Nova, for when in thy snare he fell
He was all bereft of reason by thy whims' and humours' spell.

no country for old men



An ex-soldier stumbles up a huge amount of cash and is pursued by a sociopathic hitman with his own set of rules. As the body count piles on, the archaic police system in rural south, in charge of the case learns that it is unprepared for the evil they are dealing with.

There have been movies about drug cartels like Sicario but this movie even though it deals with drug cartels is much more transcendent than any of those. No good deed goes unpunished is the essence of the story.

The Coen brothers are one of those directors whose movies are destined to not be epics. They make a very specific type of movie that are fun watches and may be rewatches but thats it.The darkness is comedic in nature at times.There is hyper realism to them and most of the times they have old men at the heart of the story. In a way they make movies that are very appealing to Oscar voters. Most of the revenue for their movies come from retirees who watch movies and older people.They are the exact specimens of what elite hollywood thinks is auteur filmmaking. They make movies that are mid to low budget. They are never style over substance. They rarely cast beautiful people and they don't have movie star roles. They make original movies. Win for this movie at Oscars was because of "its' time for a coen brothers" narrative among the voters. But it certainly was more deserving than many movies nominated that year. There will be blood sort of became masterpiece over years for me but this was an instant great movie.

Javier Bardem Oscar win is one of those instances were a role fits an actor very well and the actor is not a famous movie star and belongs to one of the countries which is good overseas market for US. So he kinda fits the bill for "Oscars are international awards" token program. This is one of the things that kinda pisses me off with performances. Some times certain actors fit certain roles without having to do much but for some reason they will be awarded because they are lucky someone wrote some role for them. But certain times an actor has to work so hard to create a character that is unlike them and it gets ignored. Sometimes luck takes precedence over hard work.

The thriller aspect of the movie is the best part. The intricacies of the cat and mouse chase and the character study of both the cat and mouse is awesome.The moment where this movie sort of stopped being your very well made thriller and became an Oscar material is towards the ending where it becomes more philiosophical and less conventional.So it kinda deserved its awards for the most part but it is not that much better than your conventional well made thrillers.

Tarkovsky failed to illustrate the meaning of Stanisław Lem's Solaris too. He created his own meaning.

Now I feel the need of rewatching it, so that I can even start a discussion.
I think you're doing yourself a disservice trying to compare two different artforms, and one great artist making a work of art inspired by another.

The 24 Hour War



The race between Ford and Ferrari at 1966 24 Hours of Le Mans that started as a race for market dominance but turned into something much more than that.

This movie came under my radar recently when James Mangold tweeted at me in response confirming that there is a Big-Budget Ford V Ferrari movie in works at 20th Century Fox.It seems like its going to star Christian Bale and Mat Damon.It looks like its going to be an Oscar contender.

One of the reason why sports movies other than boxing are not embraced at Oscars is because the stories lacked human drama. Most of them are cookie-cutter inspirational movies with nothing challenging.One of the most high profile sport that kind of epitomizes the stereotype of luxury of sports is Auto Racing.There is direct correlation between the race competition results and sales of cars. Winning brand sees a spike in sales.So this sport kinda always felt like a corporate sport with no human element to it. You see a boxing match and see a guy getting beaten up. But driving a car ? where is the human drama in that ? that's the popular theory. Rush from 2013 did nothing to improve that. That is to be expected from a generic director like Ron Howard. It was so glossy and shiny and felt like Hollywood movie.

This movie has 2 characters that kind of rose to the top.Even though its a documentary I did feel emotionally connected to 2 characters.They are Enzo Ferrari, the head of Ferrari and Ken Miles, the auto testing engineer and race car driver for Ford-Shelby motors.The rest of them felt like generic humans. Both of them possessed drive and determination against all odds.These two humans felt like they were in the race because its their destiny and not because its their job.I cared more for the test drivers and race car drivers in those days because there is a real possibility one might die once they step into race tracks even while testing.Most of the guys from that time died relatively young in auto accidents.So these aspects form the emotional core for this movie. It did not feel like a corporate one-upping and it felt more like humans desire for dominance.The rest is your usual research material in documentaries about history of Ferrari and the win in 1967 Le Mans to prove that Ford win at 1966 Le Mans wasn't a fluke.

There is something about Ken Miles that is so haunting. He is like a fearless machine just driving and is willing to die at any moment because he loves what he is doing. He seems like an adrenaline junkie and not your typical womanizer but a much more deep.Others felt so generic but this guy has very profound facial features and it stuck with me even after watching the movie. The fact that he was screwed over by Ford Jr to slow down , so they can win first 3 positions at Le Mans 1966 kind of made him an even more of a tragic figure. He did not even have a chance to race the next year due to untimely demise in an accident.

The movie version at the core story in this Documentary was supposed to be called go like hell with either Tom Cruise or Brad Pitt or both attached to star in it but given that they are going for Christian bale and Matt Damon, I am hoping studio knows whats in their hands.This story has transcendental quality to it and not just another Tom Cruise action vehicle. At the very least the movie should win the sound awards at the Oscars when it releases.This story lends itself to more of a Dunkirk kind of cerebral movie rather than a biopic. Christopher Nolan would have been a better director for this story but James Mangold will do.

*just a heads up, some light spoilers in here*

Zodiac (Fincher, 2007)

Is there really anybody better to cover the story of these unsolved slayings than David Fincher? We know he’s got style ala Fight Club. We know he’s got a well-toned knowledge of the subject matter ala Se7en. The dude clearly knows what he’s doing and his interest transcends into this film well.

We open with a lovingly shot scene of July 4th, 1969; the second Zodiac murder. The perpetrator quickly sends encrypted notes to local newspapers taking credit for the acts. This includes the San Fransisco Chronicle where we meet Avery (Downey Jr.) and Graysmith (Gyllenhaal). Their chemistry flows great with Downey being the cocky but likeable man he’s had locked down since his renaissance and Gyllenhaal transforming from a “boy scout” to letting his obsession catch the better of him..

Partners Toschi (Ruffalo) and Armstrong (Edwards) soon get tasked on finding out who the Zodiac is. Ruffalo has always been competent, even if I don’t necessarily like the movie he’s in, his presence never hinders it. While they never “find” the killer, Fincher all but puts a giant red arrow next to John Carroll Lynch’s terrifyingly calm performance saying “HEY HERE IT IS THIS IS THE GUY!!!”

My chief problem with Zodiac, is that there simply isn’t more Zodiac. This might come off as an odd statement due to the 2 and 1/2 hour runtime, but this would have benefitted from being a miniseries more than anything. What there is of the script is paced well and breeds a certain amount of anxiety, but it ultimately feels like two films pressed into one. Fincher wants to tell everything, and I would have loved to watch more of it.

I’d definitely recommend this to anyone who loves a good slow-moving open-ended mystery across beautiful California landscapes. Give it some time and it’ll be a true crime classic.

Roar (Noel Marshall, 1981) -

The infamous movie about the adventures of an eccentric conservationist and his family that involved untrained animals attacking cast and crew alike is a curious one to actually rate because of how extremely messy it is in every conceivable way. The novelty value comes and goes at the drop of a hat here, though there's enough here to merit a single seeing-is-believing watch.

Heat (Michael Mann, 1995) -

Another bump up to the fives with this sprawling cops-and-robbers epic. It's not without its flaws (there is some considerably clunky dialogue in here and it's always distracting how a certain character is able to swiftly and silently escape his would-be executioners in an early scene), but screw it, fives aren't meant to be perfect.

The Intruder (Roger Corman, 1962) -

Corman does a socially conscious drama about a white supremacist looking to stir up racial tensions in a recently-desegregated Southern town. It's certainly got a bit more weight to it than the likes of, say, A Bucket of Blood, but it's generally just alright more than anything.

Day of the Fight (Stanley Kubrick, 1951) -

Decided to go through all of Kubrick's earliest films so I started with what I initially thought was his first foray into filmmaking (apparently Flying Padre came first?) - a short documentary about a boxer preparing for a big fight. A moderately interesting piece of work.

Flying Padre (Stanley Kubrick, 1952) -

Similar to Day of the Fight in that it's a straightforward newsreel kind of film, this time about a priest who uses an airplane to visit remote parishes and parishioners (which understandably proves for an overall milder experience, though I don't think there's much to appreciate about this kind of film beyond the novelty of seeing where Kubrick got his start).

Fear and Desire (Stanley Kubrick, 1953) -

Kubrick's first (barely) feature-length film has a decent premise about soldiers stuck behind enemy lines and getting a little crazy, which is almost enough to make it good. There are bits that stick and bits that don't, but at least I can see myself potentially revisiting it.

Beauty and the Beast (Jean Cocteau, 1946) -

Considering how used I am to Disney's version of the story, seeing this distinctly ornate rendition proved a welcome variation. There's a bit of a false note regarding the ending that makes me hesitate to give it a 4, but otherwise I quite liked this film.

The Elephant Man (David Lynch, 1980) -

It's always weird when I re-watch a film and then wonder "did I review this one already" and do a search and bam. Anyway, yeah, I concur with 2015 me, this is still a magnificent piece of work.

The Seafarers (Stanley Kubrick, 1953) -

While Kubrick's other shorts were tolerable enough due to being brief little human interest stories, this one is a lengthy and monotonous half-hour documentary about the ins and outs of joining a seafarers' union. Picking this as Kubrick's overall worst film is too easy.

Killer's Kiss (Stanley Kubrick, 1955) -

Kubrick does a quick and mean little noir about a boxer getting involved with a dame and dealing with a shady businessman and his goons, though I found it a bit whatever. As with Fear and Desire, wouldn't mind giving it a second chance another time.

the day of the jackal



A race against time to stop the assassination of French President Charles de Gaulle by a charismatic , highly Intelligent and meticulous assassin.

The good old days of American cinema was ruled by auteur filmmakers until Heaven's gate kind of ruined it for the rest. The main reason behind that is there is a clear understanding by investors that filmmakers are good at making movies and the investors are good at marketing movies. As the fans of films grew up and started trying out careers in Hollywood, that in a way sort of ruined film making . Someone like Hitchcock never had enough reference points as to what he is trying to achieve. There is a certain element of creation in those stories for the first time in cinema.With blockbusters reaching wider audience, all kinds of people from different backgrounds started working in movies. You get directors like Anton Fuqua,Peter berg and Gavin O Connor who are just macho men trying to make masculine movies with no auteur vision expect to make cookie cutter well made manly movies that are destined to be forgotten. There are also corporate "filmmakers" like Kevin Feige or Marvel directors who are just studio executives in filmmaker clothing. They are just fans who make movies for fans. They have no vision, their desire is to recreate the things they liked when they watched movies.

This movie is about smart people doing smartthings. It operates at very high intellectual level. You have people trying to overthrow governments. You have a President who is unflinching even when warned about the plotted assassination. You have high ranking security officials with massive resources tracking the assassin and at lost but not the least , the assassin who has done this before and is so deep in the undercover that his actual identity is unknown even by the end of the movie.

One of the things that's outstanding about this movie is that the two leads are unknown and one of them doesn't even look like a movie star but still the movie was an expensive production shot in international locations with considerably huge budget. The movie doesn't even have a back ground music and it doesn't even dumb down the plot to anyone. It's like a puzzle that fills in as it goes along. I guess that's the privilege you are the director who won 4 Oscars.The assassin and his portrayal is one of the early instances that demonstrated audience attraction to anti-heroes. Its one of the early movies where in you are rooting for the assassin.I always wondered what does it say about our society when Joker is so popular among fans.He represents anti-establishment.

In conclusion, this movie is a treat to watch and still holds up. The steps and methods followed to track the assassin in early stages are little too convenient. The way they track down the supposed real identity of Jackal is out of the blue and the leaks about the status of the hunt from the security team is convenient as well . But that's overcome as the movie goes on because the cat and mouse game worked perfectly.The assassin role must be a dream role for any actor because of the boundaries he crosses both physical and psychological to achieve his goal.

Logan



Wolverine aka Logan at the end of his life learns what It means to be human by developing a bond with a younger mutant.

Very few directors get to make movies at mid budget level on original concepts and only 2 directors can make a movie at big budget level without movie stars attached and they are Christopher Nolan and Steven Spielberg. You bring in money , you make your next project a little higher profile building of that success. Right project with right cast and right director is box office gold for relatively most part. James mangold is a journey man director but a much better director than Ron Howard. He made a paycheck movie aka knight and day. He realised that he needs box office success to make movies he is interested in. So gave wolverine two shots and the second shot worked or according to many it worked.Now he is off to doing ford v Ferrari movie which is a non IP movie.

People said that Patrick Stewart and the young actress deserved awards consideration and Hugh Jackman as well. But I don't think so. There is a strange occurrence that takes place when a well known and beloved character is portrayed with vulnerability. People bring all the baggage from previous appearances and that heightens their reaction to the current performance.So its an unfair comparison to compare a series of movies and legacy and the current performance with a performance from a single movie by other actors.The story is very generic to be honest. It follows "wannabe serious superhero movie" formula beat by beat with pit-stops and the only daring aspect of the movie is its tone and lack of action for the most part. These kind of movies can't be exciting without a constant through line through out the movie. If there isn't a ticking clock through the movie audience are not gonna sit and watch a drama with a superhero at the center of it. So it follows cat and mouse chase as the narrative tool.

I hope that this movie is not any indication of how ford v Ferrari by James mangold is going to turn out.That movies needs a cerebral Dunkirk kind of feel...not much plot or sitting in board rooms with old men smoking and thinking about how to beat ferrari. This movie had lot of scenes where the bond between the leads need to strengthen but the narrative flow kinda felt weak for that to happen.Nothing mind blowing here.There were some characters introduced as part of twist but that took me more out of the "hyper realistic" vibe the director was going for. Given the budget of the movie , I don't think studio took a gamble with this movie because a wolverine movie is gonna make at least 300 million at minimum.

I think this movie received critical acclaim because of the nature of story telling and the box office results that produced. There is barely any superhero element to it. But its not a transcendental movie like the dark knight. Nonetheless its far better than more than half of the marvel movies which only do lip service to bigger themes but end up being about punching,running and quips.I do think its little overrated.

Three Billboards Outside Ebbing, Missouri (McDonagh, 2017)
Wow, I have to say this is a rather impressive film. I was incredibly impressed by the dynamics. By the trailer I assumed that McDormand's character and Harrelson's would act as counterparts, but it really is impressive how well the two compliment each other. Both McDormand and Harrelson put up stellar performances, but Rockwell stole the show. Playing the dim witted, too dumb to have a moral compass, drunkard cop who still lives at home with his mama (Sandy Martin- who's pretty much the same character as in Always Sunny). The films dark humor works great for not making it to impressive, and I like how it pushed the barriers, but in a few moments I wish the film took itself a bit more seriously. When Mildred was about to get beat by her ex-husband, I didn't see the entrance of his younger GF as a necessary cheer up moment. Despite the humor the film still holds an incredibly pissed off tone through out, like a modern Network.

Rules of The Game (Renoir, 1939)
I did quite enjoy this film, Renoir certainly has a unique french sense of humor. This film feels like an observational critique of more than the higher classes, but also French society as a whole. Some humorous moments of projection ("oh, but he seems so tasteful") and social comments about french adultery (I can't imagine two men fighting over a women). Rules of the Game feels more to me like a collection of humorous skits than an inter connected piece, but I'm very well missing something. I'd like to watch this again soon, and some other Renoir works.
The 39 Steps
Despite some cheesy moments the film begins incredibly intriguing and continues to be engaging throughout. Hitchcock shows much of his early directorial brilliance with the visual gags in the film, truly showing how a great film doesn't deteriorate with age. The train chase scene was fantastic.

Secret Agent
First of all the hairless Mexican is a hilarious character who was able to pull this film along past its cheesy and predictable love story. But despite some great cinematic shots the film lacks in entertaining narration. I did enjoy the first half quite a bit, but the film felt like a chore after.

Sabotage

The Skin Game
"I didn't make it by choice, and there isn't much to be said about it." - Alfred Hitchcock


Still To Watch: The Man Who Knew To Much/Young & Innocent

__________________

The Great Gatsby



A former bootlegger, now a multi-millionaire who inherited his wealth from his mentor is trying to reconnect with his ex-lover by recreating his love for her using his incredible wealth.

There are very few certainties in Hollywood. Certain directors are extremely dependable in delivering a great movie from a good-great script. There are a handful of them. And a Leonardo Dicaprio movie will make a profit and has 80-90% shot at Oscar glory, whether in nominations or wins. Its a commonly known statistic among Hollywood executives. So, most of the time whenever a script renders itself to epic scale filmmaking he will be the first one to be offered. Most of the times he will be the only one to be offered and they even gestate the project until he is freed up.But he knows his worth and he will do anything he can to maintain his brand of star power. So he will only work with top directors and wait for several years before making a project if those directors are not available.

Once a Dicaprio movie comes out there are lot of "money" guys aka agents , publicists , studio executives and producers with vested interested in its success. Even though its not their movie, since its Dicaprio's movie they want to get the project some recognition so that they can keep him around to green light risky projects . Since the movie is directed by auteurs , you get the attention of critics and since Dicaprio has been following the shtick for quite some time he has developed a major fan following similar to Tarantino but only bigger and add to that the usual fan following for a hot male movie star and you have recipe for financially successful movie.

Given all this support why is this movie not any good. It has all the usual Dicaprio tropes like Big budget with epic scale and story that will appeal to masses. But the problem lies in Baz Luhrmann. Who is not a consistent movie director. But it was still very calculated from Dicaprio's part to hire him to tell this type of story given that he made this kind of movies throughout his career. The movie is all style and no heart. There is no chemistry and no entertaining qualities to it. Oscar wins are expected in technical categories because of tens of millions thrown at them.

So all in all this movie is a snooze fest with no magic of the novel. But the most interesting aspect of the movie is that this movie is a case study in dissecting the strategy followed by Dicaprio for almost all his movie to get Oscar attention and box office hit . If this movie worked then no one would have pointed that out but the failure of this movie exposed the who strategy. A movie like Gravity or Life of pi just need to be good and they get Oscar attention . But for an actor like Dicaprio who is aiming to get oscar attention with every movie, you need a well thought out strategy. Funny thing is in an industry like hollywood which has worshipped Harvey Weinstein for decades despite all the allegations surrounding him, it's not that hard for an actor to repeat his Oscar strategy with every movie and not face any blowback.

Nightcrawler



A young, hungry and driven sociopath finds the perfect line of work for his sensibilities and stops at nothing to realize his destiny.

Jake Gyllenhaal is an actor whose career can easily be dissected and his motivations and goals can easily be traced back to the movies and the point of time in his career he made certain choices. Its hard to dissect career of someone like Matt Damon or George Clooney because their choices have been very varied and much more artistic from the get go with some commercial fair thrown in there. But Jake Gyllenhaal is an actor whose early choices were highly guided by his parents. It almost felt like his parents read the scripts to okay them for him.His facial features are something that women may find attractive but men certainly don't want to follow him into a battle. He doesn't have that macho look. Partly because of his blunt nose and elongated face.

So what can Jake's career tell us about hollywood pecking order? For better or for worse every top director plays it safe in casting either financially or critically. Hiring Daniel Day Lewis doesn't necessarily guarantee box-office but most certainly does it guarantee Oscar attention. Hiring DiCaprio doesn't necessarily means he is right fit for the part but it does guarantee box office and may be Oscar attention.So unless you are in that top 3 numbers on a call sheet for a role, your chances of getting best scripts is null . So Jake Gyllenhaal started his career doing interesting work but none of it is a masterpiece. Most them are just non embarrassing but most certainly interesting choices. His earlier choices highly indicate that he wanted to work with auteurs but the financial performance of those movies is not impressive, so he did not become the first choice for other directors after those movies performed poorly. He tried becoming commercially viable by making movies like Prince of Persia and Love and other drugs, but those movies are flavor of the movie and they didn't have staying power even after the week they came out. So these choices of making himself commercially viable kind of backfired. Add to that his less masculine look. He suddenly dropped off the lists of many directors casting choices. One of the hard evidenced fact here is that he fired his agent around this time because they couldn't get the roles he wanted. So since then he has been making low profile independent projects with small distributors and he started a production company that develops their own movies. So you get movies like Enemy, prisoners, southpaw, nightcrawler,demolition or stronger. All these are very low profile movies which are dumped in September or in summer.Oscar campaign is a very expensive affair and if a movie isn't making bank at box office , studios aren't gonna spend anymore money to campaign for the movies and also the movies have to be edgy without being preachy and something new.So in a way Jake is trying to create his own movies by defying the pecking order in hollywood. Leonard Berstein movie sort of highlights the point. The movie is produced at his production company with director of true detective at helm, which is to be expected because that how Jake operates now a days. Instead of waiting for high profile roles which he is not gonna get with Gosling , Fassbender , Hardy and other mega super stars in line before him, he is just collaborating with reliable dependable directors based on their previous works. Anyone would wanna work with Nolan, Tarantino or scorsese or Spielberg or finches but they would wanna work with those actors which is rare and also the money guys would wanna work with these actors. So all in all he is swimming upstream against the pecking order but I don't know how much good would it do for an actor to go up against paramount/Scorsese and Spielberg production.

This movie is one such movie. Where Jake decided to work with director who wanted to work with him rather than chase directors he wanted to work with. It one of those American psycho wannabe movies. Its got a fairly straight narrative with few expected twists and one unexpected twist.It does invoke that night life vibe from heat or collateral.Its funny what it says about our society when a character like this movie's lead or Joker from the dark knight is praised for being complex and memorable.Why are we attracted to these roles ?

But in the end I give most praise for this movie to Dan Gilroy than Jake Gyllenhaal because its the whole concept of the movie and its execution thats impressive and not the screenplay per se. Jake relied heavily on memorizing few lines and looking hungry and frail. As opposed to becoming another character with voice modulations or something. I did think Bradley Cooper deserved the Oscar nomination way more than Jake Gyllenhaal, People need to understand that just because someone is playing a sociopath or psychopath doesn't mean their performance is great. Risk has to be take in terms of acting choices and not just displaying bad behavior in a glorious light.

Seen in May Pt.2



Its been a while since I've seen a film with this epic of a scope, and another classic marked off the list. The film looked super daunting going into it (3&1/2 hours, set in 1500's, etc.) but I was actually never bored, sure I had to take a break during the intermission, but I'm sure everyone did. I never lost interest and was always waiting for the next scene with patience. The film's basically a comedy-drama, something absolutely hilarious happens every two minutes (Most of it done by a brilliant performance from Mifune). I'd say Kurosawa is a way better writer than he is a director; I loved the dialogue. Certain shots very visually appealing (The fight scene in the rain, the final shot). My favourite Kurosawa film so far.



As a non-Marvel fan, I thought it was a fun popcorn flick. Thanos is a brilliant character. It's very funny. The stakes are really high in this one compared to other superhero flicks, you actually feel like something bad could go down (Like REALLY bad!).



Lots of tension. The film raises alot of questions involving morality, justice and perversion. At first you think Ellen Page is some kind of 'Badass feminist icon' delivering justice to a man who deserves it. As the film goes on though, you realise that it's not about justice, it's about sadism. By the end you're rooting for the bad guy and are seriously questioning who is the more morally superior person in this situation.I didn't really like the shaky-cam. It's also interesting to note that the director (David Slade) also directed one of the most polarizing episodes of Black Mirror, Metalhead. The shaky-cam is still there but you can see he has certainly improved.



It's really cool seeing all of these beloved Disney movies for the first time that everyone else has seen. The songs are great, the characters are great and the animation's very expressive. I don't think it's as good as Aladdin though.



The direction, editing and dialogue is great. It's pretty funny. Mr. Smith is a brilliant character, he's a shy young man who can not be subverted from his morals. It's very poignant and inspirational, even to someone who isn't American. Still relevant today.


+
Awesome. I loved all the characters and the comedy and setting. The Giant is so cute, your soul just tears apart whenever you see him looking distressed. Way better than what I've seen from Disney. Also very sad!



Probably the most Hollywood Irish film. It's super funny, loved all the comedy. The music's pretty great. You'd swear this film is based on a biography, considering those films usually completely loose their structure in the second half (Which unfortunately this film does), but it isn't. Can't wait to see more by the same director.


- Re-watch
I really can't put this into words. I just loved how the film was portraying itself as a true story, what with the disturbing narration at the beginning, the blunt title and the camera quality resembling the one common with exploitation flicks. The ending is fantastic, ending completely abruptly as it would if this was a true story, with the contrast between the loud noises and sudden blackout giving you major goosebumps. Our main character doesn't win due to being badass, she wins by just escaping. The sound design is great, completely loud and in your face. The film is structured in a very weird way: The first part is very slow with absurd and surreal humour, the second part is a 'kill all the teens' slasher movie, and the last third is pure terror, trauma and brutality. The last third where there's only one girl left is the highlight of the film.

I'm really having trouble putting this into words, I'm just completely mesmerized by it's techniques, presentation, horror and shock.


Re-watch
Everyone always remembers the gags like 'Tale of the Lonesome Pine' and the water, but what I found way funnier were the little stuff like Stan messing up common sayings and getting tickled. Don't think it's as good as 'The Music Box' though.


My first Bela Tar film, and I really don't know what to say. I'm not convinced that it's the masterpiece everyone describes it to be, and i'm not entirely convinced it's pretentious drivel. Some very beautiful images. I got kinda sad whenever the horse was onscreen. I really liked the piece of music that was used, but it was used way too much and in random spots. If the director really wanted to make a film of this nature, he should've completely omitted music and have the only soundtrack be the constant wind. I'm very disappointed and annoyed that the music was used in the last 10 minutes, that's supposed to be when sound and sight are gone from existance but there's still music. That scene where they were trying to escape the farmhouse could've been ALOT shorter!

Also how come it's set in the 1880's and they're like a ride away from Turin yet they live in an apocalyptic wasteland?