Iro's Film Diary

In fairness, he does sum up a lot of the best reasons to like what I post so I figure that I should just shut up and appreciate an earnest compliment/defence. That being said, watching a movie with me couldn't be that bad. I mean, I am capable of staying quiet (especially in an actual theatre).

__________________
Iro's Top 100 Movies v3.0

#65 - Spotlight
Tom McCarthy, 2015



Based on the true story of a team of journalists who worked to uncover the truth behind a conspiracy involving child-molesting priests in Boston.

As of writing, Spotlight has become the latest film to win the much-coveted Academy Award for Best Picture, succeeding in spite of some stiff competition from contenders as varied as wilderness epic The Revenant, financial dramedy The Big Short, and post-apocalyptic blockbuster Mad Max: Fury Road. In comparison to these particular films, Spotlight seems like an extremely "safe" choice for the award, with its no-nonsense execution of a down-to-earth story lacking just about any kind of external action or thrills. While it takes on a highly controversial subject - namely, that of the rampant pedophilia that exists within the ranks of the Catholic clergy - the film's treatment of its subject matter avoids excess of any kind as it offers a subtle approach to its dramatisation of events. The members of the eponymous team of investigative journalists are professionals who carefully pursue every possible lead despite opposition from all sides; it is Spotlight's meticulous approach to their investigation that feeds into the film's cinematic style (or lack thereof). The general storytelling is as good as it needs to be in order to not feel dull, but it also avoids being ostentatious enough to distract from the emotionally-charged story at the heart of the film. This even extends to certain camera techniques conjuring up associations with similarly realistic films of the New Hollywood era. In addition, renowned composer Howard Shore provides a simple but effectively repetitive piano-based leitmotif to add just the right amount of pathos to the proceedings.

Above all else, Spotlight is buoyed by a solid ensemble cast where actors tend not to rise above one another but complement one another perfectly, which definitely fits with the film's overall commitment to delivering a hyper-competent work. There are still stand-outs; Michael Keaton does very well is the closest thing the film has to a protagonist as the principled yet flawed head of Spotlight, while Mark Ruffalo gets a role that involves a lot of pronounced mannerisms and emotional heft. Rachel McAdams plays a similarly conflicted character who also has to deal with personal conflicts that arise from the troubling nature of the investigation - while it's a fairly basic role, she knows how to play it in concurrence with the film's effectively low-key vibe. Also of note are John Slattery and Liev Schreiber as a pair of conflicting higher-ups in the Boston Globe hierarchy, plus Stanley Tucci proves very dependable as a downbeat but ultimately unfettered lawyer who becomes an important ally for Spotlight. The decision to use largely unrecognisable actors definitely helps to ground the film in a harsh (yet not entirely cynical) reality. Spotlight can be written off as a film where the focus on depicting actual events (or at least depicting the discovery of actual events) and delivering a timely screed about an important subject can prevent it from coming across as a genuine classic. However, even without such factors working in the film's favour, it is still a well-made ensemble drama and its success at the Oscars does not feel especially unearned.

#66 - Seven Psychopaths
Martin McDonagh, 2012



A screenwriter with writer's block gets forced into a dangerous situation when his best friend kidnaps a mobster's pet dog.

I really liked Martin McDonagh's 2008 feature debut In Bruges, yet I kept putting off checking out his 2012 follow-up Seven Psychopaths until recently. It seems that I was right to avoid it for so long as it proves to be quite the sophomore slump. It tries to add an interesting angle to a rather rote crime-comedy by having Colin Farrell's protagonist be a struggling screenwriter whose attempts to write an unconventional crime film are hampered not only by a lack of inspiration but also by his friend (Sam Rockwell) getting him involved in an actual violent crime caper. Rockwell runs a dog-stealing scam with an eccentric old con (Christopher Walken), but they have some serious bad luck when one of their latest "hostages" turns out to be the beloved pet of a murderous gangster (Woody Harrelson), who will stop at nothing to recover his dog. As a result, Farrell must try to stay alive even as he is dragged into a dangerous underworld, though that naturally doesn't stop him from trying to indulge his writerly ambitions as he describes scenes from his unfinished screenplay to various characters and reluctantly entertains suggestions in the process.

As I've noted before, going meta in as big a way as Seven Psychopaths does is one hell of a tightrope act, so it's not surprising to see it flounder. A good example is how Walken criticises Farrell's screenplay for its badly-written female characters, yet the film itself is arguably guilty of the same flaw in a way where intent seems irrelevant. Some of the most interesting scenes in the film are vignettes that are explicitly designed to be almost completely disconnected to the main narrative, such as a Gothic short story featuring Harry Dean Stanton as a vengeful Quaker or the violent back-story that is provided for Tom Waits' self-proclaimed psychopath. Though Seven Psychopaths does sort of succeed at creating the sort of film that Farrell aspires towards writing (especially during the second half), it does so by compromising its own appeal as a black comedy. To be fair, the cast is stacked with good actors who turn in some decent performances (especially Walken, who brings some much-needed depth to what could have been another instance of him being typecast as a malevolent oddball). However, such a cast can't sufficiently salvage a film that ultimately isn't much better than (or significantly different from) the kind of bloody Tarantino knock-offs that it's trying to satirise. As a result, one is stuck wondering whether or not the screenwriting angle is a boon or a hindrance to a film that feels like it should have come out a decade earlier than it actually did.

#67 - Jarhead
Sam Mendes, 2005



Based on the experiences of a United States Marine as he endures basic training and his eventual deployment during the first Gulf War.

Credit where credit's due, at least Sam Mendes tries to be versatile from time to time. Jarhead marks his foray into the war genre, but it's a somewhat unconventional one. It follows one Marine (Jake Gyllenhaal) as he undergoes basic training before being deployed to Kuwait in the pre-amble to what would eventually be known as the Gulf War. Of course, he and his cohorts are ultimately stuck in the desert with nothing to do, resulting in a war that is not so much hell as it is limbo. Mendes' technical competence shines through (especially with Roger Deakins behind the camera, who provides an uncharacteristically desaturated jitter-cam style more often than he deploys his trademark techniques), but the film itself works a little too well at making the audience feel the characters' boredom and frustration. The look of the film is okay and there are good actors in the mix (aside from Gyllenhaal, I'd say some serious credit has to go to Jamie Foxx for making the most of what could have been another thankless drill sergeant role), plus there's the occasional decent scene, but it's ultimately a pretty dry film that doesn't leave much of a favourable impression despite being sporadically distinctive.

Seven Psychopaths was an enormous disappointment for me, not that I hated it. It just could have been so much more.

Yeah, it's especially disappointing because In Bruges had actually managed to do something worthwhile with the whole Tarantinoesque black comedy crime film and then McDonagh followed it up with a knock-off where the only distinguishing element was that it ripped off Adaptation.

haven't seen either jarhead or spotlight; will eventually see spotlight though.

7 psychopaths is, compared to the excellent job done for In Bruges, sub par, but I did enjoy the quirkiness and did my best NOT to see this as a knockoff from the nineties. And I was even MORE relieved to see Walken have a little more to his character than the usual crazy/dangerous guy.

And since you're quiet during movies, then I wholeheartedly recant my concern about watching a movie with you. I just had this amusing image of you breaking out into rants throughout any given movie lol

I thought In Bruges was hugely overrated and I had no desire to see Seven Psychopaths because of the cast.

Jarhead is something I've become more interested in seeing over the last year or so for some reason, but I'm hardly desperate to take the next opportunity I get.

__________________
5-time MoFo Award winner.

Loved In Bruges and I haven't seen psychopaths, but hope it's better than your review. I disagree with Jarhead though because the film has a lot to salvage in it. I think it's my favorite work Deakins has ever done and it's just got so many memorable scenes. The only thing I wish is that they would cut some of the less interesting things down a little, like you said in your review it gets a little too boring at times. I probably wouldn't go positive with it, but I still enjoy it a lot. Also, you forgot to mention Peter Sarsgard, he was great.

__________________
It's only after we've lost everything that we're free to do anything.

Jarhead was a film I really liked back in the day, but I haven't revisited it in forever, so who knows...

I liked In Bruges, now that it's mentioned, but Seven Psychopats I never got around to, though I was interested for a while. I might even have started the movie once, but never finished it.

To be fair, if I'm quiet during a comedy then that's probably not a good thing.

As for Seven Psychopaths - it definitely felt like the quirkiness only went so far and often worked against the film. It reminded me a bit too much of Smokin' Aces, which also tried to jam in as many wacky characters as it could to compensate for its fairly lacklustre writing. This much is true of Seven Psychopaths as well - as much as I appreciate Tom Waits in general, his inclusion in this movie is almost entirely superfluous. Hell, I think that's true of quite a few of his movie roles where he exists only to drive home how weird the movie's world is (e.g. Wristcutters, The Book of Eli, The Fisher King). I did acknowledge in my review how good it was to see Walken actually play a character with some depth for the first time in ages.

Given your general disdain towards Kubrick and how Jarhead could easily be oversimplified into being called a Gulf War version of Full Metal Jacket, I can't imagine that you'd get a whole lot out of it. Mendes in general is a fairly middling director anyway and I don't think there are any films he's done that I'd go out of my way to recommend to people.

To paraphrase something I wrote about To the Wonder recently, I think it's possible to get used to certain cinematographers being so good all the time that their capabilities don't really factor into whether or not I think a film is good in general. I'm pretty sure I name-check Deakins every time I cover a film that he's involved with and his cinematography alone is practically worth a full popcorn box on its own, but even his work only goes so far when it comes to making Jarhead good. The same goes for individual scenes - a few good ones scattered haphazardly through a movie may redeem it somewhat but it doesn't automatically save the film as a whole. A seems like a fair rating for a film that's generally boring but has a handful of good moments - even Sarsgaard, generally decent though he is, didn't leave enough of a favourable impression on me to change that.

Hard to say if it'd truly be worth your time. It doesn't even feel like a film I could grow to like on repeat viewings.

#68 - The Transporter
Corey Yuen, 2002



A criminal driver-for-hire with a strict code of conduct finds himself in a tough situation when he realises that his latest job involves transporting a kidnapped woman.

Jason Statham makes for an oddly charismatic screen presence thanks to his gruff English demeanour, though it's a bit of a shame that he's parlayed that into a fairly stolid career filled with star turns in otherwise charmless-looking action movies (to the point where his self-effacing turn in the 2015 action parody Spy feels like one of his better roles). The Transporter is no exception as it sees Statham play a professional criminal who specialises in driving; though he adheres to a rigid code when it comes to his business, he ends up breaking that code when he realises that the cargo on his current job is a young woman (Shu Qi) who has been bound and gagged. This leads to a fairly lean and uninspired action movie that can't adequately compensate for its shortcomings. I'd single out the opening car chase and also a climatic battle where Statham fights a bunch of goons on a garage's oil-covered floor as fairly memorable (if not necessarily great) sequences within the film. However, two action scenes aren't enough to buoy an action movie where the nicest thing you can say is that its aggressively stylised approach to action is not quite as awful as some of the stuff that Statham and various behind-the-scenes personnel would work on in the years to come.

#69 - Mary and Max
Adam Elliot, 2009



In the 1970s, a young Australian girl becomes pen-pals with a middle-aged New Yorker.

Original review found here

(Additional notes: I like it when my really old reviews hold up. Also, what was interesting to me was how much it reminded me of Don Hertzfeldt's It's Such A Beautiful Day. I'm not sure how much inspiration Hertzfeldt might have taken from Elliot's films when he created the different chapters of It's Such A Beautiful Day, but I reckon they complement each other nicely given their more recognisable parallels. Mary and Max is definitely the more palatable of the two, but even after two viewings of each film I still feel like I prefer It's Such A Beautiful Day.)

#70 - Runaway Train
Andrei Konchalovsky, 1985



Two convicts plan to escape from a maximum-security prison by boarding a train but they are trapped onboard the speeding train when the driver suddenly dies.

Runaway Train intrigued me because it got referenced in Mark Hartley's Electric Boogaloo, a retrospective on the notorious Cannon Group production company. While the bulk of the film was dedicated to somewhat affectionate criticism of the studio's low-grade output, the fact that Runaway Train was held up as an example of the studio producing a genuinely good film (enough so to receive a few Oscar nominations, at least) was enough to make me feel like I should watch it. While it's still undeniably got that unmistakable Cannon vibe to the whole thing, it is a refreshingly competent film compared to their usual stuff. Jon Voight and Eric Roberts make for a great double act, with the former playing a notorious older con who's planning his latest escape and the latter playing a tough but naive slab of new meat who decides to tag along. The pulpy premise has some surprising thematic ambition and the execution is lean and mean, throwing all kinds of challenges at its leads in a technically decent manner. It doesn't feel like much of a classic, but it's a sufficiently engaging thriller that's carried rather well by Voight and Roberts/

I think I'd be tempted to swap the rating for The Transporter and Runaway Train. The former isn't that good and the latter not that bad, but it's closer than the way you see them.

Of course I hold Mary & Max in higher esteem than you, but it's good to see that there's a movie we can agree on for a change.

__________________

I still like The Transporter for all its campy cheesy glory, but it's a little bit too "off" at times, with a dumb and silly story with equally dumb and silly characters. Also, the romance feels like a softcore porno at times. The music doesn't help much either.

Glad you like a few of the action scenes though, which is also the main reason I want to watch this - and then Statham as The Driver, which is probably his most iconic and career-defining role. But yeah, the opening car chase is good and everything that happens in that bus garage is freaking awesome. Great cheography and inventive action. Love the tight-spaced fight in and between the bus and of course the oil fight.

How long is Mary and Max? Isn't it pretty short?

__________________
Movie Reviews | Anime Reviews
Top 100 Action Movie Countdown (2015): List | Thread
"Well, at least your intentions behind the UTTERLY DEVASTATING FAULTS IN YOUR LOGIC are good." - Captain Steel

It's about an hour and a half long.

Cripes! I don't remember it being that long.