This was an incredible story: a man lands a passenger jet full of people on the Hudson River between Manhattan and New Jersey. It was one of the few successful water landings and one of the few times a crash investigation could interview both the pilot and the co-pilot.
This story had a few complications which made it difficult to dramatize:
1) The whole incident took two minutes. All the action occurred in the average length of a commercial break during a TV show, so the movie had to take some liberties with the narrative. In Flight, as a contrast, the plane took a long time to crash, and that maneuver occupied a good chunk of the narrative time. Here, the entire flight from take off to forced water landing took two-hundred and eight seconds. While this fact makes it all the more impressive that Capt. Sullenberger acted with such confidence and poise, it hardly makes for an interesting movie alone. Which leads me to...
2) Capt. Sullenberger was a good man who did his job well. Again, to return to Flight, the dissonance between the character's flaws and his acts of heroism create a natural narrative tension. Here, no one was terribly surprised that Sully did such a good job. No one wants to see a movie where a good person does a good job without much struggle. Which leads me to...
3) The tension between the investigators and Capt. Sullenberger felt forced because he was such an excellent pilot and all the passengers survived. The movie seemed to suggest that overly stingy insurance regulators and reliance on technology called into question the heroism of the singular pilot who could have made that landing work. I am not sure that actually happened. There is little to suggest that anyone would have questions Sullenberger's decision past the initial question. Because the audience could clearly see that a competent man with years of experience handled the situation with such confidence and decisiveness that everyone managed to live, the actors playing the investigators seemed cartoonishly villainous.
In the end, though, the story was well-told and well-performed. It was a naturally interesting story, and I wish the focus had been more on the trauma of the lived experience than the obviously staged battle over regulations and system testing. Still, it was well-worth seeing.
Wednesday, October 12, 2016
66.) Hands of Stone [9/12/2016]
Despite how cliched they can be, I tend to like fighting movies (see: Warrior and South Paw), and I particularly like when sports are used as metaphors for international relations (see: Bend it Like Beckham and Race). This movie caught my eye immediately: a boxer from Panama who fights an American legend during the height of the Panama Canal disputes (around the time Carter lost his re-election to Reagan).
That alone would have been enough for the movie: two boxers at the height of their careers fighting with vastly different styles and representing their own countries agendas in both an actual and a metaphorical fight. Unfortunately, the movie kept adding layers: there was an examination of poverty, as Roberto Duran was a street kid who learned to fight as a means of survival. Once he became overly wealthy, then, his transition into a different socio-economic class was hardly smooth. There was a discussion of the seedier sides of boxing, as both Duran and his American trainer, Ray Arcel, had suspicious dealings with shady characters.
In the end, the movie tried to cram in so much narrative that it felt overstuffed and bloated. At just under two hours, there simply wasn't enough time to develop the different narrative strands into a cohesive movie. All the different arcs seemed unrelated and the transitions between scenes could sometimes be jarring. Still, Edgar Rameriez made for a convincing fighter, and surprisingly Usher played Sugar Ray Leonard perfectly. It wasn't a terrible movie, so if you are inclined to like boxing movies, movies about South America, or Robert Deniro films, you could do worse than this. That said, it wouldn't be the one boxing movie from the last ten years I suggest anyone watch.
That alone would have been enough for the movie: two boxers at the height of their careers fighting with vastly different styles and representing their own countries agendas in both an actual and a metaphorical fight. Unfortunately, the movie kept adding layers: there was an examination of poverty, as Roberto Duran was a street kid who learned to fight as a means of survival. Once he became overly wealthy, then, his transition into a different socio-economic class was hardly smooth. There was a discussion of the seedier sides of boxing, as both Duran and his American trainer, Ray Arcel, had suspicious dealings with shady characters.
In the end, the movie tried to cram in so much narrative that it felt overstuffed and bloated. At just under two hours, there simply wasn't enough time to develop the different narrative strands into a cohesive movie. All the different arcs seemed unrelated and the transitions between scenes could sometimes be jarring. Still, Edgar Rameriez made for a convincing fighter, and surprisingly Usher played Sugar Ray Leonard perfectly. It wasn't a terrible movie, so if you are inclined to like boxing movies, movies about South America, or Robert Deniro films, you could do worse than this. That said, it wouldn't be the one boxing movie from the last ten years I suggest anyone watch.
Sunday, September 18, 2016
65.) Hell or High Water [9/10/2016]
I loved this movie. Chris Pine, Ben Foster and Jeff Bridges were great. The writing was great. It was shot with deft subtly. I can't recommend this movie highly enough.
Set in Texas, it follows the exploits of two down-on-their-luck brothers (Pine and Foster) as they pull a series of small heists. The robberies catch the attention of two Texas Rangers (Bridges and Gil Birmingham), and the two groups of people set about trying to accomplish contrary goals: find financial freedom and stop the bad guys. The characters separate motivations unfold during the game of cat and mouse to complicate the viewer's sympathies, and the film resists simple catharsis.
Again, I could go on about this movie, but I don't want to spoil it. Go see it. A great film with a great cast and crew.
Set in Texas, it follows the exploits of two down-on-their-luck brothers (Pine and Foster) as they pull a series of small heists. The robberies catch the attention of two Texas Rangers (Bridges and Gil Birmingham), and the two groups of people set about trying to accomplish contrary goals: find financial freedom and stop the bad guys. The characters separate motivations unfold during the game of cat and mouse to complicate the viewer's sympathies, and the film resists simple catharsis.
Again, I could go on about this movie, but I don't want to spoil it. Go see it. A great film with a great cast and crew.
64.) The Light Between Oceans [9/9/2016]
Recently, I have been reading a lot about empathy and literature. One article I read discussed the difficulty of empathizing with the charactrers in Toni Morrison's Beloved as the characters resist catharsis. They can never move away from the slavery in their past, and as such, the reader is unable to fully immerse into the story.
While I am not entirely sold on that argument, I like the idea of characters which are difficult to empathize with. Catherine and I saw this movie, and had vastly different reactions to it, hinging on how we related to the actions of the main character. For Catherine, she found Elizabeth Greysmark's (played by Alicia Vikander) behavior entirely unconscionable; while I didn't agree with her actions, I could understand (and found heartbreaking) the life-altering decisions she made. There are massive swaths of grey in the characters here, and though we didn't agree, it certainly occupied more than a few nights of conversations. If for nothing else, the movie is worth seeing as a conversation piece.
63.) Morgan [9/8/2016]
In 2015, Ex Machina was one of my favorite movies (might have been my #1 movie of the year, but I can't be asked to go and find out), and Morgan is along that same vein: an artificial intelligence housed in the body of something young and feminine looking (the amazing Alicia Vikander in Ex Machina and Anna Taylor-Joy in Morgan). The idea is that the AI has shown a tendency towards dangerous behavior and an outsider needs to be brought in to determine whether or not the project is viable (Domhnall Gleason and Kate Mara, respectively).
The movies seem to be built on identical plot structures, though the differ in key areas: the handlers of Morgan feel something akin to love for their project, while Oscar Isaac is far more sadistic in how he handles Ava; the reasons for building the AI projects are vastly different (any more would give away too much of both plots); and the AI interacts much different in both movies.
There is some insightful gender criticism to be made here, especially in Morgan where the key interaction is between two women (a rarity in movies, as is, to say nothing of a movie in which one woman is definitely a captive, dangerous person). Certainly, books have been written about how women and androids can easily be conflated, and this film (or these films) will definitely add to that conversation. In all, I really enjoyed this movie.
The movies seem to be built on identical plot structures, though the differ in key areas: the handlers of Morgan feel something akin to love for their project, while Oscar Isaac is far more sadistic in how he handles Ava; the reasons for building the AI projects are vastly different (any more would give away too much of both plots); and the AI interacts much different in both movies.
There is some insightful gender criticism to be made here, especially in Morgan where the key interaction is between two women (a rarity in movies, as is, to say nothing of a movie in which one woman is definitely a captive, dangerous person). Certainly, books have been written about how women and androids can easily be conflated, and this film (or these films) will definitely add to that conversation. In all, I really enjoyed this movie.
Thursday, September 8, 2016
62.) Independence Day: Resurgence [9/7/2016]
It was a incoherent hot mess of a movie with massive plot holes, and a lot has been, and can be, said about that. Here, I want to focus on one part of this train-wreck I feel best epitomizes the issue with the movie: the hole the aliens were drilling into the Earth.
The whole reason for the movie was not revenge, as one might expect seeing as how Earth managed to annihilate the previous attempts at colonization. The first wave of aliens even sent out a distress signal to which these new aliens were responding. Once these new aliens arrived (same species, different ship), they set to work mining the planet for it's molten core. This wasn't a war ship, though it was equipped with lots of little fighter ships (for suppressing protesters, I would assume); this was a construction crew, like all of those running around the midwest constructing fracking wells (who also wish they had fighter ships to suppress protesters). There might be some clever eco-criticism here, but the film doesn't fully explore the issue. Instead, it sits back on the age old sci-fi trope: aliens bad; people good. The film gave only passing consideration to why they were there, and instead just went around killing without asking any questions. In fact, they even attacked the alien that came to help--and which will feature prominently in the next filmic installment.
The construction crew sets about mining the planet by drilling a hole in the ocean a mile wide. This hole will extend to the molten core of the planet, which the ship was meant to extract...somehow. Like the first movie, this gave the action a timer, as the intrepid humans had a limited amount of time to kill the queen before, as several characters noted, "the end of life as we know it." The hole is a mile wide in the middle of the ocean (they didn't specifically say which one, but the legs of the drilling space ship set down on the East Coast of the US and London, so likely it was the Atlantic). The drill gets to within two minutes of cracking the mantel and extracting the molten core, which suggests it was pretty damn close. The images from the radar screen on the salvage ship which happened to be in the ocean nearby (close enough to see the mile wide hole and the lazer drill, but not too close to be affected by it...somehow) suggested that there were mere feet between the tip of the lazer and the molten core. Mankind succeeds, and the aliens leave without filling in this hole. Of all the plot holes in the movie, this is the one that seems most unforgivable.
At first, I thought that a mile wide, 4000 mile deep hole would drain the oceans, but after crunching the numbers (thanks, Internet), it turns out the approximately 3200 cubic miles of water which would inevitably drain into that hole would only account for a small fraction of the 800 million cubic miles of water on the surface of the planet (.0004% to be exact, which would likely not even shift the coast line that significantly). It's possible (read: likely) that I did the math wrong, but my take away from an afternoon's research is that a hole that big wouldn't affect the water level too much because the ocean is fucking massive.
A bigger issue, and one that Oklahoma is certain to attest to, is that tampering with the crust of the planet will lead to cataclysmic earth quakes. Granted, the hole itself wouldn't affect the overall surface area. According to the internet, there are roughly 197 million square miles on the surface of the earth, and digging out about 3.5 of those would likely go unnoticed (there have been massive holes dug around the world, and the Earth continues to spin, though it should be noted that none of the man-made holes goes nearly as deep: the current record is about seven miles). However, filling much smaller holes with water has caused innumerable issues around the US. The use and disposal of fracking waste water has been tied to the steep increase in the number and intensity of earthquakes around the US, and the amounts of water and the hole being dug are paltry when compared to this massive hole dug by the aliens. Getting the exact data on size of holes and quantities of water used are beyond the reach of the simple Google searches I did, but it can be assumed the volumes are significantly less and the results have been fairly conclusive. Pumping extra water into the earth is not a good idea. In the movie, that water would be dumped into multiple layers of the earth. It would be instantly irradiated (as much of the fracking waste water is), full of all sorts of toxic heavy metals, and would likely dissipate the heat trapped towards the core. If nothing else, it would certainly destroy our water supply, raising the temperature of the oceans and melting what is left of the dwindling glaciers. It's also possible that such a fissure that deep and wide would allow the massive amount of pressure at the center of the earth to have a weak spot to push against, and whole planet would fracture.
In short, stopping the aliens just before they achieved their goal would likely not leave us with a livable planet. It is very possible that the Independence Day franchise is playing a long game of eco-criticism, and that this movie will leave unexplored the consequences of such a drilling expedition so that it can use them as a catalyst for further space exploration and a mass exodus off the planet. Like actual mankind's efforts to halt global warming, our efforts to live on a mostly ruined planet would prove untenable. The trio of films, then, would be one long metaphor about the horrors of delving too greedily and too deep, like the dwarves in Moria.
More likely, the writers here simply didn't think too hard about the physics of their movie. A certain amount of suspended disbelief is required for sci-fi films, and I certainly don't begrudge the writers refusing to acknowledge the absurdity of a laser drill or how a ship that massive would have affected the gravity of the planet. That said, they should think about how such technology would work within the confines of the real world it inhabits. Look at the first Star Trek reboot: the hole they dug was much smaller, but immediately the planet being mined was destroyed (Futurama looked at the same issue with similar results). Independence Day: Resurgence was just not thought through very carefully, and instead hoped the big explosions and massive (often overcrowded) action sequences, after which the human race stands bruised, but not beaten, would distract from the inherent absurdity of the plot.
Unfortunately, such lapses in realism can become distracting. Untied loose ends like this pull attention away from what the movie did do well, which was have a lot of aliens flying around the planet fighting. Like a chip in a wall, once one flaw is spotted, others start to become more evident. Then the whole delicate house of cards tumbles down. This was the issue here: the movie hoped no one would notice how unconsidered the conceit is.
The whole reason for the movie was not revenge, as one might expect seeing as how Earth managed to annihilate the previous attempts at colonization. The first wave of aliens even sent out a distress signal to which these new aliens were responding. Once these new aliens arrived (same species, different ship), they set to work mining the planet for it's molten core. This wasn't a war ship, though it was equipped with lots of little fighter ships (for suppressing protesters, I would assume); this was a construction crew, like all of those running around the midwest constructing fracking wells (who also wish they had fighter ships to suppress protesters). There might be some clever eco-criticism here, but the film doesn't fully explore the issue. Instead, it sits back on the age old sci-fi trope: aliens bad; people good. The film gave only passing consideration to why they were there, and instead just went around killing without asking any questions. In fact, they even attacked the alien that came to help--and which will feature prominently in the next filmic installment.
The construction crew sets about mining the planet by drilling a hole in the ocean a mile wide. This hole will extend to the molten core of the planet, which the ship was meant to extract...somehow. Like the first movie, this gave the action a timer, as the intrepid humans had a limited amount of time to kill the queen before, as several characters noted, "the end of life as we know it." The hole is a mile wide in the middle of the ocean (they didn't specifically say which one, but the legs of the drilling space ship set down on the East Coast of the US and London, so likely it was the Atlantic). The drill gets to within two minutes of cracking the mantel and extracting the molten core, which suggests it was pretty damn close. The images from the radar screen on the salvage ship which happened to be in the ocean nearby (close enough to see the mile wide hole and the lazer drill, but not too close to be affected by it...somehow) suggested that there were mere feet between the tip of the lazer and the molten core. Mankind succeeds, and the aliens leave without filling in this hole. Of all the plot holes in the movie, this is the one that seems most unforgivable.
At first, I thought that a mile wide, 4000 mile deep hole would drain the oceans, but after crunching the numbers (thanks, Internet), it turns out the approximately 3200 cubic miles of water which would inevitably drain into that hole would only account for a small fraction of the 800 million cubic miles of water on the surface of the planet (.0004% to be exact, which would likely not even shift the coast line that significantly). It's possible (read: likely) that I did the math wrong, but my take away from an afternoon's research is that a hole that big wouldn't affect the water level too much because the ocean is fucking massive.
A bigger issue, and one that Oklahoma is certain to attest to, is that tampering with the crust of the planet will lead to cataclysmic earth quakes. Granted, the hole itself wouldn't affect the overall surface area. According to the internet, there are roughly 197 million square miles on the surface of the earth, and digging out about 3.5 of those would likely go unnoticed (there have been massive holes dug around the world, and the Earth continues to spin, though it should be noted that none of the man-made holes goes nearly as deep: the current record is about seven miles). However, filling much smaller holes with water has caused innumerable issues around the US. The use and disposal of fracking waste water has been tied to the steep increase in the number and intensity of earthquakes around the US, and the amounts of water and the hole being dug are paltry when compared to this massive hole dug by the aliens. Getting the exact data on size of holes and quantities of water used are beyond the reach of the simple Google searches I did, but it can be assumed the volumes are significantly less and the results have been fairly conclusive. Pumping extra water into the earth is not a good idea. In the movie, that water would be dumped into multiple layers of the earth. It would be instantly irradiated (as much of the fracking waste water is), full of all sorts of toxic heavy metals, and would likely dissipate the heat trapped towards the core. If nothing else, it would certainly destroy our water supply, raising the temperature of the oceans and melting what is left of the dwindling glaciers. It's also possible that such a fissure that deep and wide would allow the massive amount of pressure at the center of the earth to have a weak spot to push against, and whole planet would fracture.
In short, stopping the aliens just before they achieved their goal would likely not leave us with a livable planet. It is very possible that the Independence Day franchise is playing a long game of eco-criticism, and that this movie will leave unexplored the consequences of such a drilling expedition so that it can use them as a catalyst for further space exploration and a mass exodus off the planet. Like actual mankind's efforts to halt global warming, our efforts to live on a mostly ruined planet would prove untenable. The trio of films, then, would be one long metaphor about the horrors of delving too greedily and too deep, like the dwarves in Moria.
More likely, the writers here simply didn't think too hard about the physics of their movie. A certain amount of suspended disbelief is required for sci-fi films, and I certainly don't begrudge the writers refusing to acknowledge the absurdity of a laser drill or how a ship that massive would have affected the gravity of the planet. That said, they should think about how such technology would work within the confines of the real world it inhabits. Look at the first Star Trek reboot: the hole they dug was much smaller, but immediately the planet being mined was destroyed (Futurama looked at the same issue with similar results). Independence Day: Resurgence was just not thought through very carefully, and instead hoped the big explosions and massive (often overcrowded) action sequences, after which the human race stands bruised, but not beaten, would distract from the inherent absurdity of the plot.
Unfortunately, such lapses in realism can become distracting. Untied loose ends like this pull attention away from what the movie did do well, which was have a lot of aliens flying around the planet fighting. Like a chip in a wall, once one flaw is spotted, others start to become more evident. Then the whole delicate house of cards tumbles down. This was the issue here: the movie hoped no one would notice how unconsidered the conceit is.
61.) Florence Foster Jenkins [9/4/2016]
There certainly needs to be a bio-pic about the most requested recorded performance at Carnegie Hall, and such a movie would have been smart to cast both Meryl Streep and Hugh Grant as the titular character and her philandering husband, St. Clair Bayfield. Jenkins was an interesting character: a pianist of some repute (played for the president at age 8) who was stricken with syphilis and lost her ability to play. She went on to then use her inheritance to float the high-art music scene in New York during the war. Because of her patronage, no one wanted to be overly honest with her, and thus she believed she could sing quite well. Her husband went to great lengths to keep her in the dark about her singing ability.
There is a really interesting story here at the cross-section of art, war-time economics, personal confidence, fidelity, and talent. There has to be a reason why Jenkins's record, which was objectively terrible, is the best selling album in Melotone Recordings Catalog. There has to be a reason her performance at Carnegie Hall is the most requested recording from their archive. Something about this woman spoke to the nation at a time when there seemed to be nothing positive happening.
The actors did their best with the script (Streep and Grant were amazing; Big Bang Theory's Simon Helberg was okay), but it never quite examined the metaphorical value of Jenkins's career. The audience's surrogate, Cosme McMoon (played by Helberg), never seemed to realize the importance of the singer's performance, and instead focused on his own successes which came by riding her coattails. I left the film thinking it was interesting, but not sure why it was important.
Tuesday, September 6, 2016
60.) Southside With You [9/3/2016]
I am torn on this film. I am unashamedly a huge fan of the Obamas, as both a family and public figures. I was the idea candidate for this strangely under-advertised film. The film, which focused on the first date of the current President and First Lady, lacked authenticity. I am sure it's hard to portray two people who are very much alive, and both the leads (Tika Sumpter as Michele and Parker Sawyers as Barack) did a fine job playing their real-life counterpoints. That said, the writing left a lot to be desired. It felt at times like the two were reading their own future Wikipedia pages to each other.
And even though I know first-date movies are meant to be low on action, the film lacked any inherent drama. There were a few moments which needed to have the intensity ratcheted up a few ticks to bring out the deep tension in the film.
Maybe it is too soon for this movie. Its hard to be objective about the current president's life while he is still very much a public figure. Regardless, this movie was only alright, and I was really hoping for better.
And even though I know first-date movies are meant to be low on action, the film lacked any inherent drama. There were a few moments which needed to have the intensity ratcheted up a few ticks to bring out the deep tension in the film.
Maybe it is too soon for this movie. Its hard to be objective about the current president's life while he is still very much a public figure. Regardless, this movie was only alright, and I was really hoping for better.
59.) Equity [8/30/2016]
Most, if not all, of the financial movies featuring risky maneuvers by high powered bankers feature men in the lead roles (and most auxiliary roles). If nothing else, Equity was a nice change from that, with Breaking Bad's Anna Gunn playing Naomi Bishop, a senior investment banker with a checkered past. She has one last opportunity to land a deal which could secure her the promotion she has ruthlessly pushed for. What follows are the standard tropes of financial sector films: double crossing, shady deals, immoral banking practices, etc.
Because two of the films leads were women, they also sprinkled in a health dose of feminism: glass ceilings, disrespectful co-workers (and clients), and the troubling question of when to have a family balanced against an aggressive upward career arc. On paper, this seemed like a really interesting idea, but unfortunately, the movie just didn't pan out. While there were some significant weaknesses in the plot (Naomi, whose climb to the top was only possible by her crushing anyone in her way, was somehow blinded by the love she felt for a personal banker who was milking her for information), the biggest issue was that no one on the cast could carry the story. Anna Gunn was fine, but it needed someone with a more presence on camera who convey have a range of emotions (instead of Gunn's constant steely stare).
Still, there is room for gender parity in this particular genre of film, and it was worth the attempt. Hopefully, this will open the door for more, and better, films like this.
Because two of the films leads were women, they also sprinkled in a health dose of feminism: glass ceilings, disrespectful co-workers (and clients), and the troubling question of when to have a family balanced against an aggressive upward career arc. On paper, this seemed like a really interesting idea, but unfortunately, the movie just didn't pan out. While there were some significant weaknesses in the plot (Naomi, whose climb to the top was only possible by her crushing anyone in her way, was somehow blinded by the love she felt for a personal banker who was milking her for information), the biggest issue was that no one on the cast could carry the story. Anna Gunn was fine, but it needed someone with a more presence on camera who convey have a range of emotions (instead of Gunn's constant steely stare).
Still, there is room for gender parity in this particular genre of film, and it was worth the attempt. Hopefully, this will open the door for more, and better, films like this.
Monday, September 5, 2016
58.) Bad Moms [8/27/2016]
I really liked Mila Kunis in Black Swan, and thought that her career might take her in bold new directions. But after Jupiter Ascending and now Bad Moms, I am not sure she has it in her to carry a feature length film.
Or maybe she is good in good movies, and not good in terrible movies. And this movie was terrible. It was one slow-motion montage scene after another until a bunch of characters I didn't like stopped doing things I didn't care about. I guess lessons were learned, but, again, I didn't care. Furthermore, the writers (the same team behind The Hangover) clearly have no idea what it's like to be a woman, a mother, or a member of a PTA.
I was expecting a stupid movie, but this was terrible. It lacked the cohesive cast from The Hangover and the writer's inherent knowledge of a men's drunken, debaucherous weekend. The only scene in the whole movie worth watching came at the end-credits scene where the central actors talked with their real-life moms about their own childhood. Those snippets were endearing and funny, and could have made for a great movie. Instead, we were left with a hot mess.
Or maybe she is good in good movies, and not good in terrible movies. And this movie was terrible. It was one slow-motion montage scene after another until a bunch of characters I didn't like stopped doing things I didn't care about. I guess lessons were learned, but, again, I didn't care. Furthermore, the writers (the same team behind The Hangover) clearly have no idea what it's like to be a woman, a mother, or a member of a PTA.
I was expecting a stupid movie, but this was terrible. It lacked the cohesive cast from The Hangover and the writer's inherent knowledge of a men's drunken, debaucherous weekend. The only scene in the whole movie worth watching came at the end-credits scene where the central actors talked with their real-life moms about their own childhood. Those snippets were endearing and funny, and could have made for a great movie. Instead, we were left with a hot mess.
57.) Indignation [8/25/2016]
The first of two Philip Roth novels turned into a movie this Summer/Fall, Indignation is the smaller release, with the two fairly unknown actors cast in the leads: Sarah Gadon as Olivia, a mentally unstable and sexual promiscuous suicide survivor, and Logan Lerman as Marcus, an atheist (formerly Jewish), first-generation college student. Marcus, in seeking to escape his over-bearing father, leaves New Jersey and attends college in Ohio. There, he almost willfully refuses to identify with any sort of group mentality, abjectly refusing to follow a religion, join a fraternity, or really associate with anyone.
He does eventually fall for Olivia, and after her sexual experience challenges his notions of propriety and confuses his feeling for her, a series of poorly made choices leads to his expulsion and eventual drafting into the Army to be shipped off to Korea.
It was a slow movie examining the far reaching consequences of snap judgments, and there isn't a happy ending. But, if you like Philip Roth novels, you'll like this mostly-faithful adaptation.
He does eventually fall for Olivia, and after her sexual experience challenges his notions of propriety and confuses his feeling for her, a series of poorly made choices leads to his expulsion and eventual drafting into the Army to be shipped off to Korea.
It was a slow movie examining the far reaching consequences of snap judgments, and there isn't a happy ending. But, if you like Philip Roth novels, you'll like this mostly-faithful adaptation.
Sunday, August 21, 2016
56.) War Dogs [8/20/2016]
This movie had the same tone and feel as The Wolf of Wall Street, and that is not meant to be a compliment. Much in the same way that Scorsese's film focused on a reprehensible jerk who dragged everyone down with him, War Dogs focused on David Packouz (Miles Teller) and Efraim Diveroli (Jonah Hill), two young dudes who were making money hand over fist by supplying the US military branches with their munitions by bending (or outright breaking) several international laws.
I think, like Wolf of Wall Street, we were supposed to find something cool about these gun runners, driving a truck load of handguns through Fallujah and buying up second-hand arms out of Albania, but either both actors lacked the charisma to pull-off a convincing anti-hero or, more likely, both of these asshats were insufferable. In one particular scene (frequently shown in the trailer), they should have died, but it was only through sheer luck and a military helicopter that they survived. This can be tolerated if the characters have some compelling backstory to suggest that such recklessness has purpose. Neither of the gun-runners had anything redeemable in their lives. When David eventually has a change of heart and tries to get out, I didn't care. When they went to jail, I didn't feel it was tragic, but instead found deep catharsis in idiots getting their comeuppance.
Bradley Cooper was good, but merely window dressing on a really flat, grossly cynical movie that made no attempt to critically engage with the complexity of the subject matter.
I think, like Wolf of Wall Street, we were supposed to find something cool about these gun runners, driving a truck load of handguns through Fallujah and buying up second-hand arms out of Albania, but either both actors lacked the charisma to pull-off a convincing anti-hero or, more likely, both of these asshats were insufferable. In one particular scene (frequently shown in the trailer), they should have died, but it was only through sheer luck and a military helicopter that they survived. This can be tolerated if the characters have some compelling backstory to suggest that such recklessness has purpose. Neither of the gun-runners had anything redeemable in their lives. When David eventually has a change of heart and tries to get out, I didn't care. When they went to jail, I didn't feel it was tragic, but instead found deep catharsis in idiots getting their comeuppance.
Bradley Cooper was good, but merely window dressing on a really flat, grossly cynical movie that made no attempt to critically engage with the complexity of the subject matter.
Thursday, August 18, 2016
55.) Operation Chromite [8/19/2016]
On a spectrum of movies which try to re-frame discussions of famous moments in history, Operation Chromite--the Korean-made movie with actors speaking in English, Korean, and Russian, and subtitles in both English and Korean--falls somewhere between the very good Anthropoid and the quite terrible Stalingrad (which, I think, is still available on YouTube in it's entirety for free, if you have three hours to blow on a terrible movie).
Blessedly, it was a movie made by Koreans, so the Korean actors really got to shine, and Liam Neeson, playing a guy giving his best impersonation of Liam Neeson playing Douglas MacArthur, phoned in a performance which, at best, was an amalgamation of all John Wayne's characters. Still, since Saving Private Ryan, which did not shy from the gritty realism of war, I have troubles getting into films where a heroic character is shot multiple times and doesn't just crumple into a ball. Like a lot of war films from the 50s and 60s, this was clearly an attempt to valorize a national symbol of heroism, and the characters on which the movie was based deserve some respect for essentially allowing the UN forces to gain a foothold in Korea. That said, what they did was heroic enough. Their actions didn't need to emphasized by an overly dramatic score and prolonged highly-emotive scenes (complete with a teary-eyed goodbye scene to one of the soldier's babies, in which the soldier confidently ensured he would be back after the fighting, before he went off and died).
In the end, there isn't enough out there about the Korean resistance in American history, so that was nice to see. Also, the white guy didn't come in an save a bunch of inept indigenous people, bring his superior intellect and firepower to save the day. Instead, MacArthur needed to wait until the Koreans provided the opportunity for the UN forces to make landfall. The decision to film each character speaking in their native language was a nice touch, instead of having everyone speak in some accented English. Again, it was much better than Stalingrad, but still a far-cry from some of the better war movies out there.
Blessedly, it was a movie made by Koreans, so the Korean actors really got to shine, and Liam Neeson, playing a guy giving his best impersonation of Liam Neeson playing Douglas MacArthur, phoned in a performance which, at best, was an amalgamation of all John Wayne's characters. Still, since Saving Private Ryan, which did not shy from the gritty realism of war, I have troubles getting into films where a heroic character is shot multiple times and doesn't just crumple into a ball. Like a lot of war films from the 50s and 60s, this was clearly an attempt to valorize a national symbol of heroism, and the characters on which the movie was based deserve some respect for essentially allowing the UN forces to gain a foothold in Korea. That said, what they did was heroic enough. Their actions didn't need to emphasized by an overly dramatic score and prolonged highly-emotive scenes (complete with a teary-eyed goodbye scene to one of the soldier's babies, in which the soldier confidently ensured he would be back after the fighting, before he went off and died).
In the end, there isn't enough out there about the Korean resistance in American history, so that was nice to see. Also, the white guy didn't come in an save a bunch of inept indigenous people, bring his superior intellect and firepower to save the day. Instead, MacArthur needed to wait until the Koreans provided the opportunity for the UN forces to make landfall. The decision to film each character speaking in their native language was a nice touch, instead of having everyone speak in some accented English. Again, it was much better than Stalingrad, but still a far-cry from some of the better war movies out there.
54.) Emily and Tim [8/18/2016]
I wanted to like this movie. It was a small release with some great actors (Thomas Mann from Me, Earl and the Dying Girl, Alexis Bledel from Gilmore Girls, Zozsia Mamet from Girls, Kal Pen from a number of good things, including the first Van Wilder movie, Olympia Dukakis, Andre Braugher and Phylicia Rashad). The metaphorical conceit of the movie was clever: six different sets of actors are used to tell the story of one marriage to show that these themes (love, loss, betrayal, etc.) are universal.
Unfortunately, this never got off the ground. The script was not great (despite being adapted from what the credits told me was an award winning author--same said author wrote and directed the movie), and the actors had no chemistry. I was surprised at the outset that I was the only one in the theater when the movie started; by the end, I was less surprised. There are better romantic dramas out there, with more clever narrative techniques and better directing.
Unfortunately, this never got off the ground. The script was not great (despite being adapted from what the credits told me was an award winning author--same said author wrote and directed the movie), and the actors had no chemistry. I was surprised at the outset that I was the only one in the theater when the movie started; by the end, I was less surprised. There are better romantic dramas out there, with more clever narrative techniques and better directing.
Wednesday, August 17, 2016
53.) Edge of Winter [8/17/2016]
Holy hell was this a dark film. Joel Kinnaman plays Eliot Baker, a divorced father of two, who takes his kids on a spur of the moment trip to middle-of-nowhere Canada (in the middle of Winter) to shoot guns and learn how to drive. Things take a turn for the worse as Eliot, who struggles to hold his own life together, realizes his kids are going to move away soon. What follows is a series of increasingly bad ideas Eliot uses to hold his crumbling life together.
I hadn't read much about this movie before going to see it, and I was really pleased I took a flier on such a small film (only one theater in the suburbs is even playing it). It was a great, tense movie about family, masculine identities and terrible decisions.
I hadn't read much about this movie before going to see it, and I was really pleased I took a flier on such a small film (only one theater in the suburbs is even playing it). It was a great, tense movie about family, masculine identities and terrible decisions.
52.) Anthropoid [8/12/2016]
As an American, most of what I learned about World War II involved the big highlights: invasion of Poland, capture of Paris, bombing of London, America's entry into the war, and the eventual end of the war. The histories we learn here are skewed towards the Allies involvement, and often glosses over the horrors of the Western Front and the involvement of other countries like Finland or, in the case of Anthropoid, Czechoslovakia (or what is now the distinct countries of the Czech Republic and Slovokia). Evidently, a whole year before invading Poland, the Germans occupied Czechoslovakia, murdering thousands of Czechs in Prague. Sadly, the Allied countries of Europe could have prevented the occupation, but fearing war, they allowed Hitler to invade and claim the valuable industrial resources.
Anthropoid focused on the only successful assassination attempt of a high-ranking Nazi official to happen during the war. Two operatives from the government in exile parachute into the countryside around Prague, and lay out a risky plan to assissinate Reinhard Heydrich to an uncertain assembly of active resistance agents. The film follows the operatives as they go about doing their spy-craft: collecting data on Heydrich, evading the SS, and eventually performing the assassination. Of course, nothing goes as planned, but I won't spoil the ending of the film.
This was a really interesting, well-done movie about a horrendous moment in history. It's hard to say I liked the movie, considering the situation, but I was glad to have seen it: good actors, good story, well-told.
Anthropoid focused on the only successful assassination attempt of a high-ranking Nazi official to happen during the war. Two operatives from the government in exile parachute into the countryside around Prague, and lay out a risky plan to assissinate Reinhard Heydrich to an uncertain assembly of active resistance agents. The film follows the operatives as they go about doing their spy-craft: collecting data on Heydrich, evading the SS, and eventually performing the assassination. Of course, nothing goes as planned, but I won't spoil the ending of the film.
This was a really interesting, well-done movie about a horrendous moment in history. It's hard to say I liked the movie, considering the situation, but I was glad to have seen it: good actors, good story, well-told.
51.) Pulse [8/11/2016]
I honestly didn't expect much out of this movie. I saw very few advertisements for Pulse, it had no real actors of any note in the leads (the lesser of two Francos and one of TVs Scream Queens), and it looked squarely aimed at people who use SnapChat. Plus, the summer is not known for surprising indie hits. But, I was bored and the movie seemed short, so I went to the late showing on a Thursday, thinking I would be alone in the theater.
I was genuinely surprised, though, by the end. Granted, the movie was not amazing, but it was surprisingly enjoyable, and Dave Franco and Emma Roberts were pretty good in it. Still, the premise was clever: people could win money playing a crowd-sourced version of Truth or Dare which was often heavy on the dares. Vee (Roberts) was bored with her life and decided to become a "Player" in Nerve rather than a "Watcher," the first of many ham-fisted metaphors for living life. At first, the dares developed along a fairly believable difficulty curve, until Vee was asked to guide Ian (Franco) on his stolen motorcycle through the streets of New York as he was blindfolded. From there, it rapidly became more unbelievable as the writers showed little understanding about how the internet works and mankind devolved into a sort of Lord of the Rings meets Gladiator mentality. The end message was disappointingly cliched, and I am surprised the "End" title didn't come with a question mark.
Still, for 40 minutes, it was an interesting movie and had a neat concept. It was worth a watch if you have a soft spot for teen movies or science fiction with a poor understanding of the internet.
I was genuinely surprised, though, by the end. Granted, the movie was not amazing, but it was surprisingly enjoyable, and Dave Franco and Emma Roberts were pretty good in it. Still, the premise was clever: people could win money playing a crowd-sourced version of Truth or Dare which was often heavy on the dares. Vee (Roberts) was bored with her life and decided to become a "Player" in Nerve rather than a "Watcher," the first of many ham-fisted metaphors for living life. At first, the dares developed along a fairly believable difficulty curve, until Vee was asked to guide Ian (Franco) on his stolen motorcycle through the streets of New York as he was blindfolded. From there, it rapidly became more unbelievable as the writers showed little understanding about how the internet works and mankind devolved into a sort of Lord of the Rings meets Gladiator mentality. The end message was disappointingly cliched, and I am surprised the "End" title didn't come with a question mark.
Still, for 40 minutes, it was an interesting movie and had a neat concept. It was worth a watch if you have a soft spot for teen movies or science fiction with a poor understanding of the internet.
Monday, August 8, 2016
50.) Jason Bourne [8/8/2016]
I thought the Jason Bourne franchise was done when the fourth installment, starring Jeremy Renner, Ed Norton, and Rachel Weiss, went off the rails by turning the spies into chemically engineered super-soldiers not too different from a gritty, juiced-up version of Captain America. I disliked Bourne Legacy so much that I went home and watched the original three movies the following afternoon.
Jason Bourne, the fifth installment featuring the return of Matt Damon and Julia Stiles, was not that bad, but it was a far shade paler than the first film. There, we are given these touching moments of character development where Bourne starts to stitch together his identity with the help of Maria (Franka Potente). There are long moments where no one is punched, and the audience comes to care about Bourne and root for his redemption.
All of that is gone. The movie is a cobbled together messy of action shots spliced with people looking aghast in disbelief that they are again tracking Bourne in relation to some sort of black-ops logistical nightmare. All the standard tropes of the Bourne franchise are there: grizzle old man with no regard for ethics or laws, an upstart woman who sees the good in Bourne (and the badness of those around him), a woman who can speak to Bourne and tame his feverish nightmares, an killer asset who speaks little and kills without remorse, a car-chase scene filled with a Keystone-Cop-esque police pursuit, and even a fight scene where the assailant has a knife and Bourne kicks his ass with a house hold item (this time a pot inexplicably found in a drainage canal). In the end, this felt more like a clips show, TV's version of a Greatest Hits album, than an actual movie, but they certainly left it open for a sixth one. Maybe that will just be several steady-cam shots of Bourne appearing behind people without saying anything.
Jason Bourne, the fifth installment featuring the return of Matt Damon and Julia Stiles, was not that bad, but it was a far shade paler than the first film. There, we are given these touching moments of character development where Bourne starts to stitch together his identity with the help of Maria (Franka Potente). There are long moments where no one is punched, and the audience comes to care about Bourne and root for his redemption.
All of that is gone. The movie is a cobbled together messy of action shots spliced with people looking aghast in disbelief that they are again tracking Bourne in relation to some sort of black-ops logistical nightmare. All the standard tropes of the Bourne franchise are there: grizzle old man with no regard for ethics or laws, an upstart woman who sees the good in Bourne (and the badness of those around him), a woman who can speak to Bourne and tame his feverish nightmares, an killer asset who speaks little and kills without remorse, a car-chase scene filled with a Keystone-Cop-esque police pursuit, and even a fight scene where the assailant has a knife and Bourne kicks his ass with a house hold item (this time a pot inexplicably found in a drainage canal). In the end, this felt more like a clips show, TV's version of a Greatest Hits album, than an actual movie, but they certainly left it open for a sixth one. Maybe that will just be several steady-cam shots of Bourne appearing behind people without saying anything.
Sunday, August 7, 2016
49.) Suicide Squad [8/7/2016]
For a movie whose advertisements are bathed in neon punk iconography, this was a dark, gritty, rain-filled, incoherent mess. The largest issue was character development, which is tricky with an ensemble cast. Margot Robbie deserved a better Harley Quinn (though she was good as Harley Quinn, if problematic). For all the hubbub about Jared Leto's method acting, he was barely in the movie, and when he was he was hardly as menacing as the rumors about his off-camera behavior. I didn't care about the relationship between Harley and the Joker, which can charitably be described as "glossed over" in the film. The other characters might have had motivations, but I didn't notice them. One character was literally brought onto a helicopter with no introduction and then was dispatched just as quickly, but I think I was supposed to know who he was.
I could go on: talk about all the rain, the agonizing 10-minute-long slow motion shot near the end, the overly emotive score, the terrible dialogue, the mystical characters who were immune to bullets and missals, but not a bomb, and so on. The fact of the matter is that DC just doesn't make good movies, and Suicide Squad was just another in a long line of evidence to suggest as much.
I could go on: talk about all the rain, the agonizing 10-minute-long slow motion shot near the end, the overly emotive score, the terrible dialogue, the mystical characters who were immune to bullets and missals, but not a bomb, and so on. The fact of the matter is that DC just doesn't make good movies, and Suicide Squad was just another in a long line of evidence to suggest as much.
48.) Gleason [8/6/2016]
There is no way for me to be objective about this movie. Steve Gleason, the former special teams player from the New Orleans Saints and current face of ALS, has done a tremendous service for those suffering from the disease that claimed the life of my father. This documentary of Steve's life tracked the development of the Team Gleason, his non-for-profit organization serving the ALS community. His first goal was so simple, but it was tremendously impactful. When Medicare and Medicad stopped covering speaking devices for those with ALS, Steve's organization set out to provide one to everyone who needed it. He used his fame to also put pressure on politicians to extend public funding for such a necessary medical device. Furthermore, inspired by his own two-week trip through Alaska, Team Gleason organized adventure excursions for wheelchair-bound people suffering from ALS, such as a hike up Machu Picchu.
More than just dump a bunch of information about the good works the foundation does, though, this documentary, like The Theory of Everything, humanizes an extremely difficult disease. Steve and his wife had a child shortly after he was diagnosed, and Michel was left to care for a newborn and her rapidly deteriorating husband (a nice visual juxtaposition: as their child developed new skills and abilities, Steve lost his). There were no perfect heroes in the film: Steve grew testy and sullen as the disease progressed and his wife had the lightness and her optimism slowly ground out down.
Steve is still alive, and his organization (linked below) is still doing great work. I am not sure who would like this movie, but I loved it.
http://www.teamgleason.org/
More than just dump a bunch of information about the good works the foundation does, though, this documentary, like The Theory of Everything, humanizes an extremely difficult disease. Steve and his wife had a child shortly after he was diagnosed, and Michel was left to care for a newborn and her rapidly deteriorating husband (a nice visual juxtaposition: as their child developed new skills and abilities, Steve lost his). There were no perfect heroes in the film: Steve grew testy and sullen as the disease progressed and his wife had the lightness and her optimism slowly ground out down.
Steve is still alive, and his organization (linked below) is still doing great work. I am not sure who would like this movie, but I loved it.
http://www.teamgleason.org/
Saturday, July 30, 2016
47.) Ghostbusters [7/31/2016]
Most thoughts on the movie fall into two camps: 1) this movie was made to advance the feminist agenda by pissing down the throat of my childhood; or 2) this has been the female-lead action movie that will shake the very sexist foundations of Hollywood. The first reaction stems mainly from men with fragile gender-identities who could not fathom that anything as sacred as Ghostbusters could be redone by some damn uppity women (probably demanding fair pay for equal work) and still be watchable. Instead, the very idea of a gender-swapped remake/reboot/re-imagining is just further signs of how emasculated America has become, where men are cuckholded by the very entertainment franchises they used to hold dear. What would be next? A black Spider-Man?
I really wanted this movie to be so good that I could cram its genius down the throats of these crying man-babies. The first Ghostbusters was great, and it should be remembered as such. But this movie in no way tried to replace it or erase it. I hesitate to call it a remake, or even a reboot, as this story is not a rehashing of the first, nor does it continue that story in any way. Instead, it re-imagines what it would look like if ghosts invaded New York today.
And it did a fine job doing it. Honestly though, for as much as I wanted this movie to succeed so that these hideous trolls who chased Leslie Jones off Twitter would be forced to eat so much crow, the movie was just okay. I hope it gets a sequel, because I think the potential for a truly great movie is there, and the cast (particularly, as most people agree, Kate McKinnon) was pretty good. Unfortunately, here they were a bit too beholden to nostalgia (Dan Akroyd's cameo, for example) and too focused on the origin story of the Ghostbusters, which is true of a lot of origin stories: they are just not that interesting.
What is remarkable about this movie is how the female leads were portrayed. Quietly, this movie did subvert the typical tropes of a female-lead ensemble cast. There was no romantic competition, no cattiness, and they managed to save the day despite a number of men getting in the way. The women were smart, and funny, and charming, and they were brought together not by their mutual respect for each other. That sort of representation is necessary in Hollywood big-budget films, and the way the little girl behind me lit up when Kate McKinnon was on screen made all the less-good parts of the movie fade into the background.
Thursday, July 28, 2016
46.) Star Trek: Beyond [7/27/2016]
I was put off by the second installment of this rebooted franchise, so I went into this film with low expectations. In the end, I was pleasantly surprised. ST:B managed to recapture the swashbuckling experience of the original series while not giving into to nostalgia worship (as the last one did). It was fun, toyed with the fringes of exploration, and had space magic. All good things.
That said, Jeremy Lin, director of the Fast and Furious movies may not have been the best choice. The film hit a lot of the same notes (namely, the importance of family), and there were a lot of fun space vehicle chase scenes. But, there was also, for no explicable reason, a motorcycle chase scene which raised more questions than it answered.
All in all, for a summer action movie, one could do worse than this.
Monday, July 25, 2016
45.) Captain Fantastic [7/25/2016]
Remember when, in college, a friend of yours might have read Emerson or Thoreau, and they started talking loudly about moving into the wild and finding the authentic self? This movie explores what that might actually look like, if said friend went on to marry and have six kids. There is something both insufferable and charming about Ben's parenting style (played by Viggo Mortensen). He runs his kids through the woods, makes them do extensive calisthenic drills, climb mountains, recite great books, hunt, and--most importantly--reject mediocrity. While it gets tiresome listening to him drone on about the ills of capitalism and the downfall of mankind, you can see he loves his kids, and in turn, they have grown to be honest, well-read, considerate children.
When his wife dies, and he must return to society, the well-worn fish-out-of-water narrative begins, and the ending was hardly surprising (no spoilers here). Still, it was an interesting exploration of how any ideology, when drawn out to it's natural conclusion, will ultimately fail under scrutiny. Similarly, it makes a compelling argument for allowing children access to the harsher aspects of reality, like death, sex, and politics.
Viggo Mortensen was great; the cast of kids, most of whom I don't remember seeing in anything, were great; the movie was predictable and gave a much happier ending than I would have thought Ben's ideology would have allowed, but all in all, I rather enjoyed it.
When his wife dies, and he must return to society, the well-worn fish-out-of-water narrative begins, and the ending was hardly surprising (no spoilers here). Still, it was an interesting exploration of how any ideology, when drawn out to it's natural conclusion, will ultimately fail under scrutiny. Similarly, it makes a compelling argument for allowing children access to the harsher aspects of reality, like death, sex, and politics.
Viggo Mortensen was great; the cast of kids, most of whom I don't remember seeing in anything, were great; the movie was predictable and gave a much happier ending than I would have thought Ben's ideology would have allowed, but all in all, I rather enjoyed it.
44.) The Infiltrator [7/20/2016]
I had gone in thinking I would see the new Independence Day...movie...but seeing as my movie-companion is moving to Germany soon, he suggested seeing something that might be better. I think the exact wording was, "We should see almost anything else tonight. What about that new Bryan Cranston movie?"
I am a sucker for crime procedurals, and especially so for true-life crime films with a focus on the actual, nitty-gritty day-to-day operations of running a crime sting (see also, Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy and The Most Dangerous Man, which are both similar films, but about spy craft instead of police procedures). I am also a sucker for post-Malcolm in the Middle Bryan Cranston (I was a fan of his earlier comedy stuff, but more so his every-man dramas). So off we went.
This might have been the best decision we made that evening. This film was great: tense, well-acted, good character arcs. I can buy that some people would think it's slow, and for a movie with Mexican drug cartels and undercover police officers, there were very few shootouts (possibly none--for that see Sicario or the hundreds of others that glorify the violence inherent in the so-called War on Drugs). Still, watching Cranston lure these dangerous men into a trusting relationship was nerve-wracking. He could have died so many times, but by luck and good senses, he managed to survive not only that ordeal but nearly a decade more similar assignments.
If you like movies that don't shy away from the realism of solving crime (think: real-life The Departed), then this is for you. If you prefer something with Jason Bourne in it, then you might want to wait until what seems like his "Greatest Hits" clips-show is released later this summer.
I am a sucker for crime procedurals, and especially so for true-life crime films with a focus on the actual, nitty-gritty day-to-day operations of running a crime sting (see also, Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy and The Most Dangerous Man, which are both similar films, but about spy craft instead of police procedures). I am also a sucker for post-Malcolm in the Middle Bryan Cranston (I was a fan of his earlier comedy stuff, but more so his every-man dramas). So off we went.
This might have been the best decision we made that evening. This film was great: tense, well-acted, good character arcs. I can buy that some people would think it's slow, and for a movie with Mexican drug cartels and undercover police officers, there were very few shootouts (possibly none--for that see Sicario or the hundreds of others that glorify the violence inherent in the so-called War on Drugs). Still, watching Cranston lure these dangerous men into a trusting relationship was nerve-wracking. He could have died so many times, but by luck and good senses, he managed to survive not only that ordeal but nearly a decade more similar assignments.
If you like movies that don't shy away from the realism of solving crime (think: real-life The Departed), then this is for you. If you prefer something with Jason Bourne in it, then you might want to wait until what seems like his "Greatest Hits" clips-show is released later this summer.
Monday, July 18, 2016
43.) Mike and Dave Need Wedding Dates [7/18/2016]
I got from this movie what it promised: a stupid summer comedy with beautiful people filmed in paradise. I watched it thinking that most of the actors were better than this, particularly Anna Kendrick (though I did rent Get a Job a few weeks ago, and that, too, was really bad; maybe she doesn't make good decisions...) and Aubrey Plaza (I'm not sure what accent she was going for, but it was clear she was trying to shake the deadpan-style by which she has so far buttered her bread).
I will say this: Anna Kendrick made Zac Efron seem like more than a box full of old newspapers with a really pretty face. So that was, at the very least, surprising.
I will say this: Anna Kendrick made Zac Efron seem like more than a box full of old newspapers with a really pretty face. So that was, at the very least, surprising.
42.) Swiss Army Man [7/13/2016]
This was a weird movie about death, garbage, and the way humans interact with both. It was at times agonizingly heartbreaking and genuinely hilarious. Had it not been for the last ten minutes which undercut the whole conceit of the film, it would have been an early contender for Best Film (not unlike Grand Budapest Hotel, a prior strange Summer film which gained a lot of critical attention). As it stands, I really liked the film, but left wishing it was ten minutes shorter.
The real take-away is that Daniel Radcliffe is the real-deal. Paul Dano has been good in a few movies, but this was the first time I was genuinely impressed by Daniel Radcliffe. He might get a few considerations for this come award season.
The real take-away is that Daniel Radcliffe is the real-deal. Paul Dano has been good in a few movies, but this was the first time I was genuinely impressed by Daniel Radcliffe. He might get a few considerations for this come award season.
Monday, July 11, 2016
41.) Sing Street [7/10/2016]
There is a genre of movie that exists somewhere between a musical and a drama--a sort of extended music video, in which the characters are part of a band, they write music (which often deals with the lives of the songwriters), and the narrative strings together these songs in a loose story. See also: Once, Begin Again, and August Rush. Sometimes, the whole thing holds together (Begin Again, School of Rock), sometimes the music is so good it doesn't matter (Once), and sometimes the whole thing is just bad (Song One, August Rush). Sing Street is the third music-video movie from John Carney (Once and Begin Again) with the songs coming from the UK synth-pop of the 1980s set against a backdrop of Dublin, which was under a pretty severe economic depression and faced a drain of citizens fleeing to London.
This movie was pretty great. The songs were great, the story was well-developed, and the kid actors were surprisingly nuanced. It helps that Gary Clark an Glen Hansard (also from Once) helped to write the songs, giving them a distinct Irish-pop feel. It certainly doesn't need to be seen at the theaters, but I would recommend Sing Street to anyone looking for a feel-good movie with some awesome tunes.
40.) Tarzan [7/3/2016]
To be honest, this movie was doomed from the start. There really isn't a way to make a Tarzan narrative that isn't a little bit racist. The idea that a white man from privilege could be raised in the jungle among savages (both animal and human), but still rise above that to fit into the British aristocracy is going to have racist undertones. Pitching it so that Jane is the daughter of an English teacher literally colonizing Africa doesn't help. Having him go back to be the white savior to restore the African tribesman to their freedom (something they seemed incapable of doing themselves), doesn't make it better. Giving him a black sidekick who hates slavery and having the central narrative circle around freeing slavery helps a little, but still has tinges of racism in suggesting that, without Tarzan, everyone would still be slaves.
This movie was already digging out of a deep, problematic hole, made all that much more deeper by Alexander Skarsgard's cardboard-cutout-like acting abilities. The CGI looked bad, Margot Robbie and Samuel Jackson could do little to save the flailing mess. And it was boring. I couldn't even enjoy hate-watching it like Gods of Egypt. It was just not worth the time--the time to write it, the time to make it, or the time to see it.
This movie was already digging out of a deep, problematic hole, made all that much more deeper by Alexander Skarsgard's cardboard-cutout-like acting abilities. The CGI looked bad, Margot Robbie and Samuel Jackson could do little to save the flailing mess. And it was boring. I couldn't even enjoy hate-watching it like Gods of Egypt. It was just not worth the time--the time to write it, the time to make it, or the time to see it.
39.) Neon Demon [7/3/2016]
Like Drive and Only God Forgives, this was a moody, atmospheric, minimalist movie, this time interested in feminine identity and the fashion industry. While Elle Fanning looked the part of a supermodel, it was never quite clear what made her so amazing. It seemed like people just looked at her and saw something special, new, and different, but it was never clear what that was. This might have been the point of the movie, and how the male gaze finds value in things which are not that great, but I think that Fanning is no Ryan Gosling (the lead actor in the above two movies who carried the films on the silent, brooding shoulders).
It was, like all of Nicolas Winding Refn's films, both incredibly well shot, beautiful to look at, and immaculately scored. There was the characteristically violent denouement, as well, but this movie, ultimately, left me flat, largely because the acting paled in comparison to his other films.
It was, like all of Nicolas Winding Refn's films, both incredibly well shot, beautiful to look at, and immaculately scored. There was the characteristically violent denouement, as well, but this movie, ultimately, left me flat, largely because the acting paled in comparison to his other films.
38.) Free State of Jones [6/21/2016]
I like Civil War stories, and Free State of Jones does a lot to complicate the racist South narrative, shedding light on the inherent economic inequality of the Confederate Army. This movie tries to show that not everyone in the South was racist. There was at least one guy who fought against the slavery issue from south of the Mason-Dixon line, even marrying a freed slave once the war was done.
The film, though, was sprawling and unfocused, covering almost all of Newton Knight's life from the middle of the war until he died, well after Jones was established, then reabsorbed, and then turned back into a racist hotbed of contempt, running Knight and his friends to a different city in Mississippi. In the end, it became less about equality, both racial and economic, and more about the heroism of another white man in the battle for slavery. And that is a tired narrative.
The film, though, was sprawling and unfocused, covering almost all of Newton Knight's life from the middle of the war until he died, well after Jones was established, then reabsorbed, and then turned back into a racist hotbed of contempt, running Knight and his friends to a different city in Mississippi. In the end, it became less about equality, both racial and economic, and more about the heroism of another white man in the battle for slavery. And that is a tired narrative.
37.) The Lobster [6/17/2016]
I am a huge fan of weird, minimalist narratives, so this one had me hooked from the trailer. The story could best be described as "magical realism" or "light science fiction." It concerns characters who can't find love, and as such enroll in a program at a hotel which will either find them companionship or turn them into an animal (hence, The Lobster). There is a rival group of single individuals living in the woods that terrorize those seeking companionship. Colin Farrell, who gave an incredible performance, lives with both camps, exploring the nature of love, relationships and sacrifice. I highly recommend this beautifully weird movie.
36.) Me Before You [6/10/2016]
I'll admit that my recent foray into disability studies has influenced my viewing of this movie. With that in mind, there are some spoilers ahead.
It would be nice if, in even a few movies, the central character who suffers from a disability doesn't die by his (or in the case of Million Dollar Baby, her) hand. The "suicide is a noble release" narrative is both problematic for the characters and a problematic message for those currently living with disabilities. That said, Emilia Clarke is hard not to like. I think this movie can best be described as a bad story, told in a mediocre way, with incredibly adorable actors.
It would be nice if, in even a few movies, the central character who suffers from a disability doesn't die by his (or in the case of Million Dollar Baby, her) hand. The "suicide is a noble release" narrative is both problematic for the characters and a problematic message for those currently living with disabilities. That said, Emilia Clarke is hard not to like. I think this movie can best be described as a bad story, told in a mediocre way, with incredibly adorable actors.
Saturday, June 18, 2016
35.) The Right Guys [6/2/2016]
I went into this wanting to love every ounce of the strange, highly-stylized crime movie. Ryan Gosling is still artistically apologizing for The Notebook, and the movie viewers have thus far been the beneficiaries of this acting purge. Russell Crowe has been decent in some movies, and this sort of tough guy act was just what he was made for. I loved Kiss Kiss Bang Bang, so another Shane Black movie seemed like an obvious win for me.
That said, the movie was not that great. It wasn't terrible, by any means, and there were some genuinely funny moments, but a lot of the plot was strained. There were two female characters whose only part to play was either the damsel in distress or the moral conscience (and the little kid as moral conscience trope is exhausted). Because of this, the motivation of the characters was also strained. Crowe's big moral shift seemed to come out of character and from nowhere.
Still, it's worth a watch. It was perfectly scored, well-acted, and some of the dialogue was hilarious. Just don't expect a sister-film to the much superior Kiss Kiss Bang Bang.
That said, the movie was not that great. It wasn't terrible, by any means, and there were some genuinely funny moments, but a lot of the plot was strained. There were two female characters whose only part to play was either the damsel in distress or the moral conscience (and the little kid as moral conscience trope is exhausted). Because of this, the motivation of the characters was also strained. Crowe's big moral shift seemed to come out of character and from nowhere.
Still, it's worth a watch. It was perfectly scored, well-acted, and some of the dialogue was hilarious. Just don't expect a sister-film to the much superior Kiss Kiss Bang Bang.
34.) Money Monster [5/28/2016]
Like 99 Homes and The Big Short, this film took a look at the current financial crisis in America through a fictionalized financial show (a more cartoonishly-vapid Jim Cramer from Mad Money). Unlike the first two movies mentioned, this film ground out all the nuance, and instead used a cliched, cardboard cutout of a hedge fund manager as the bad guy, whose obvious money laundering would have seemed outlandish in a Bond film. Still, the core actors, George Clooney, Julia Roberts, and Jack O'Connell (from Unbreakable), were entertaining to watch and the movie required less math to make sense of the mess (which was nice, considering how tired I was when I watched it). You could think of this as the poor man's The Big Short.
Saturday, May 28, 2016
33.) X-Men: Apocalypse [5/27/2016 - 3D]
The previews for this film have been running for so long, I honestly thought I might have seen it already. When I did see it, I found myself missing the more coherent trailer. There have been few movies which so profoundly misunderstand the characters and the team at the core of the film. The only really enjoyable action sequence featured the a brief appearance of Wolverine. Most of the movie involved people standing around with arms raised and inanimate objects flying around, for no good reason. Magneto was a bad guy until, for no reason, he wasn't. Mystique just walked around talking the whole time, working from a credibility she never validated. Quicksilver was funny, but served no purpose except to remind the viewer of the exact same scene he was in from the last movie. The movie was full of great mutants, and none of them amounted to anything, until Jean Grey, without any struggles whatsoever, went beast-mode on Apocalypse, before returning to normal. Psyloche was under-used, Nightcrawler played only a small part, and Jubilee might as well have been a piece of furniture. Things just seemed to happen until, without much reason, they stopped.
The theater was packed, and people applauded at the end. I wept for the X-Men.
32.) Captain America: Civil War [5/21/2016]
I had tempered excitement for this movie, considering how formulaic the previous Marvel films have been. That said, I really enjoyed this film. It was slick, the writing and story were fairly tightly written, and it strayed away from drawing rigid moral lines on either side of which the characters fell. No one was right, no one made good choices, and there was not an easy answer to the complicated question at the core of the film. The action scene we were great, Robert Downey Jr was amazing, and the new characters slotted nicely into the Universe. The new Spider-Man was, by far, the best Spider-Man to date. All in all, I am not cautiously optimistic for the next film.
31.) Keanu [5/17/2016]
Work had gotten busy, and I missed a number of films that I wanted to see. One that I did not miss, one I made sure to make time for, was Keanu. This movie was, simply put, charming. The cat was adorable, Keegan-Michael Key and Jordan Peele were great, and there were a ton of very funny cameos (Anna Ferris was one of the best). In among the jokes, it raised questions of identity and racial politics. I was really happy have seen this movie, and it's worth a look.
Thursday, April 21, 2016
30.) Hardcore Henry [4/17/2016]
I am not one to look down on a hyper-violent action movie, or a movie with barely any plot to tie together a string of increasingly epic fight scenes (see: Pacific Rim and Godzilla, both of which I liked quite a bit). So, with Hardcore Henry, which promised to be a gimmicky, first-person-shooter-style movie about a voiceless robot fighting the Russian mob, I had tempered my expectations.
Oddly, this movie was exactly what I wanted it to be, and well-done to boot (which is rare for an action movie released this far from summer). Now, I fully understand and appreciate the argument some have made about the attitude the film takes towards women (which charitably could be called unenlightened). I can see why some would dislike the film for that reason. That said, it was a hell of a thing to make. Unlike Blair Witch and other "found footage" first-person narratives, the viewer was not seeing the narrative unfold through the lens of a camera, but instead experienced the film (as best as possible) as if Henry. There was a ton of action off-camera which could be detected on the periphery or when Henry (and the camera turned). The parkour scenes were fraught with tension as it felt like I was jumping from roof to roof.
Furthermore, all the actors, especially Sharlto Copley, seemed to thoroughly enjoy making the film. There were some genuinely funny, charming scenes, particularly towards the end). I found myself smiling through the whole thing. All in all, this movie (warts and all) has been the most enjoyable film experience I have had in a while.
Oddly, this movie was exactly what I wanted it to be, and well-done to boot (which is rare for an action movie released this far from summer). Now, I fully understand and appreciate the argument some have made about the attitude the film takes towards women (which charitably could be called unenlightened). I can see why some would dislike the film for that reason. That said, it was a hell of a thing to make. Unlike Blair Witch and other "found footage" first-person narratives, the viewer was not seeing the narrative unfold through the lens of a camera, but instead experienced the film (as best as possible) as if Henry. There was a ton of action off-camera which could be detected on the periphery or when Henry (and the camera turned). The parkour scenes were fraught with tension as it felt like I was jumping from roof to roof.
Furthermore, all the actors, especially Sharlto Copley, seemed to thoroughly enjoy making the film. There were some genuinely funny, charming scenes, particularly towards the end). I found myself smiling through the whole thing. All in all, this movie (warts and all) has been the most enjoyable film experience I have had in a while.
29.) I Saw the Light [4/14/2016]
Hank Williams had an interesting life and an interesting career, shaping folk music into what we would call country music today. He lived hard, died young, and made some pretty good music along the way. Unfortunately, this movie didn't really show that. Instead, it wasted a perfectly good performance by Tom Hiddleston in which he had a series of fairly mundane conversations with different women. Then he died. The movie was short of drama and music, which is odd for a dramatic retelling of a musicians life.
To be fair, there have been some great music biopics out in the last year or so, such Get on Up, and Love and Mercy. This just didn't live up to those, either in narrative or performance.
To be fair, there have been some great music biopics out in the last year or so, such Get on Up, and Love and Mercy. This just didn't live up to those, either in narrative or performance.
Saturday, April 9, 2016
28.) Eye in the Sky [4/7/2016]
I get annoyed with movies that shy away from morally ambiguous subjects, and instead give the viewer an expected, often times happier, ending. Eye in the Sky was not that sort of movie. At the core of the film is a question raised by Star Trek so many years ago: how do we value life? How do you weigh 80 potential deaths to 1 certain death? Does it matter if that death is a child?
The movie did a good job of resisting any certainties. There were always other options available to the mission operators, and all of them had terrible consequences. Eye in the Sky also did a good job showing the logistical nightmare faced by people looking to perform a military operation. It explored all the legal, political, and militaristic ramifications of each action taken and not taken. No one felt good about the choice made, and no one felt good about not making the choice.
I really "enjoyed" the movie, as much as one can enjoy such a dark film that is completely incapable of ending happily.
The movie did a good job of resisting any certainties. There were always other options available to the mission operators, and all of them had terrible consequences. Eye in the Sky also did a good job showing the logistical nightmare faced by people looking to perform a military operation. It explored all the legal, political, and militaristic ramifications of each action taken and not taken. No one felt good about the choice made, and no one felt good about not making the choice.
I really "enjoyed" the movie, as much as one can enjoy such a dark film that is completely incapable of ending happily.
Monday, April 4, 2016
27.) Hello, My Name is Doris [3/31/2016]
I like movies with non-standard representations of poorly represented characters. In this movie, Doris, an older woman played by Sally Field, falls for and actively pursues the younger new art director John Freemont, played by Max Greenfield. Without giving away too much of the plot, it was nice that film pushed against stereotypes about older women. The movie was under-developed in a lot of places, but overall it was a fairly enjoyable movie.
26.) Whiskey Tango Foxtrot [3/29/2016]
This was Hurt Locker meets Eat Pray Love for war journalism, and Tina Fey was great as the adrenaline junkie reporter looking for excitement from her humdrum, rich white lady life. It would have been nice if the actors playing Afghan characters were, perhaps, Afghans. Instead, they trot out Alfred Molina (a British actor with Italian and Spanish parentage) and Christopher Abbott (an American actor with Portuguese and Italian ancestry). Still, it was a pretty solid movie.
25.) Batman Vs. Superman: Dawn of Justice [3/25/2016]
I fully expected to hate this movie. Superman: Man of Steel made me uncontrollably angry, and the previews made it seem like 70% of the film was set in the rain for some reason. The new line of DC movies, unlike their line of TV shows, is unremittingly sad, having sucked the whimsy from superheroes in favor of dark, gritty, and brooding. BvS:DoJ continued down that road, with sad Superman fighting sad Batman in the rain. Then dark, muted Wonder Woman joined in when the left-over CGI from the Turtles reboot was unleashed on the city by Lex Luthor (played by Jesse Eisenberg, a low-rent, poor-man's version of Heath Ledger's Joker). It wasn't great. It wasn't even good. Somehow, though, it was better than I expected.
24.) Allegiant [3/22/2016]
I really liked Divergent. It was like Hunger Games, but I liked the characters better (particularly Shailene Woodley). The idea of a society divided by factions which set upon itself when one decided it could be better at ruling than the other. Then a war broke out in the second movie to resolve that issue. The third movie, then, was seemed unneeded, and the actual movie didn't really give reason for its existence. There wasn't anything particularly bad about it, though the Jeff Daniel twist was painfully obvious; it just didn't seem to add anything to the series as a whole, and when it ended it didn't seem to really end. So, I guess, what was the point?
Tuesday, March 15, 2016
23.) Triple 9 [3/14/2016]
This was a poor man's Training Day, but without the benefit of Denzel Washington. The movie started, people died, and then it ended. I wasn't sure why, and I didn't particularly care.
22.) 10 Cloverfield Lane [IMAX 3/11/2016]
Full disclosure: I never saw the first Cloverfield, so I didn't carry any of that baggage into this film. That said, I really enjoyed this movie. I have a lot of time for films that take risks or try something new, and 10 Cloverfield Lane tried to do something different. It's hard to talk too much about the movie without giving too much away, especially the parts I liked the best. I'll leave it at this: it was a movie that was worth the time, if for no other reason that John Goodman's and Mary Elizabeth Winstead's performance. It is not a perfect movie, by any means, and there were certainly some plot holes. All in all, though, it was really enjoyable.
Monday, March 14, 2016
21.) London Has Fallen [3/10/2016]
The sequel to Olympus has Fallen (or possible White House Down, I can't be bothered to look it up and the two were identical movies), did not take a much more deft hand to international diplomacy than it's predecessor. Again, some scary brown people took the President of the United States hostage as payment for the atrocities the US has caused around the world. Strangely, they killed the leaders of about ten other nations, too, for good measure or some other reason. Again, Mike Banning must go on a one-man killing spree to save him. Oddly, though, the terrorists had a point in this film: America, by killing hundreds of innocent people at a wedding, had created this very situation, and the film failed to address that issue save for one last-minute speech by the Vice President (played by Morgan Freeman), arguing that we must "engage with the world," though it wasn't exactly clear how using the military to destroy innocent lives from a mile in the air counted as "engagement." Outside of one interesting long shot were Mike Banning stormed the terrorist stronghold, the movie was a tonal mess, presented a problematic view of national security, and featured the sort of cowboy-style rescue antics that made John Wayne famous. If that's your bag, then this movie should suit you well.
Sunday, March 6, 2016
20.) Race [3/6/2016]
This late-Winter seems to be the time for movies about Olympic glory. Unlike Eddie the Eagle, which took huge liberties with the source material, Race sacrificed the core of the narrative for devotion to the truth of Jesse Owen's life. In the end, the movie glanced off Owen's incredibly interesting achievements to ensure that the viewer got a historically accurate image of Owen's life around the Olympics. Some of the context which was needed to explain why this Olympics was so problematic, was left unexplained. In the end, the complicated nature of Owen's involvement was noted, but hardly explored. A good story told poorly.
19.) Gods of Egypt [3D 3/3/2016]
I'll say this about Gods of Egypt: the dubious choice to cast all the central characters as white Europeans was not the worst part of this movie. It took the worst parts of Transformers, 300, and the Hobbit movies to produce what will likely end Nikolaj Coster-Waldau's budding career on the big screen.
18.) Eddie the Eagle [3/2/2016]
I don't care if the movie took giant liberties with the source material, this was a fun movie about a fun person who participated in a fun sport. What's not to like about a middle-class guy breaking all the rules and willing himself to Olympic glory? I also developed a lot of respect for Taron Egerton, who could have turned down the role of Eddie Edwards as it was not the sexiest of roles (and nothing like The Kingsmen, which is where I discovered him). Eddie the Eagle was this generation's Cool Runnings, complete with tutting, all-white European rivals; down-on-his luck coach, and a moral victory in the place of any actual victory.
17.) Anomalisa [3/1/2016]
I love Charlie Kaufman, and fully realize that his movies aren't for everyone. Not surprisingly, I liked Anomalisa, but I can also understand how people would hate it. A movie full of puppets, metaphorical trickery, full-frontal puppet nudity (and a surprisingly long, incredibly awkward puppet sex scene), and a story about a shitty person struggling to find himself is not really something everyone is going to like. My Mom hated it (though, I am sure seeing puppets go at it for what felt like twenty minutes while sitting next to your son would shade your appreciation of the movie). I have a lot of time for movies that try new things, and this movie was incredibly clever in the way that most of his movies are clever. Like Hateful 8, which was a pastiche of Tarantino movies, Anomalisa was the boiled down essence of Kaufman's entire set of work. If you like weird, plodding movies about the human condition and can empathize with imperfect people, you'll like this movie.
16.) Deadpool [2/19-IMAX, 2/23, 2/28/2016]
Recently, I've been hard on superhero movies (all action movies, really). There has been a formulaic quality to most of Marvel's movies (Antman, The Avengers: Age of Ultron) and a fundemental misunderstanding of the characters in DC's movies (Superman: Man of Steel). And then there was The Fantastic Four reboot, which holds a special place as one of the worst movies I have seen in living memory. I was nervous about Deadpool. His portrayal in Wolverine: Origins was almost aggressively bad, like the film-makers hated the viewer, and the studio was not really invested in what was turning out the be Ryan Reynolds passion project. My anxiety could not have been more displaced. I really enjoyed this movie. This is not to say that it was perfect. The masturbation jokes missed a few times, Colossus looked terrible, and the bad guy had some incredibly inconsistent powers. Regardless, the movie was fun while working within and pushing against the confines of the genre. I put Deadpool in the same category as Iron-Man, The Avengers, Guardians of the Galaxy, and Batman: The Dark Knight: superhero films that were good stories that happened to include superheroes.
Tuesday, March 1, 2016
15.) Lady in the Van [2/25/2016]
The title of this movie pretty much sums it up: there is an old lady that lives in a van. She manages to push her way, through guilt, stubbornness, and a decided lack of social graces, onto playwright Alan Bennett's driveway, who reluctantly ends up caring for her. As the story unfolds, it turns out her circumstance was the result of several intersecting happenstances (some her own doing; some just poor luck). Told from Bennett's perspective in the same vein as Maus, the movie is more about those around the lady in the van, and how she alters their lives for better or worse. The incredibly watchable Maggie Smith plays the titular lady in the van, and that alone makes it worth the price of admission.
Thursday, February 18, 2016
14.) 45 Years [2/18/2016]
I went into this film practically blind, noting that it had done well on the film festival circuit. The film is about the quick disillusionment of a lengthy marriage as a secret suddenly surfaces. Once this secret is revealed, the characters struggle to keep the information contained, protecting the precious memories from the poison of excavation and re-examination in light of new evidence. This is hardly an action packed thriller or even a fast-paced, dialogue driven film (like Spotlight or Trumbo). Instead, the agonizing truth is revealed slowly as each new layer is reluctantly peeled back. I really enjoyed this film, and Tom Courtenay's northern-ish accent was endearing, but this is not a film for those who are tired, looking for simple entertainment, or who are terribly depressed.
13.) Pride and Prejudice and Zombies [2/16/2016]
I was prepared to hate watch what I was assuming would be another Sucker Punch: a vehicle solely for watching scantily clad women fight like ninjas. Blessedly, no one danced people into a trance to fight in their dreams (am I remembering the plot right?). Instead, P&P&Z tried it's hardest to stick to the aesthetic of the original Austen novel, which I have admittedly never read so that previous claim is a bit of an assumption. They took the original story of love, independence, and gender roles and grafted zombies onto the plot points, which was more clever than I thought it could be. In the end, it was more fun than I expected to have and I walked out having enjoyed myself. It didn't hurt that Matt Smith was in it, charming as ever. All in all, I would suggest this movie if someone were looking for a decent pop-corn flick.
Sunday, February 14, 2016
12.) Hail, Caesar! [2/5/2016]
I love the Coen Brothers films (I often list Fargo as one my favorite), and I was really looking forward to a Coen Brothers comedy (to be fair, I was likely looking for another The Big Lebowski). The movie was good, but I don't think I got it on one viewing. I enjoyed the movie, but I felt like I should have liked it more (and probably would after a second viewing). It was certainly a different role for George Clooney, and Channing Tatum was hilarious. If you like the quirky Coens, then likely this would be a good movie for you; if not, you'll like find it odd.
11.) Jane Got a Gun [2/2/2016]
This was a pretty straight-ahead Western in the style of Howard Hawks. Natalie Portman played the the woman in distress, Joel Edgerton played the man who saved her, and Ewan McGregor played the villain. The movie looked gorgeous, and was certainly entertaining enough, but ultimately, I'll forget that I saw this movie pretty quickly.
Tuesday, February 2, 2016
10.) The Finest Hour [1/30/2016 - 3D IMAX]
Chris Pine seems to be cast in movies about historical events in which seemingly insurmountable odds were overcome (see: Unstoppable, 2010; alternatively, his tenure on the Star Trek films could be fictionalized accounts of these same movies). Despite knowing that everything turns out okay in the end, The Finest Hour was an incredibly tense movie. It could have to do with my Midwestern distrust of deep water, but the long shots of impossibly turgid waves breaking massive oil tankers in half has now replaced all my previously recurring nightmares. This was a good movie, and worth seeing on the big screen (the 3D didn't add much, but the scope of the IMAX was a nice touch).
9.) Fifth Wave [1/26/2016]
This movie was the worst because it could have been so much better. It was a mess of tropes cobbled together from science-fiction which were watered-down and made to reflect America's history of colonialism. Unfortunately, the sociological explorations into, say, the treatments of Native Americans, were mired in a ridiculously sappy love story that mirrors the Pocahontas narrative (native clutching baby visual motif included, save the baby was a stuffed bear).
As a side note: this is the second science fiction disappointment in which love was somehow a narrative fulcrum (see: Interstellar), and if this is the direction science-fiction wants to go, I might have to let myself off.
As a side note: this is the second science fiction disappointment in which love was somehow a narrative fulcrum (see: Interstellar), and if this is the direction science-fiction wants to go, I might have to let myself off.
8.) Room [1/22/2016]
I really looked forward to this movie, which seemed to bounce around but never settle on a theater near me. Then it was nominated for a boat-load of awards, and suddenly it was everywhere. The wait was worth it. There were opportunities for the film to turn saccharine or to overly romanticize the terrible situation or overly-lionize Ma and Jack. Instead, the film opted for complexity, allowing the confusing and messy situation to play out in different and unpredictable ways. It was well-worth the wait, and worth the time for those interested.
Tuesday, January 19, 2016
7.) 13 Hours [1/19/2016]
I want to make one thing clear from the onset: the heroism of the six private contractors who saved the CIA operatives in Benghazi is not in question here. Those men risked their lives, saved dozens, and cleaned up a messy situation which they did not create in a hostile and murky political environment. They all deserved to be glorified as heroes, as the movie does. That said...
Michael Bay is not known as a subtle film maker (see: anything he has ever done, ever), and the incident in Benghazi is a complex diplomatic and militaristic situation which is still under investigation as to what really happened. I was worried that Bay would flatten out all the complexities of the narrative to highlight how great America is, and to an extent he certainly did this. In 13 Hours, he makes a compelling argument for smaller government and a private military (the CIA and State Department were one bit with a ladder short of the Keystone Cops in their incompetency), but it completely ignores the complex diplomatic situation that the US was in. It never fully raises the big question: what were any of those people doing in Libya to being with? The failure was not so much the rescue operation as it was the arrogance to think any American would be safe in Libya in 2012. Rather than grapple fully with that question, it shows how the manliest men with beards and private contracts were the only thing standing between American lives and death. It was more nuanced than I was expecting, though, and there were some moments where the film at least acknowledged that it might not be as simple as blowing up the bad guys to save the good guys. In the end, though, the government failed and private enterprise saved the day (which I am not sure is exactly accurate).
Michael Bay is not known as a subtle film maker (see: anything he has ever done, ever), and the incident in Benghazi is a complex diplomatic and militaristic situation which is still under investigation as to what really happened. I was worried that Bay would flatten out all the complexities of the narrative to highlight how great America is, and to an extent he certainly did this. In 13 Hours, he makes a compelling argument for smaller government and a private military (the CIA and State Department were one bit with a ladder short of the Keystone Cops in their incompetency), but it completely ignores the complex diplomatic situation that the US was in. It never fully raises the big question: what were any of those people doing in Libya to being with? The failure was not so much the rescue operation as it was the arrogance to think any American would be safe in Libya in 2012. Rather than grapple fully with that question, it shows how the manliest men with beards and private contracts were the only thing standing between American lives and death. It was more nuanced than I was expecting, though, and there were some moments where the film at least acknowledged that it might not be as simple as blowing up the bad guys to save the good guys. In the end, though, the government failed and private enterprise saved the day (which I am not sure is exactly accurate).
6.) Hateful 8 [1/15/2016]
Quentin Tarantino has long been know for making excellent pastiche films: Reservoir Dogs, Django Unchained, Inglorious Basterds, Pulp Fiction, Kill Bill, and so on. With Hateful 8, he makes a pastiche of Tarantino films, borrowing the best parts of each of his films to make a weird conglomerate that doesn't really hold together well. It was long, full of unnecessary digressions, and overly violent without any context for the violence. If this was his first movie, I would have been interested in a second film, but seeing as this is really late in his career, I was left feeling like he might be out of tricks.
5.) Carol [1/14/2015]
This was not as moving as Freeheld for movies about non-hetero-normative relationships; nor was it as good a story as The Danish Girl for characters struggling with sexual identities. It wasn't a bad film, per se, but it was slow and the plot was extremely subtle. Still, Rooney Mara is excellent, as always, and I am sure fans of Kate Blanchet will like her in this. The most lasting impression from the movie was how awesome the cars were in the 50s, and that should say something about the movie.
4) The Revenant [1/12/2016]
Intellectually, I knew what I was seeing was meant to be incredible, and I can see why other people regarded the movie so highly. The cinematography alone was worth seeing the film on the big screen. Like Birdman, it was full of long, well-frame shots, but unlike Birdman, this movie was filmed in some beautiful locations. Leonardo DiCaprio was good, and Tom Hardy held his own. All in all, though, the movie left me flat. It was interesting enough, but I just couldn't get into the story (particularly the father-son dynamic) and the ending was too Lord-of-the-Rings-esque for my tastes.
Saturday, January 9, 2016
3.) The Big Short [1/9/16]
This film should be required viewing for anyone arguing to deregulate investment banking or looking to buy a house. The Big Short and 99 Homes (one of my favorites from last year) are ready-designed to piss-off the middle class, which it likely needs. In both, it shows that two things are needed to cause a crisis: large, impossibly big, greedy power structures and an uninformed and greedy base. More than just a propaganda piece for Democratic Socialism, the movie had some amazing performances from the lead cast, including a brooding Steve Carell. I also liked the used of quick-cutting visual metaphor montages and celebrity cameos to explain complex economic issues. All in all, everyone should see this movie.
Tuesday, January 5, 2016
2.) Point Break [1/5/2016]
This was an incredibly stupid, though visually beautiful, pop-corn movie that was barely associated to the original of the same name. Overly complicated and utterly pointless, the movie did afford some nice shots of beautiful scenery, so that's something.
Monday, January 4, 2016
1.) The Danish Girl [1/3/2016]
This moving film examined the complicated, confusing, and messy search for identity that faces those who do not neatly fall at either end of the gender spectrum. The film was as much about Einar Wegener's transformation in Lili Elbe (played by the incredible Eddie Redmayne) as it was about Lili's wife Gerda (Alicia Vikander) who helped Lili emerge and lost her husband in the process. This was excellent and everyone should see this film.
2015 Top Ten
This year was a bit light with only 87 trips to the theater. Stupid job and graduation got in the way. Like last year, this list is culled from the movies I saw in 2015, so some excellent movies are left off the list, most notably Room and Dear White People, which were released at inconvenient times for my schedule. Without further hemming or hawing:
Top 10:
10: Everest - There are still images from this film that haunt me
9. Inside Out - The best Pixar has put out in a while
8. Joy - Jennifer Lawrence's best performance ever
7. Bridge of Spies - A tense WWII spy film showing what the Bond film should have been
6. Me and Earl and the Dying Girl - An adorable movie about love, dying and teenagers
5. Dope - An incredibly fun, well-written indi-flick about nerdy kids out of their element
4. Trumbo - Bryan Cranston stands up for actual freedom
3. 99 Homes - Michael Shannon and Andrew Garfield show how terrible the housing crisis was
2. Mad Max: Fury Road - The best of the rebooted franchises this year
1. Ex Machina - Easily the most interesting movie or concept I have seen all year
Honorable Mentions:
Black Sea - Jude Law can still act
Woman in Gold - Really well-acted movie about the fallout of the Nazis
End of the Tour - Maybe not the most honest bio-pic, but nonetheless entertaining
New for this year: Bottom Five - the worst movies of 2015
There were a lot of mediocre movies, or just poorly produced, but these five were really, really terrible.
5. No Escape - A boring, unintelligible movie about uprisings and survival
4. A Walk in the Woods - Unnecessary and hardly representative of the source material
3. Paper Towns - Few movies have made me this angry at young people
2. Jupiter Ascending - ALL THE EXPLOSIONS!
Top 10:
10: Everest - There are still images from this film that haunt me
9. Inside Out - The best Pixar has put out in a while
8. Joy - Jennifer Lawrence's best performance ever
7. Bridge of Spies - A tense WWII spy film showing what the Bond film should have been
6. Me and Earl and the Dying Girl - An adorable movie about love, dying and teenagers
5. Dope - An incredibly fun, well-written indi-flick about nerdy kids out of their element
4. Trumbo - Bryan Cranston stands up for actual freedom
3. 99 Homes - Michael Shannon and Andrew Garfield show how terrible the housing crisis was
2. Mad Max: Fury Road - The best of the rebooted franchises this year
1. Ex Machina - Easily the most interesting movie or concept I have seen all year
Honorable Mentions:
Black Sea - Jude Law can still act
Diary of a Teenage Girl - A neat little indi-flick about a girl becoming a woman
Love and Mercy - Good movie about good musicWoman in Gold - Really well-acted movie about the fallout of the Nazis
End of the Tour - Maybe not the most honest bio-pic, but nonetheless entertaining
New for this year: Bottom Five - the worst movies of 2015
There were a lot of mediocre movies, or just poorly produced, but these five were really, really terrible.
5. No Escape - A boring, unintelligible movie about uprisings and survival
4. A Walk in the Woods - Unnecessary and hardly representative of the source material
2. Jupiter Ascending - ALL THE EXPLOSIONS!
1. Fantastic Four - Just...awful. Awful.
89.) Joy [12/30/2105]
David O. Russell doesn't work often, but when he does it's usually great and usually stars Jennifer Lawrence and Bradley Cooper, and Joy follows the success of Silver Lining's Playbook and American Hustle; Lawrence, who was in practically every scene save a few flashbacks, was phenomenal in this beautifully shot, slow-moving character study of a women who would not accept what life had given her.
88.) Concussion [12/26/2015]
This year has been a year for films that explore insidious cover-ups by large, powerful organizations (Spotlight, Sicario, etc. etc.) and Concussion continues that trend, where Dr. Bennett Omalu (Will Smith) plays the righteous David and the NFL plays the powerful Goliath; despite the fact that most of this excellent film was spent discussing medical issues (including several montages of actual studying), the film was surprisingly tense, and Will Smith gave what might have been his best performance ever.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)