And we roll around to another year of Oscar voting. I can I certainly have no idea what will really happen tomorrow? Revenant love? Mad Max unexpectedly triumphs? We'll know tomorrow, but for now, I'm throwing down my predictions for all the Oscars, and boy am I out on a limb. I'm predicting almost no Revenant love, lots of Mad Max love in the tech, and an unlikely best picture winner.
Best Picture
For the first time in a long time, we have a 3-way split from the guilds, which is absolutely no help when it comes to picking Best Picture. Usually you can rely on the guilds to be consistent, but since the PGA went to Big Short, DGA went to Revenant, and SAG went to Spotlight, this is really anyones game. And I'm going with Spotlight, probably the least likely of the three to win. And here's why: the actors make up the largest body of voters at the Academy, so if they voted for Spotlight at their show, then they will vote for it again. Not only that, but Spotlight is the only film I've heard unanimously from everyone I know that they love it. It's marketing itself as an important film and will probably motivate to vote for it on that alone. Members love an important film. Big Short also has this going for it, as it is about various Wall Streeters predicting the market collapse, and is big exclamation point on not repeating the whole debacle. But it didn't strike a chord with me, and I don't think it carries enough heft. Revenant is obviously the heavy contender frontrunner, but never in the history of the Oscars have two films directed by the same person won back-to-back Best Picture awards (Inarritu directed Birdman last year). And plus, it's a movie that fails to register; I personally didn't care about Leo's struggles. So Spotlight it is. I'm going all in on that.
Prediction: Spotlight
Actor in a Leading Role
It's Leo's year. Everyone knows. He's fine in the movie, he acts his damn heart out. He acts harder than anyone in this category. It's his to lose. And if he does, well, I have no clue who will upset. This one seems obvious.
Prediction: Leonardo DiCaprio in The Revenant
Actress in a Leading Role
This one also seems locked in, although I'm more invested in Brie Larson winning for Room since she did a damn good job and has always been a fantastic actor. I would say Charlotte Rampling perhaps, but she shot herself in the foot with some stupid statement she made about equality. Larson's to lose.
Prediction: Brie Larson in Room
Actor in a Supporting Role
Here is a category where I smell an upset. A lot of people are rooting for Stallone to finally win for his 40-year-long performance as Rocky Balboa, and I'll be reasonably happy if he wins. But Mark Rylance was fantastic in Bridge of Spies, and if the Academy is going to repeat last year where they gave every Best Pic nominee one Oscar, then Rylance is the most likely winner. But I won't vote against everyone's favorite boxer.
Prediction: Sylvester Stallone in Creed
Actress in a Supporting Role
Kate Winslet won the SAG but everyone seems to think Alicia Vikander, who had a great year between Danish Girl and Ex Machina, will take the prize. Who I am to disagree?
Prediction: Alicia Vikander in The Danish Girl
Animated Feature Film
This is a weird category this year, where Pixar and Aardman go up against Charlie Kaufmann's existential crisis stop-motion film. But Inside Out will be the winner. More then just proving Pixar can still be great, this film has moved me more than any film in recent memory. A fantastically mature family film.
Prediction: Inside Out
Cinematography
Roger Deakins will lose again. Which is a shame because his work is the best part of the otherwise overrated Sicario. Mad Max would also be a strong contender here, as well as Hateful Eight's much touted Super Panavision 70 mm film. But The Revenant truly is a beautiful film to look at, and will be Emmanuel Lubezki's 3rd year winning. That's the only thing going against him, but I doubt the Oscar voters remember he's won in the past.
Prediction: The Revenant
Costume Design
The rule of thumb here is to pick the costumiest movie in the bunch, that produces the best dresses. So that movie would be Cinderella. A lot of people seem to think Mad Max, but I feel the costumes are showy or glamorous enough. That movie's strength comes in the make-up more.
Prediction: Cinderella
Directing
For this one, I will not defy the guild. DGA says Inarritu, I see no reason to think otherwise. Shooting The Revenant was a hell of an experience, I hear. I would lover George Miller to win this, but sadly that is merely a dream and will not be a reality.
Prediction: The Revenant
Documentary Feature
I've seen 3 of the 5, and Amy is still the best. A fantastic doc about the pop star's tabloid and drug filled life that led to her early death, joining the 27 club. Cartel Land was fascinating but uneven, and if the Academy didn't award Josh Oppenheimer for Act of Killing, they certainly won't for the follow-up, The Look of Silence, as wrenching as it is.
Prediction: Amy
Documentary Short Subject
I have no idea. So I went with the consensus.
Prediction: Body Team 12
Film Editing
This one has to be Mad Max. Action films call the most attention to their editing if they are bad, and you don't notice it if it is great. Mad Max is a film where the editing truly is invisible, propelling along the intense narrative and many amazing car chases. Big Short is the other likely winner.
Prediction: Mad Max: Fury Road
Foreign Language Film
I missed out on these this year. But Son of Saul seems to be the favorite. So it is the one I will choose.
Prediction: Son of Saul
Makeup and Hairstyling
Definitely one of Mad Max's greatest strengths. The look of Immortan Joe, of the warboys, of the various members of the Citadel and Furiosa's grease-stained forehead. Although Tom Hardy's hair in Revenant was pretty convincing too.
Prediction: Mad Max: Fury Road
Music (Original Score)
Ennio Morricone's score is the one to beat here. Of course John Williams may be given one more for Star Wars, but I think they'll go with the master composer here.
Prediction: The Hateful Eight
Music (Original Song)
Despite its overplayed nature, I really liked "Earned It." It's a catchy, mysterious tune. But "Til it Happens to You" comes from the doc The Hunting Ground about rape on college campuses. It's also a sad song, sung by Lady GaGa, who had a strong show at the Oscars last year singing The Sound of Music. I really have no feeling either way (and am especially surprised Sam Smith is here, but Furious 7 song "See You Again" isn't), but I assume Lady GaGa will win. It's a song with a message, and if I'm going with Spotlight in the top spot, than I must go with this too.
Prediction: "Til it Happens to You" from The Hunting Ground
Production Design
Another Mad Max win. That citadel is pretty sweet. And so are those cars.
Prediction: Mad Max: Fury Road
Short Film (Animated)
I only have seen World of Tomorrow because Netflix had it. It isn't the favorite, but I liked it a lot, so why not vote with my heart here.
Prediction: World of Tomorrow
Short Film (Live Action)
Haven't seen any of these. So...
Prediction: Shok
Sound Editing and Mixing
I know they are different, but my prediction is the same for both. Mad Max. Revenant is also likely for either or both. But I suck at predicting which it will be, so why not go all in.
Prediction: Mad Max: Fury Road
Visual Effects
Mad Max, although Star Wars could easily take this. But there are so many visual effects going on and you don't even notice them because they are serving the story, rather than driving it. I was amazed seeing what was fake and what wasn't.
Prediction: Mad Max: Fury Road
Writing (Adapted Screenplay)
I'm giving this to Big Short, because it won the WGA.
Prediction: The Big Short
Writing (Original Screenplay)
Spotlight! It also won the WGA. Also, I'm saying it will win Best Picture but didn't pick it to win any of the other categories. So its gotta win something else.
Prediction: Spotlight
Check back tomorrow when I post my results!
Saturday, February 27, 2016
Monday, February 15, 2016
Deadpool (2016)
Deadpool opens with probably the funniest gag in the whole film: an opening credits scene that substitutes the actors and crew members for generic descriptions of who they are. The cast includes "A comedic actor" (Ryan Reynolds), "A hot chick" (Morena Baccarin), and "A british villain" (Ed Srkein), and finishes with "Directed by An Overpaid Toolbag." There are several others sprinkled throughout that I won't give away, but the best was definitely the writer's credit.
This sets the stage for essentially what Deadpool is; a comic-book movie that knows it is a comic-book movie. Deadpool (Reynolds) starts by telling us he fellated Wolverine to get the film, and the fourth wall jokes more or less don't stop coming as the movie makes knowing references to its very existence.
This is all fine and funny in a very Mel Brooks way, although there is nothing quite as fourth-wall breaking as the characters watching the movie they are in in Spaceballs (1987). Deadpool makes reference to a fourth-wall break within a fourth-wall break, but that's about as meta as the movie gets. The rest is a bunch of more-or-less funny throwaway gags that are akin to the MacFarlane animated universe (Family Guy specifically), although they always seem at least connected to what is going on.
The movie proper is about an anti-villain, Wade Wilson (keeping with Marvel's grand tradition of alliterative names), an ex-mercenary for hire who falls in love (Baccarin) and seems to pretty happy, until he learns he has cancer. He is approached to undergo an intense procedure that would accelerate the mutant gene in his DNA (this takes place in the X-Men universe, although barley any of them are present as the movie cheekily acknowledges), and finds himself in the hands of a sadist, Ajax, who grants him the power of healing, at the cost of his physical appearance.
The rest of the movie follows Wilson as he adapts to his horrible new look and pursues Ajax, who claims to have a cure. Along the way he is ashamed of himself and can't face his girlfriend for fear she will reject him, because he is so shallow that he knows he would reject himself.
Despite all the fourth-wall humor and acknowledgment of the clichés, this movie is fairly paint-by-numbers in terms of plot beats. The girlfriend becomes the Damsel-in-Distress, although refreshingly the final battle does not involve the stakes of the world proper. But nothing particularly interesting or exciting happens here, as the movie trods out the same tired old clichés that it is mocking. That's all fine and good, but for a movie like this that promised so much in its marketing, I was hoping for something a bit edgier.
The movie earns its R rating, if you can say that. Heads fly, blood splatters, obscene phrases are unleashed. A lot of people celebrate this as being the first real mainstream "adult" superhero film, but I think people are blurring the line between jokes appropriate for adults, and movies made for adults. Deadpool is strictly the former, as it is definitely not appropriate for an underage crowd, but it offers nothing of substance or variety to the more mature audiences its targeting (although, let's be real, Deadpool's real goal is the 13 - 16 year old boys who will be sneaking into this). Plus, Marvel itself is doing a lot more interesting, "adult" stuff with the superhero genre in their Netflix outings (Daredevil and Jessica Jones so far).
Overall, Deadpool is a pretty good time. The jokes fly fast so that if a few miss the mark, at least something will land. And the movie shifts between fourth wall humor and a more serious take on the situation and achieves an impressive tonal balance, which is to be commended. Basically, you'll know if you'll like Deadpool from the red-band trailer. It's one of the few times that you can honestly trust the marketing to sell you the film.
This sets the stage for essentially what Deadpool is; a comic-book movie that knows it is a comic-book movie. Deadpool (Reynolds) starts by telling us he fellated Wolverine to get the film, and the fourth wall jokes more or less don't stop coming as the movie makes knowing references to its very existence.
This is all fine and funny in a very Mel Brooks way, although there is nothing quite as fourth-wall breaking as the characters watching the movie they are in in Spaceballs (1987). Deadpool makes reference to a fourth-wall break within a fourth-wall break, but that's about as meta as the movie gets. The rest is a bunch of more-or-less funny throwaway gags that are akin to the MacFarlane animated universe (Family Guy specifically), although they always seem at least connected to what is going on.
The movie proper is about an anti-villain, Wade Wilson (keeping with Marvel's grand tradition of alliterative names), an ex-mercenary for hire who falls in love (Baccarin) and seems to pretty happy, until he learns he has cancer. He is approached to undergo an intense procedure that would accelerate the mutant gene in his DNA (this takes place in the X-Men universe, although barley any of them are present as the movie cheekily acknowledges), and finds himself in the hands of a sadist, Ajax, who grants him the power of healing, at the cost of his physical appearance.
The rest of the movie follows Wilson as he adapts to his horrible new look and pursues Ajax, who claims to have a cure. Along the way he is ashamed of himself and can't face his girlfriend for fear she will reject him, because he is so shallow that he knows he would reject himself.
Despite all the fourth-wall humor and acknowledgment of the clichés, this movie is fairly paint-by-numbers in terms of plot beats. The girlfriend becomes the Damsel-in-Distress, although refreshingly the final battle does not involve the stakes of the world proper. But nothing particularly interesting or exciting happens here, as the movie trods out the same tired old clichés that it is mocking. That's all fine and good, but for a movie like this that promised so much in its marketing, I was hoping for something a bit edgier.
The movie earns its R rating, if you can say that. Heads fly, blood splatters, obscene phrases are unleashed. A lot of people celebrate this as being the first real mainstream "adult" superhero film, but I think people are blurring the line between jokes appropriate for adults, and movies made for adults. Deadpool is strictly the former, as it is definitely not appropriate for an underage crowd, but it offers nothing of substance or variety to the more mature audiences its targeting (although, let's be real, Deadpool's real goal is the 13 - 16 year old boys who will be sneaking into this). Plus, Marvel itself is doing a lot more interesting, "adult" stuff with the superhero genre in their Netflix outings (Daredevil and Jessica Jones so far).
Overall, Deadpool is a pretty good time. The jokes fly fast so that if a few miss the mark, at least something will land. And the movie shifts between fourth wall humor and a more serious take on the situation and achieves an impressive tonal balance, which is to be commended. Basically, you'll know if you'll like Deadpool from the red-band trailer. It's one of the few times that you can honestly trust the marketing to sell you the film.
Friday, February 5, 2016
Hail, Caesar! (2016)
Hail, Caesar! is the latest offering from the auteur sibling duo the Coen Brothers, who have been on quite a run of great films recently. Starting with No Country For Old Men back in 2007, almost every offering from the Coens has been a distinct, refreshing little masterpiece of human drama. The one film in this run I didn't care for was their 2008 all-star comedy, Burn After Reading. Hail, Caesar! is very much in the same vein as that movie, and it sadly did not resonate with me.
I love the Coens' comedy, but I think I love it when it is embedded inside a drama. The cheery accents that pepper the landscape of Fargo (1996), or the matter-of-fact attitudes surrounding the lead's slowly disintegrating life in A Serious Man (2009). Even Inside Llewyn Davis (2013), a decidedly bleak tale of artistry, finds humor in a cowboy played by Adam Driver, and a jammin' tune that has recently gone viral because it features Oscar Isaac and Driver together, both stars of the recent Star Wars entry.
Hail, Caesar! is a day-in-the-life comedy about a studio exec, Eddie Mannix (Josh Brolin), whose job is damage control on all the various productions running on the backlot of the fictional Capitol Pictures, circa 1950s Hollywood. He's a devout Catholic who confesses every day that he's lying to his wife (his sin? He simply can't quit smoking). Drama comes when the lead actor of the studio's bible epic Hail, Caesar! (played by George Clooney) is kidnapped by a mysterious group that calls themselves the Future.
What follows is Mannix's attempt to recover Clooney's character, known as Baird Whitlock, as the movie sidesteps to various productions around the back lot. The movie is almost a series of sketches, the Coens' attempt to recreate old classic movies from the 50s that are not made anymore, as we visit a Western where the star is stunt-extraordinaire Hobie Doyle (Alden Ehrenreich), an Esther Williams-style musical with synchronized swimming in a big pool led by DeeAnna Moran (Scarlett Johansson in an underwritten role), and a Gene Kelly-style musical where sailors sing about missing Dames with decidedly homosexual overtones, led by Burt Gurney (Channing Tatum).
What this adds up to I'm not sure. As separate parts, some of the Coens' funniest stuff comes out, including a scene where four religious leaders of separate faith discuss the studio's depiction of Jesus, and a fantastic scene where Cowboy hunk Hobie is reassigned to a stuffy drama directed by Lawrence Laurentz (Ralph Fiennes) which leads to a hilarious rapid-fire diction exchange (Would that it were so simple).
But again, it doesn't really come together. Mannix is the thread that stitches all this stuff together but as a lead character, and especially a Coen creation, he's rather boring. He's weighing a job offer that would promise him great stock options and retirement from his tightly-wound life at the studio, but I never felt his conflict about accepting this job. His decision at the end is supposed to be some sort of great revelation on his behalf, but for the audience it registers as flat, and unsurprising.
The stuff with Whitlock and the Future people is appropriately weird, but doesn't ever go anywhere and fizzles with a very bizarre twist. There are side plotlines galore including DeeAnna's out-of-wedlock pregnancy that could lead to a potential scandal, Tilda Swinton serving double-duty as sister gossip journalists, and Hobie being set-up with another starlet at the studio, which adds up to one overstuffed movie.
I guess I don't necessarily like when the Coens do straight comedy. I think the problem here is that, ultimately, there were seeds of great ideas, but the Coens tried to do everything and never successfully reigned it in to one concise whole. I love the idea of recreating all these old hokey movies, paying tribute while simultaneously lampooning (Hail, Caesar! is clearly a direct parody of Ben-Hur). And there are some genuinely funny scenes. But the movie never grabbed me, and I left the theater not thinking much about it. That's sad, because some of the Coens best work has stayed with me for days.
I love the Coens' comedy, but I think I love it when it is embedded inside a drama. The cheery accents that pepper the landscape of Fargo (1996), or the matter-of-fact attitudes surrounding the lead's slowly disintegrating life in A Serious Man (2009). Even Inside Llewyn Davis (2013), a decidedly bleak tale of artistry, finds humor in a cowboy played by Adam Driver, and a jammin' tune that has recently gone viral because it features Oscar Isaac and Driver together, both stars of the recent Star Wars entry.
Hail, Caesar! is a day-in-the-life comedy about a studio exec, Eddie Mannix (Josh Brolin), whose job is damage control on all the various productions running on the backlot of the fictional Capitol Pictures, circa 1950s Hollywood. He's a devout Catholic who confesses every day that he's lying to his wife (his sin? He simply can't quit smoking). Drama comes when the lead actor of the studio's bible epic Hail, Caesar! (played by George Clooney) is kidnapped by a mysterious group that calls themselves the Future.
What follows is Mannix's attempt to recover Clooney's character, known as Baird Whitlock, as the movie sidesteps to various productions around the back lot. The movie is almost a series of sketches, the Coens' attempt to recreate old classic movies from the 50s that are not made anymore, as we visit a Western where the star is stunt-extraordinaire Hobie Doyle (Alden Ehrenreich), an Esther Williams-style musical with synchronized swimming in a big pool led by DeeAnna Moran (Scarlett Johansson in an underwritten role), and a Gene Kelly-style musical where sailors sing about missing Dames with decidedly homosexual overtones, led by Burt Gurney (Channing Tatum).
What this adds up to I'm not sure. As separate parts, some of the Coens' funniest stuff comes out, including a scene where four religious leaders of separate faith discuss the studio's depiction of Jesus, and a fantastic scene where Cowboy hunk Hobie is reassigned to a stuffy drama directed by Lawrence Laurentz (Ralph Fiennes) which leads to a hilarious rapid-fire diction exchange (Would that it were so simple).
But again, it doesn't really come together. Mannix is the thread that stitches all this stuff together but as a lead character, and especially a Coen creation, he's rather boring. He's weighing a job offer that would promise him great stock options and retirement from his tightly-wound life at the studio, but I never felt his conflict about accepting this job. His decision at the end is supposed to be some sort of great revelation on his behalf, but for the audience it registers as flat, and unsurprising.
The stuff with Whitlock and the Future people is appropriately weird, but doesn't ever go anywhere and fizzles with a very bizarre twist. There are side plotlines galore including DeeAnna's out-of-wedlock pregnancy that could lead to a potential scandal, Tilda Swinton serving double-duty as sister gossip journalists, and Hobie being set-up with another starlet at the studio, which adds up to one overstuffed movie.
I guess I don't necessarily like when the Coens do straight comedy. I think the problem here is that, ultimately, there were seeds of great ideas, but the Coens tried to do everything and never successfully reigned it in to one concise whole. I love the idea of recreating all these old hokey movies, paying tribute while simultaneously lampooning (Hail, Caesar! is clearly a direct parody of Ben-Hur). And there are some genuinely funny scenes. But the movie never grabbed me, and I left the theater not thinking much about it. That's sad, because some of the Coens best work has stayed with me for days.
Friday, March 20, 2015
Gett: The Trial of Viviane Amsalem (2015)
Trials come packaged with a lot of drama. They're the subject of many serializations and novels, and we come back to them again and again in fiction because they are a natural fit for suspense and stakes. The decision of the court can change the lives of those involved. The audience acts as a surrogate judge, listening to testimonies and weighing for themselves whether or not to side with the plaintiff or the defendant.
The interesting thing about most court dramas is that you are usually pre-disposed to be rooting for someone from the beginning, whether it be the good lawyer taking up a charity case for righteous reasons (as Atticus Finch does), or a defendant who has been wronged and is facing impossible odds. Most court dramas exist in and out of the courtroom, as we see lawyers prepare witnesses or deal with the struggles of their case going sour.
Gett: The Trial of Viviane Amsalem opens in a courtroom, and never leaves. We are given no set-up as to who to root for, although we suppose it is Viviane (Ronit Elkabetz) we are to be sympathetic with since her name rests in the title. We learn that after 30 years of marriage, Viviane wants a divorce from her husband, Elisha (Simon Abkarian). Yet according to both of them, he has never beaten her, never cheated on her, and has always provided for her. So what possible reason could she have for leaving him?
The film is set in Israel, in current times, where civil marriage and civil divorce does not exist. Instead, rabbis hold the key to all unions, the beginning and the end. And for a divorce to be approved, both parties (the husband and wife) must consent. If either refuses, and the rabbis have no proof of the marriage being breached, then divorce cannot happen. And so in the opening scenes of Gett, Elisha refuses Viviane's request for a divorce.
What follows is a meticulous procedural that spans half a decade, as first Elisha refuses to appear in court, despite Viviane's continued attempts, and then various witnesses are brought in, most speaking highly of Elisha's character. Some call his stubbornness into question, but nothing significant enough to sway the rabbis who sit as judge.
The movie is mesmerizing from start to finish and moves at a quick pace. Months fly by, marked off by title cards informing the audience how long its been since the last hearing. They soon turn into jokes, as we continuously see title cards marking six months, three months, two months, or two weeks throughout the film. The absurdity of the situation is comical yet tragic, and the audience could not help but laugh at the insanity of the trial.
The film is directed by the brother-sister team of Ronit and Shlomi Elkabetz, who also penned the script. Ronit Elkabetz takes on triple duty as the star of the film, playing Viviane. For the first half of the movie, she sits quietly, but by the second half, she is enraged by the long process and can't stand the humiliation any longer.
Slowly but surely we side with Viviane. We start out sympathetic because the movie has told us too, but we empathize with her as the trial pushes on and her commitment to the divorce stays resolute. She is treated as an object, continuously told to know her place when she tries to speak out, despite her husbands ability to speak unabated. Men still hold a terrifying amount of power over women in Israel, as in the end Viviane is faced with a demeaning choice that will win her the divorce.
The movie holds us prisoner, like Viviane, in the clinically white courtrooms. There is no life to them. We start the film as impartial judges, and end with a definitive opinion that the movie masterfully crafts. This sibling duo behind this film are a critical force to be reckoned with and I look forward to more films from them. This story is no doubt controversial in Israel, but it's a key wake-up call to the rest of us that oppression is still alive in this world.
The interesting thing about most court dramas is that you are usually pre-disposed to be rooting for someone from the beginning, whether it be the good lawyer taking up a charity case for righteous reasons (as Atticus Finch does), or a defendant who has been wronged and is facing impossible odds. Most court dramas exist in and out of the courtroom, as we see lawyers prepare witnesses or deal with the struggles of their case going sour.
Gett: The Trial of Viviane Amsalem opens in a courtroom, and never leaves. We are given no set-up as to who to root for, although we suppose it is Viviane (Ronit Elkabetz) we are to be sympathetic with since her name rests in the title. We learn that after 30 years of marriage, Viviane wants a divorce from her husband, Elisha (Simon Abkarian). Yet according to both of them, he has never beaten her, never cheated on her, and has always provided for her. So what possible reason could she have for leaving him?
The film is set in Israel, in current times, where civil marriage and civil divorce does not exist. Instead, rabbis hold the key to all unions, the beginning and the end. And for a divorce to be approved, both parties (the husband and wife) must consent. If either refuses, and the rabbis have no proof of the marriage being breached, then divorce cannot happen. And so in the opening scenes of Gett, Elisha refuses Viviane's request for a divorce.
What follows is a meticulous procedural that spans half a decade, as first Elisha refuses to appear in court, despite Viviane's continued attempts, and then various witnesses are brought in, most speaking highly of Elisha's character. Some call his stubbornness into question, but nothing significant enough to sway the rabbis who sit as judge.
The movie is mesmerizing from start to finish and moves at a quick pace. Months fly by, marked off by title cards informing the audience how long its been since the last hearing. They soon turn into jokes, as we continuously see title cards marking six months, three months, two months, or two weeks throughout the film. The absurdity of the situation is comical yet tragic, and the audience could not help but laugh at the insanity of the trial.
The film is directed by the brother-sister team of Ronit and Shlomi Elkabetz, who also penned the script. Ronit Elkabetz takes on triple duty as the star of the film, playing Viviane. For the first half of the movie, she sits quietly, but by the second half, she is enraged by the long process and can't stand the humiliation any longer.
Slowly but surely we side with Viviane. We start out sympathetic because the movie has told us too, but we empathize with her as the trial pushes on and her commitment to the divorce stays resolute. She is treated as an object, continuously told to know her place when she tries to speak out, despite her husbands ability to speak unabated. Men still hold a terrifying amount of power over women in Israel, as in the end Viviane is faced with a demeaning choice that will win her the divorce.
The movie holds us prisoner, like Viviane, in the clinically white courtrooms. There is no life to them. We start the film as impartial judges, and end with a definitive opinion that the movie masterfully crafts. This sibling duo behind this film are a critical force to be reckoned with and I look forward to more films from them. This story is no doubt controversial in Israel, but it's a key wake-up call to the rest of us that oppression is still alive in this world.
Friday, February 13, 2015
Kingsman: The Secret Service (2015)
A lot of controversy has started rising around this decidedly "mindless" spy satire. If you don't know what it is, don't worry, I'm sure that if this movie has any form of success, a slow rage will grow over the movie's controversial ending, which I won't spoil here. Needless to say that many people may be going to the cinema's this weekend expecting to see a fun spy spoof in the vein of Agent Cody Banks or even Austin Powers. And while it certainly has some of those elements, it's also directed by Matthew Vaughn from a graphic novel by Mark Millar. If you're unfamiliar with their names, they last paired up for the superhero satire Kick-Ass (2010), and Kingsman is very much a lot of the same stuff.
Colin Firth stars as the member of an elite British spy organization known as Kingsman, which have no affiliation with government (an English Team America, if you will). The organization consider themselves modern-day Knights of the Round Table, and as such they carry special codenames including Galahad (Firth), Merlin (Mark Strong), and Arthur (Michael Caine). When Lancelot (Jack Davenport) is killed in action, Firth and the other Kingsman bring in recruits to see who will take up the vacated place. Firth recruits Eggsy (Taron Egerton), a lower-class youth whose father was once a Kingsman and saved Firth's life.
There's also Samuel L. Jackson as Valentine, a media-savy billionaire whose diabolical scheme is so cartoonish yet so fun I won't reveal it here. Jackson's henchman is Gazelle (Sofia Boutella), who has blades for feet like Olympic runner Oscar Pistorious (someone was very inspired watching the broadcast that year). As villains, they are both great fun: Boutella is a dancer by trade and performs acrobatics that usually end with her foes dismembered (or literally cut in half), while Jackson's plan is essentially to wipe out humanity, yet the sight of blood makes him vomit.
What will rub many people the wrong way about this film is the marketing campaign; until I saw a red band trailer a month ago, I thought Kingsman was going to be a light, silly spy-spoof. It would have fun action scenes, and be a knowing wink and nod to the Bond films. Unfortunately for many, the film is a blood bath, with exploding heads, extreme violence, and some ballsy twists. It is not a family friendly film, and I know many will take their children to the theater this weekend and be shocked by what happens. That is not enough to stir controversy, and what will really turn heads is the death of a sitting leader, which echoes The Interview's recent stint killing Kim Jong-Un. The reason this has not generated press yet is because it is not the sole focus of the film.
But the marketing does not effect my opinion of the film. While many might be turned off by the prospect of the extreme violence, I was intrigued and even began anticipating this film. While there's not much here to merit a rewatch, there is enough to entertain for one viewing. The actors are all very good and likable, and the action set pieces are spectacularly done. The film makes one too many winks at the camera while it sends up spy films, making sure you understand that yes, the villain will dispense of his foes immediately instead of setting up an elaborate kill plan that will lead to that character's escape. While I enjoy these moments, I just wish the movie's characters would stop acknowledging all the clichés of the film they were in. It gets to a point where enough is enough.
I came away enjoying this film more than Kick-Ass; while it shares that film's nihilism, it still maintains an air of fun throughout, and the black comedy mostly works. Kick-Ass took a dark turn in the third act, and then tried to play up the fun element of the story again, which left me uneasy. Kingsman is not a movie to go into blindly; know that it is violent and not for kids. If, like me, that interests you, then you'll probably have a good time like I did.
Colin Firth stars as the member of an elite British spy organization known as Kingsman, which have no affiliation with government (an English Team America, if you will). The organization consider themselves modern-day Knights of the Round Table, and as such they carry special codenames including Galahad (Firth), Merlin (Mark Strong), and Arthur (Michael Caine). When Lancelot (Jack Davenport) is killed in action, Firth and the other Kingsman bring in recruits to see who will take up the vacated place. Firth recruits Eggsy (Taron Egerton), a lower-class youth whose father was once a Kingsman and saved Firth's life.
There's also Samuel L. Jackson as Valentine, a media-savy billionaire whose diabolical scheme is so cartoonish yet so fun I won't reveal it here. Jackson's henchman is Gazelle (Sofia Boutella), who has blades for feet like Olympic runner Oscar Pistorious (someone was very inspired watching the broadcast that year). As villains, they are both great fun: Boutella is a dancer by trade and performs acrobatics that usually end with her foes dismembered (or literally cut in half), while Jackson's plan is essentially to wipe out humanity, yet the sight of blood makes him vomit.
What will rub many people the wrong way about this film is the marketing campaign; until I saw a red band trailer a month ago, I thought Kingsman was going to be a light, silly spy-spoof. It would have fun action scenes, and be a knowing wink and nod to the Bond films. Unfortunately for many, the film is a blood bath, with exploding heads, extreme violence, and some ballsy twists. It is not a family friendly film, and I know many will take their children to the theater this weekend and be shocked by what happens. That is not enough to stir controversy, and what will really turn heads is the death of a sitting leader, which echoes The Interview's recent stint killing Kim Jong-Un. The reason this has not generated press yet is because it is not the sole focus of the film.
But the marketing does not effect my opinion of the film. While many might be turned off by the prospect of the extreme violence, I was intrigued and even began anticipating this film. While there's not much here to merit a rewatch, there is enough to entertain for one viewing. The actors are all very good and likable, and the action set pieces are spectacularly done. The film makes one too many winks at the camera while it sends up spy films, making sure you understand that yes, the villain will dispense of his foes immediately instead of setting up an elaborate kill plan that will lead to that character's escape. While I enjoy these moments, I just wish the movie's characters would stop acknowledging all the clichés of the film they were in. It gets to a point where enough is enough.
I came away enjoying this film more than Kick-Ass; while it shares that film's nihilism, it still maintains an air of fun throughout, and the black comedy mostly works. Kick-Ass took a dark turn in the third act, and then tried to play up the fun element of the story again, which left me uneasy. Kingsman is not a movie to go into blindly; know that it is violent and not for kids. If, like me, that interests you, then you'll probably have a good time like I did.
Saturday, January 31, 2015
Top 10 Films of 2014
2014, on the whole, was an encouraging year; I've seen 6 of the top 10 highest grossing films of the year, and liked more of them then I didn't. Maybe Hollywood is finally back to making fun movies that don't suck, or maybe we're just getting used to the new status quo, but overall the Blockbuster front of films this year was much better then the past. That being said, you won't see most of those films in my top 10, but know that I enjoyed them a lot.
Full disclosure: there are tons of films I did not see this year, as always. But, I am happy with the 10 films that make up this list, and though I'd love to see The Babadook or Selma, I just didn't get there in time. So, without further ado, here are my personal top 10 favorites of 2014.
10. Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, 130 min. PG-13
Planet of the Apes is a curious franchise because the majority of films that comprise it are not very good. There's a lot of great philosophical ideas and cold war analogies in the original 1968 Planet of the Apes, but the films became progressively worse with each sequel, bottoming out with Tim Burton's attempted reboot back in 2001. Now we get a follow-up to 2011's pretty good Rise of the Planet of the Apes with a surprisingly fantastic action/thriller/sci-fi film. It continues to follow Caesar and his ape friends, who became more aware in the first film and have now formed a clan in the Golden Gate Recreation Area outside of San Francisco. Meanwhile, the human race has been reduced by the outbreak of the Simian Virus, and the immune band together to try and rebuild society. When these two worlds collide, the threat of war is imminent as the humans don't know how to regard these intelligent apes, and the apes despise their once captors. While the human element is a little weak (although the actors are good), the real magic comes from the apes, lead by Andy Serkis as Caesar using the latest motion capture technology. The film also benefits from slowly building the conflict between the two species, basic storytelling techniques that most filmmakers seem to have forgotten. There's action peppered throughout, but it's easy to imagine a lesser director taking the material and escalating the war pretty quickly so that it would comprise more of the run time. I have to say I didn't expect much from this Apes sequel (especially considering it's 70s counterpart, Battle for the Planet of the Apes), but I was pleasantly surprised and highly enjoyed this film.
9. Gone Girl, 149 min. R
I'll readily admit that on a re-watch, Gone Girl did not hold up as well as the first viewing. I won't get into spoilers, but a lot of elements that comprise the second half, including the ending, make huge logical leaps that fall apart under scrutiny. So why include a film I openly criticize? Because, even on the second viewing, the first hour of the film was just as intense as the first time around, and the film as a whole was still damn entertaining. David Fincher has developed a clinical precision to his movies, which are atmospherically dark and moody, even if they're about twenty-year-olds starting the largest social networking site in existence. Fincher has an all-star crew, with returning cinematographer Jeff Cronenweth, editor Kirk Baxter, and composers Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, Fincher films have begun to develop a consistent tone film-to-film as if you were returning to a weekly TV serial where the plot and characters always change. Sometimes the style can't mask bad material (Girl with the Dragon Tattoo), but if the plot is interesting enough, then I'm happy to be along for the dark ride.
8. Ida, 82 min. PG-13
Ida is a film that looks like it was shot in the 60s, but was made today. That's no small task to accomplish, and gives the film a classic aesthetic, is if you had discovered a forgotten gem from long ago. But Ida was released as recently as 2013, and is a moody, engrossing tale of a young, orphaned, novitiate nun, on the verge of taking her vows, receives news of her family's jewish roots and, with her only living relative, sets out to discover them. A character driven piece, the film's reveals are not all that shocking, but it strikes an emotional depth too often missing from today's films, and the turmoil of the central character carries real weight. It's a film you've probably heard about (it's nominated for Best Foreign Film at this year's Oscars), and is currently available on Netflix streaming, so you really have no reason not to check this out.
7. Jodorowsky's Dune, 90 min. PG-13
I have not read Frank Herbert's Dune or seen David Lynch's apparently abysmal 80s version of the story. So do I believe Alejandro Jodorowsky, the title subject of this fascinating documentary, could have done justice where Lynch failed? The documentary detail's Jodorowsky's attempt to make the movie Dune back in the 70s, and how he was allegedly going to bring together Dan O'Bannon, H.R. Giger, David Carradine, Mick Jagger, Udo Kier, Orson Welles, and Salvador Dali together to make and appear in his wild vision. The way the doc portrays Jodorowsky's vision reveals a film that sounds like it could have been the ground breaking sci-fi spectacle that Star Wars would be. The film does make some bold assertions that Jodorowsky's unreleased film influenced many iconic moments in future sci-fi flicks (some of these make sense, but most don't), but, at 84, Jodorowsky is a fascinating, tireless artist who was unfortunately limited by his own hubris.
6. Birdman, or the Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance, 119 min. R
Birdman is an interesting backstage drama/comedy that focuses on one actor's desire to be taken seriously. Michael Keaton stars as Riggan, a washed-up Hollywood actor whose glory days were spent playing a costumed hero named Birdman (get it, it's Batman everyone! Keaton played Batman! And he's kind of washed up now! Do you get it?). All joking aside, what director Alejandro G. Iñârritu accomplishes is an intense, layered, and at times weird portrayal of the mounting tensions to put on a play. The cast includes Edward Norton, Naomi Watts, Zach Galifianakis, and Emma Stone, and its biggest gimmick is that it is seemingly all done in one, long camera take. Working with cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki, a longtime collaborator of Alfonso Cuaron (Chidlren of Men, Gravity), Iñârritu never lets the one-take conceit feel too gimmicky, and it indeed allows the actors more freedom to fully explore the emotional arcs of their characters. Actors often have to get into the moment of a scene take to take, and while most do an admirable job of this, Birdman allows the actors themselves to build their character's through lines. It's a highly entertaining film with lived up to a lot of the hype it generated.
5. Snowpiercer, 126 min. R
Few sci-fi films can efficiently establish a scenario and pull the audience into the world, giving them enough information at the start to understand what's going on, but not enough to show all the cards the film is holding. Snowpiercer has a relatively routine structure, in which a bunch of passengers on a train try and fight their way to the front to take control. The film takes place in a near-future where humans bring on a new Ice Age that freezes the entire planet. The only salvation is on Wilford's train, and the last survivors of the human race take a place there. As long as they are on the train, and as long as the train moves, they live. However, the train is divided into a class system, where naturally the steerage customers are treated like criminals. The film has an endless sense of invention, and as the passengers, lead by Captain America himself Chris Evans, move forward we encounter new environments in every passenger car that reveal more and more how the train functions and this society exists. Add in some brutal violence and a killer climax, and you have one of the best sci-fi action films in recent memory.
4. The Grand Budapest Hotel, 100 min. R
I've seen this film three times so far, more than any other film this year, and every time and has held up as another entertaining, whimsical entry to Wes Anderson's oeuvre. Like Fincher, Anderson has found his style, and it works film to film. That's not to say Fantastic Mr. Fox, Moonrise Kingdom, and this are exactly the same, but a lot of the execution, mannerisms of the characters, and overall developments are. Set in a fictional European country in the 1920s, the film details the exploits of M. Gustave (Ralph Fiennes) and his Lobby boy Zero (Tony Revolori) as they run the Grand Budapest Hotel. Drama ensues when one of M. Gustave's patrons (Tilda Swinton) is murdered, and he is the primary suspect. The film features a lot of Anderson's trademark mannerisms and style, and while some may tire of it, I find its strong and works well.
3. Life Itself, 120 min. R
It was pretty much almost a given that I was going to love this film and include it here. Roger Ebert is one of the most famous film critics of all time, and I miss reading new reviews still. The documentary is a mixture of footage shot during Ebert's final months, first in a hospital and then back at home, with the unwavering support of his wife Chaz. This is mixed in with a recount of Ebert's life, with excerpts from his memoir narrated by Stephen Stanton, who sounds remarkably like Ebert. Directed by Steve James, who also made the docs Hoop Dreams and The Interrupters, this film gives us the brutal truth of Ebert's predicament in his final years: with no jaw, a tube is shoved down his throat to feed him, and daily live is a never ending chore. It's an emotional ride and celebration of a great man who may have made a living trashing other people's work, but championed and valued great filmmaking more.
2. Boyhood, 165 min. R
This is the only film I reviewed this year on the blog, so I'll be brief since my full thoughts are in the post. Richard Linklater's 12-year odyssey to tell the story of a young man from age 6 to 18 is a wonder to behold. Beyond the aging conceit, which is hard to ignore because it is in your face the entire time, there are engaging stories of single parents, from Patrica Arquette's mother making the same mistakes over and over (as we do in life), to Ethan Hawke's father who is still a child in disguise. Much criticism as of late has been leveled against the Mason character for not being interesting, and that nothing much happens in the movie. To the second argument, I say nothing much happens in life day-to-day. Sure we all have a lot of the same experiences, but an average day is not that interesting and that is this movie's focus; to tell a story that is relatable to all of us. There is melodrama early on with the abusive father, and the movie wisely avoids any more big dramatic subplots throughout. As for the boring character, I guess that's a matter of perspective. Mason isn't the most fully realized character, but I feel like that's Linklater's projection of himself, and Mason still felt like a real person, even if he wasn't the most "interesting." To me, the movie holds up beyond its "took 12 years to make" gimmick. That just adds the extra layer.
1. Whiplash, 107 min. R
My favorite genre is the thriller. When done well, it holds you on the edge of your seat and raises your heart rate. I love it when a movie can do that to me. And while Whiplash isn't a thriller in the conventional sense, it was definitely a movie that pitched me to the edge of my seat several times. Miles Teller stars as Andrew, a drumming prodigy attending a fictional Julliard-like school for music in New York. One day he is selected as an alternate for the Jazz Band of the fearsome Fletcher (J.K. Simmons), an instructor that takes to his musicians like a drill sergeant. Fletcher has a very intense philosophy that he must push his pupils beyond what they think themselves capable of. It's controversial and the movie challenges Fletcher, but ultimately seems to land on his side with the line, "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." It's a movie that reminds you that to be great, you do have to push yourself and commit yourself beyond what you think you are capable of. That doesn't necessarily mean you will be great (as Monsters University illustrated very well), but you can't take a short cut. The movie is filled with musical performances that had my heart racing: will Andrew screw up, or will he successfully perform in the double time swing? This culminates in a final ten minutes that climaxes with one of the few moments in cinema I've wanted to stand up and cheer. Yes, there may be some over the top things that happen in the middle, but the movie took me on an emotional trip few other movies have, and as a result I was magnetized. It's one of the best experiences I've had this year.
Full disclosure: there are tons of films I did not see this year, as always. But, I am happy with the 10 films that make up this list, and though I'd love to see The Babadook or Selma, I just didn't get there in time. So, without further ado, here are my personal top 10 favorites of 2014.
10. Dawn of the Planet of the Apes, 130 min. PG-13
Planet of the Apes is a curious franchise because the majority of films that comprise it are not very good. There's a lot of great philosophical ideas and cold war analogies in the original 1968 Planet of the Apes, but the films became progressively worse with each sequel, bottoming out with Tim Burton's attempted reboot back in 2001. Now we get a follow-up to 2011's pretty good Rise of the Planet of the Apes with a surprisingly fantastic action/thriller/sci-fi film. It continues to follow Caesar and his ape friends, who became more aware in the first film and have now formed a clan in the Golden Gate Recreation Area outside of San Francisco. Meanwhile, the human race has been reduced by the outbreak of the Simian Virus, and the immune band together to try and rebuild society. When these two worlds collide, the threat of war is imminent as the humans don't know how to regard these intelligent apes, and the apes despise their once captors. While the human element is a little weak (although the actors are good), the real magic comes from the apes, lead by Andy Serkis as Caesar using the latest motion capture technology. The film also benefits from slowly building the conflict between the two species, basic storytelling techniques that most filmmakers seem to have forgotten. There's action peppered throughout, but it's easy to imagine a lesser director taking the material and escalating the war pretty quickly so that it would comprise more of the run time. I have to say I didn't expect much from this Apes sequel (especially considering it's 70s counterpart, Battle for the Planet of the Apes), but I was pleasantly surprised and highly enjoyed this film.
9. Gone Girl, 149 min. R
I'll readily admit that on a re-watch, Gone Girl did not hold up as well as the first viewing. I won't get into spoilers, but a lot of elements that comprise the second half, including the ending, make huge logical leaps that fall apart under scrutiny. So why include a film I openly criticize? Because, even on the second viewing, the first hour of the film was just as intense as the first time around, and the film as a whole was still damn entertaining. David Fincher has developed a clinical precision to his movies, which are atmospherically dark and moody, even if they're about twenty-year-olds starting the largest social networking site in existence. Fincher has an all-star crew, with returning cinematographer Jeff Cronenweth, editor Kirk Baxter, and composers Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross, Fincher films have begun to develop a consistent tone film-to-film as if you were returning to a weekly TV serial where the plot and characters always change. Sometimes the style can't mask bad material (Girl with the Dragon Tattoo), but if the plot is interesting enough, then I'm happy to be along for the dark ride.
8. Ida, 82 min. PG-13
Ida is a film that looks like it was shot in the 60s, but was made today. That's no small task to accomplish, and gives the film a classic aesthetic, is if you had discovered a forgotten gem from long ago. But Ida was released as recently as 2013, and is a moody, engrossing tale of a young, orphaned, novitiate nun, on the verge of taking her vows, receives news of her family's jewish roots and, with her only living relative, sets out to discover them. A character driven piece, the film's reveals are not all that shocking, but it strikes an emotional depth too often missing from today's films, and the turmoil of the central character carries real weight. It's a film you've probably heard about (it's nominated for Best Foreign Film at this year's Oscars), and is currently available on Netflix streaming, so you really have no reason not to check this out.
7. Jodorowsky's Dune, 90 min. PG-13
I have not read Frank Herbert's Dune or seen David Lynch's apparently abysmal 80s version of the story. So do I believe Alejandro Jodorowsky, the title subject of this fascinating documentary, could have done justice where Lynch failed? The documentary detail's Jodorowsky's attempt to make the movie Dune back in the 70s, and how he was allegedly going to bring together Dan O'Bannon, H.R. Giger, David Carradine, Mick Jagger, Udo Kier, Orson Welles, and Salvador Dali together to make and appear in his wild vision. The way the doc portrays Jodorowsky's vision reveals a film that sounds like it could have been the ground breaking sci-fi spectacle that Star Wars would be. The film does make some bold assertions that Jodorowsky's unreleased film influenced many iconic moments in future sci-fi flicks (some of these make sense, but most don't), but, at 84, Jodorowsky is a fascinating, tireless artist who was unfortunately limited by his own hubris.
6. Birdman, or the Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance, 119 min. R
Birdman is an interesting backstage drama/comedy that focuses on one actor's desire to be taken seriously. Michael Keaton stars as Riggan, a washed-up Hollywood actor whose glory days were spent playing a costumed hero named Birdman (get it, it's Batman everyone! Keaton played Batman! And he's kind of washed up now! Do you get it?). All joking aside, what director Alejandro G. Iñârritu accomplishes is an intense, layered, and at times weird portrayal of the mounting tensions to put on a play. The cast includes Edward Norton, Naomi Watts, Zach Galifianakis, and Emma Stone, and its biggest gimmick is that it is seemingly all done in one, long camera take. Working with cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki, a longtime collaborator of Alfonso Cuaron (Chidlren of Men, Gravity), Iñârritu never lets the one-take conceit feel too gimmicky, and it indeed allows the actors more freedom to fully explore the emotional arcs of their characters. Actors often have to get into the moment of a scene take to take, and while most do an admirable job of this, Birdman allows the actors themselves to build their character's through lines. It's a highly entertaining film with lived up to a lot of the hype it generated.
5. Snowpiercer, 126 min. R
Few sci-fi films can efficiently establish a scenario and pull the audience into the world, giving them enough information at the start to understand what's going on, but not enough to show all the cards the film is holding. Snowpiercer has a relatively routine structure, in which a bunch of passengers on a train try and fight their way to the front to take control. The film takes place in a near-future where humans bring on a new Ice Age that freezes the entire planet. The only salvation is on Wilford's train, and the last survivors of the human race take a place there. As long as they are on the train, and as long as the train moves, they live. However, the train is divided into a class system, where naturally the steerage customers are treated like criminals. The film has an endless sense of invention, and as the passengers, lead by Captain America himself Chris Evans, move forward we encounter new environments in every passenger car that reveal more and more how the train functions and this society exists. Add in some brutal violence and a killer climax, and you have one of the best sci-fi action films in recent memory.
4. The Grand Budapest Hotel, 100 min. R
I've seen this film three times so far, more than any other film this year, and every time and has held up as another entertaining, whimsical entry to Wes Anderson's oeuvre. Like Fincher, Anderson has found his style, and it works film to film. That's not to say Fantastic Mr. Fox, Moonrise Kingdom, and this are exactly the same, but a lot of the execution, mannerisms of the characters, and overall developments are. Set in a fictional European country in the 1920s, the film details the exploits of M. Gustave (Ralph Fiennes) and his Lobby boy Zero (Tony Revolori) as they run the Grand Budapest Hotel. Drama ensues when one of M. Gustave's patrons (Tilda Swinton) is murdered, and he is the primary suspect. The film features a lot of Anderson's trademark mannerisms and style, and while some may tire of it, I find its strong and works well.
3. Life Itself, 120 min. R
It was pretty much almost a given that I was going to love this film and include it here. Roger Ebert is one of the most famous film critics of all time, and I miss reading new reviews still. The documentary is a mixture of footage shot during Ebert's final months, first in a hospital and then back at home, with the unwavering support of his wife Chaz. This is mixed in with a recount of Ebert's life, with excerpts from his memoir narrated by Stephen Stanton, who sounds remarkably like Ebert. Directed by Steve James, who also made the docs Hoop Dreams and The Interrupters, this film gives us the brutal truth of Ebert's predicament in his final years: with no jaw, a tube is shoved down his throat to feed him, and daily live is a never ending chore. It's an emotional ride and celebration of a great man who may have made a living trashing other people's work, but championed and valued great filmmaking more.
2. Boyhood, 165 min. R
This is the only film I reviewed this year on the blog, so I'll be brief since my full thoughts are in the post. Richard Linklater's 12-year odyssey to tell the story of a young man from age 6 to 18 is a wonder to behold. Beyond the aging conceit, which is hard to ignore because it is in your face the entire time, there are engaging stories of single parents, from Patrica Arquette's mother making the same mistakes over and over (as we do in life), to Ethan Hawke's father who is still a child in disguise. Much criticism as of late has been leveled against the Mason character for not being interesting, and that nothing much happens in the movie. To the second argument, I say nothing much happens in life day-to-day. Sure we all have a lot of the same experiences, but an average day is not that interesting and that is this movie's focus; to tell a story that is relatable to all of us. There is melodrama early on with the abusive father, and the movie wisely avoids any more big dramatic subplots throughout. As for the boring character, I guess that's a matter of perspective. Mason isn't the most fully realized character, but I feel like that's Linklater's projection of himself, and Mason still felt like a real person, even if he wasn't the most "interesting." To me, the movie holds up beyond its "took 12 years to make" gimmick. That just adds the extra layer.
1. Whiplash, 107 min. R
My favorite genre is the thriller. When done well, it holds you on the edge of your seat and raises your heart rate. I love it when a movie can do that to me. And while Whiplash isn't a thriller in the conventional sense, it was definitely a movie that pitched me to the edge of my seat several times. Miles Teller stars as Andrew, a drumming prodigy attending a fictional Julliard-like school for music in New York. One day he is selected as an alternate for the Jazz Band of the fearsome Fletcher (J.K. Simmons), an instructor that takes to his musicians like a drill sergeant. Fletcher has a very intense philosophy that he must push his pupils beyond what they think themselves capable of. It's controversial and the movie challenges Fletcher, but ultimately seems to land on his side with the line, "There are no two words in the English language more harmful than Good Job." It's a movie that reminds you that to be great, you do have to push yourself and commit yourself beyond what you think you are capable of. That doesn't necessarily mean you will be great (as Monsters University illustrated very well), but you can't take a short cut. The movie is filled with musical performances that had my heart racing: will Andrew screw up, or will he successfully perform in the double time swing? This culminates in a final ten minutes that climaxes with one of the few moments in cinema I've wanted to stand up and cheer. Yes, there may be some over the top things that happen in the middle, but the movie took me on an emotional trip few other movies have, and as a result I was magnetized. It's one of the best experiences I've had this year.
Thursday, January 8, 2015
72nd Golden Globe Awards Nominees Predictions
Time for Golden Globe Predictions! This is my "I don't care" phase of awards season, and I usually get a lot wrong. This is more about who I think should win rather than who will win. If I haven't seen all the nominations in a particular category, I'll vote for who I have seen. If I haven't seen any, then it's a shot in the dark.
Best Supporting Actor in a Series, Mini-Series or TV Movie
Colin Hanks - Fargo
Best Supporting Actress in a Series, Mini-Series or TV Movie
Michelle Monaghan - True Detective
Best Actor in a Mini-Series or TV Movie
Matthew McConaughey - True Detective
Best Actress in a Mini-Series or TV Movie
Allison Tolman - Fargo
Best Actor in a TV Series, Musical or Comedy
Louis C.K. - Louie
Best Actress in a TV Series, Musical or Comedy
Julia Louis-Dreyfuss - Veep
Best TV Series, Musical or Comedy
Jane the Virgin
Best Actor in a TV Series, Drama
Kevin Spacey - House of Cards
Best Actress in a TV Series, Drama
Claire Danes - Homeland
Best TV Series, Drama
Game of Thrones
Best Original Song - Motion Picture
Annie
Best Original Score - Motion Picture
Trent Reznor, Atticus Ross - Gone Girl
Best Screenplay - Motion Picture
Wes Anderson - The Grand Budapest Hotel
Best Director - Motion Picture
Richard Linklater - Boyhood
Best Supporting Actor in a Motion Picture
Edward Norton - Birdman
Best Supporting Actress in a Motion Picture
Patricia Arquette - Boyhood
Best Foreign Language Film
Ida
Best Animated Feature Film
The Lego Movie
Best Actress in a Motion Picture, Musical or Comedy
Helen Mirren - The Hundred Foot Journey
Best Motion Picture, Musical or Comedy
The Grand Budapest Hotel
Best Actor in a Motion Picture, Drama
Benedict Cumberbatch - The Imitation Game
Best Actress in a Motion Picture, Drama
Rosamund Pike - Gone Girl
Best Motion Picture, Drama
Boyhood
Best Supporting Actor in a Series, Mini-Series or TV Movie
Colin Hanks - Fargo
Best Supporting Actress in a Series, Mini-Series or TV Movie
Michelle Monaghan - True Detective
Best Actor in a Mini-Series or TV Movie
Matthew McConaughey - True Detective
Best Actress in a Mini-Series or TV Movie
Allison Tolman - Fargo
Best Actor in a TV Series, Musical or Comedy
Louis C.K. - Louie
Best Actress in a TV Series, Musical or Comedy
Julia Louis-Dreyfuss - Veep
Best TV Series, Musical or Comedy
Jane the Virgin
Best Actor in a TV Series, Drama
Kevin Spacey - House of Cards
Best Actress in a TV Series, Drama
Claire Danes - Homeland
Best TV Series, Drama
Game of Thrones
Best Original Song - Motion Picture
Annie
Best Original Score - Motion Picture
Trent Reznor, Atticus Ross - Gone Girl
Best Screenplay - Motion Picture
Wes Anderson - The Grand Budapest Hotel
Best Director - Motion Picture
Richard Linklater - Boyhood
Best Supporting Actor in a Motion Picture
Edward Norton - Birdman
Best Supporting Actress in a Motion Picture
Patricia Arquette - Boyhood
Best Foreign Language Film
Ida
Best Animated Feature Film
The Lego Movie
Best Actress in a Motion Picture, Musical or Comedy
Helen Mirren - The Hundred Foot Journey
Best Motion Picture, Musical or Comedy
The Grand Budapest Hotel
Best Actor in a Motion Picture, Drama
Benedict Cumberbatch - The Imitation Game
Best Actress in a Motion Picture, Drama
Rosamund Pike - Gone Girl
Best Motion Picture, Drama
Boyhood
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)