Movies I've Seen 2015 (Reviewed and Ranked)
List activity
200 views
• 0 this weekCreate a new list
List your movie, TV & celebrity picks.
66 titles
- DirectorAdam McKayStarsChristian BaleSteve CarellRyan GoslingIn 2006-2007 a group of investors bet against the United States mortgage market. In their research, they discover how flawed and corrupt the market is.5/5 The Big Short has so much to say about the horrifying and unstable way the economy is run. Showing us every level of contribution to the 2008 crash, it's the most eye-opening and important movie to come out this year.
What goes on on Wall Street is so damn complicated that if you don't understand economics already, you likely won't comprehend a lot of details of what's going on in this movie. This is how I was, and yet to understand the film's point, you don't quite need to fully understand everything. McKay uses fun techniques to help audiences understand certain systems such as Jenga and gambling on black jack, and they work surprisingly well. He does just enough to get the audience moving along with the movie, and also understands that we will not get everything. Thankfully, instead of simplifying the terminology or the story for the sake of comprehension, McKay lets it fly over our heads. He smartly recognizes that it's more important for us to know that it's just damn complicated. After all, the fact that it's all so complicated is part of the reason the system is so *beep*
This is a uniquely stylized movie, with camera zooms and pans that reflect mockumentary films, and eccentric editing that can be difficult to wrap your head around. It's quite often that the style is disorienting and difficult to understand all the intentions behind the it. It's an imperfect style, but one that I appreciate for being risky nonetheless, and cannot deny its powerful effect overall. There are freeze frames aplenty, as well as edits to images outside the scene, often from pop culture. The style is effective in capturing the interconnectedness and hyper pace of our internet age. It also gives the audience more to think about by throwing images at them from all over the place, even if many of these images don't stick because they feel random. This randomness widens the context of everything our characters are doing, showing how the business on Wall Street both effects the rest of the country, and is unfortunately a reflection of the way our country is run.
A huge cast lead by Steve Carell, Christian Bale, and Ryan Gosling, is excellent all around. Carell (Mark Baum) captures much of the film's anger towards the greed of Wall Street people. Baum's temper initially makes him seem stern and dickish, but the source of his anger is revealed to be personal and morally grounded. How Carell carries his character's internal conflict gives the film much of its tragic punch at the end. Christian Bale feels as though he's internalized Michael Burry's offbeat mannerisms as one of the first to foresee the collapse of the housing market. Ryan Gosling is subtly aggressive in an often hilarious way. A large supporting cast exists underneath these three, all expanding our view of the world of Wall Street, and all actors perform well. There are lots of comedic nuances scattered throughout scenes, likely a result of McKay's use of improvisation.
Though the film has comedic beats and humor here and there, it's far too tragic to safely call it a comedy. The Big Short uncovers the many, many reasons for the housing market collapse, all of which are rooted in the selfishness and greed that the U.S. implicitly promotes. Both the banks, the government, and irresponsible citizens are to blame. It's impressive just how much information McKay can give us in just over two hours, and how well each piece ties together. Shining light on so many layers and bringing them all together so well is how the film becomes the knockout it is.
I was pretty blown away by the film's tragic end. It's shocking and aggravating to see how we live in a nation that can allow all this to happen, that is run by greed, and that scarily continues to be that way. Above all, I was surprised at how sad this movie made me. It gets at the emptiness of the lifestyle of some of these characters, how collapse is inevitable in a society ruled by such greed, and how everyday citizens are the ones who pay for it all. The Big Short is undeniably an imperfect film, but it's also the most important and urgent movie of this year, as well as one of the most powerful. - DirectorDuke JohnsonCharlie KaufmanStarsDavid ThewlisJennifer Jason LeighTom NoonanA man crippled by the mundanity of his life experiences something out of the ordinary.5/5 Anomalisa is a rare case of a film that puts the protagonist’s glasses on its audience. Personally, it was easier for me to see this after watching the film a second time. It’s easy to relate to and agree with Michael, the protagonist, in many ways. He feels like he’s more real than everybody around him, that everything feels monotonous and dull. He’s also looking to make a connection with another human after nearly a decade without one. The greatness of Anomalisa is that it’s sometimes so relatable, but it really shouldn’t be.
In the film’s beginning, Michael goes through the motions of travel and interacts with boring, inhumane customer service agents. They and everyone else have the same face and the same voice. Michael has a view of reality in which he feels like everybody is the same, that conversation is "blah blah blah", that interactions are all routine. Every boring person he talks to is involved with customer service, a field that he writes and gives lectures on. Michael is not actually different from anybody else, although he has himself convinced otherwise.
We all search for the someone who stands out among a faceless crowd, and Anomalisa comments on the foolishness of this desire. When Michael meets Lisa, he's instantly thrilled because Lisa is the only person besides him who sounds and looks different. While Lisa is likable, her flaws are obvious, and there’s nothing to convince us that she, of all people, is who Michael has been waiting for. There’s no question that the two have honest, intimate interactions in their time together, but we wonder if Lisa is truly special, or if she just randomly registered with the delusional Michael?
The truth is, Lisa is special, but no more than everyone else. Michael doesn’t even understand what exactly draws him to Lisa. The voice and face surely stand out to him, but he is unable to explain his attraction beyond that point. During a speech later on, we see that he doesn’t have any idea what he’s looking for; he just knows that he wants it, that it’s different, and that he hasn’t yet found it.
Michael’s flaw is that his reality is distorted by narcissism and a tendency to funnel everyone he encounters into one thing that he calls boring. Every experience in his life suffers from his inability to see what's special about it. Michael's tragic end contrasts Lisa's end, where she is able to actually take away something positive from their encounter and progress her life and her mind. When Michael goes back home to a surprise birthday party for him, we see that he has love in his life, but he just can't recognize it. People don’t actually have the same faces and voices, but Michael sees everyone like a doll and it prevents him from enjoying his life and the people in it the way he should.
Although it’s minimalistic, you can dissect many details and symbols in the film that round the message out. It’s also laugh out loud funny at many parts. The animation style is an achievement in realism and is used in a unique and extremely purposeful way. Anomalisa is definitely the kind of film that gets better the more you think about it and the more you realize how you relate to it. It will make you contemplate your own tendency to categorize people and think about how that impedes your ability to see the greater reality. - DirectorDanny BoyleStarsMichael FassbenderKate WinsletSeth RogenSteve Jobs takes us behind the scenes of the digital revolution, to paint a portrait of the man at its epicenter. The story unfolds backstage at three iconic product launches, ending in 1998 with the unveiling of the iMac.5/5 A burst of creative energy as well as a meaningful take on our relationship to technology and the complex figure behind it all. The screenplay, acting, direction, score, and editing are all orchestrated to perfection, and make Steve Jobs one of the year's very best films.
Aaron Sorkin's script takes us backstage before three major product launches in Steve Jobs' career. The unique experience of the film revolves around this unconventional approach and Sorkin's witty, nonstop dialogue. The film forces you to remain upright and attentive as you try to absorb the densely packed dialogue, but this doesn't feel like a chore; it's more like a privilege. This is because the dialogue is genius, filled with lines so insightful and clever you'll take them for granted as they constantly zoom by. Sorkin will deserve the Oscar when he wins.
Of course, the dialogue isn't much without great delivery, and the cast more than delivers. Leading the ensemble cast is Michael Fassbender, whose Steve Jobs unrelentingly manipulates the reality around him to fit the illusion that he's in command of his own world. He does this with distant emotional suppression and a harsh, cold exterior. His genius is there as well, and because of this, we can see how his egoism has gotten him so far, despite the poor way he treats others. Fassbender shows us all of this through his performance, avoiding the classification of simply being a "dick". His performance is far too complex for that, and he'll deserve the Oscar when he wins.
Each scene is a sort of duel between Jobs and another character. Each character helps to bring about a different part of Jobs and each appears in each of the film's three parts either through working with him or by visiting him. Of course, this isn't likely the way things played out in reality, but Sorkin isn't trying to hide that. The way that the conflicts between the many characters played out were fantastic, with each player getting their own intense climax.
Appearing most often among these supporting players is Kate Winslet, who makes it believable that her character can stand up to Jobs all the time, able to keep up with him through subtle understanding and care. Seth Rogen is excellent as well, proving himself to be a promising dramatic actor. I loved Michael Stahlberg's performance and Jeff Daniels was effective even if he mostly met expectations from the roles he's been doing recently. Katherine Waterson was great as well, going up against Fassbender with fierce sarcasm. Each of these actors gets at least one moment to shine, and boy do they shine when it's their turn in the spotlight.
But possibly the most important character is Steve Jobs' daughter, played by three amazing actresses. The younger two convey an aching longing for a father figure when they're around the neglectful Jobs, and the oldest is a more mature version, understanding her father's flaws through the hole he's left in her life. Jobs' daughter is the emotional center of the film, and this center really is emotional at times. We can see how Jobs' neglect is suppressed and that it represents his biggest flaw. Jobs is unable to acknowledge mankind for its shared beauty, instead using his life to selfishly regain a lack of control that he feels as a result of his adoption as a child.
The film expresses this theme not only through Jobs' character, but through the products he made. "A computer is not a painting," Wozniak constantly says to Steve, though which he traditionally replies, "*beep* you." Jobs initially wanted to remove all compatibility options from the computer because of this viewpoint because he fails to understand technology and the human race as a collaborative effort. Although Jobs succeeded in many ways through his arrogance, the film argues that letting others in can lead to even greater accomplishments.
Danny Boyle's typical visual extravagance is unleashed here at times, but he can be effectively restrained as well. He is great at capturing the hyper pacing of the digital age, making the film relevant by making Jobs feel like he's the very center of the technological revolution. Boyle takes scenes of pure dialogue and amps them up to create some seriously thrilling sequences. Some shots from the film are quite flashy and delicious, so creative compositionally that they should be placed in film textbooks. It would be wrong not to credit the editing and cinematography for much of this as well.
Daniel Pemberton's score is one of the year's finest. His pulsating, bouncy electronics keep a rhythmic pace to the film that is effectively modern, and the more orchestrated tracks levitate scenes, making them feel virtuosic.
A lot of people may feel that the redemptive ending of the film is odd, but in understanding how clearly fictionalized this film is, I didn't mind and thought the end really added to the film.
Absolutely every aspect of this film makes for extremely entertaining cinema in a totally unique way. I enjoyed the film immensely both times I watched it, experiencing at once a great character study, an insightful look at our relationship with technology, and a moving drama. This is a must-see, folks. - DirectorAlfonso Gomez-RejonStarsThomas MannRJ CylerOlivia CookeHigh schooler Greg, who spends most of his time making parodies of classic movies with his co-worker Earl, finds his outlook forever altered after befriending a classmate who has just been diagnosed with cancer.5/5 A meaningful and emotionally wrenching film that succeeds due to the genuineness in the performances and writing.
Thomas Mann's performance as Greg is incredible. It would be near impossible to find another actor who could bring such depth and realism to the character. Traits like his strange sense of humor, fear of connection, and awkwardness are so naturally consistent with the character that the performance feels effortless. Mann does no less than make Greg feel like he truly exists, even with such a complex character.
Much of the authenticity of Mann's performance is seen in the other young actors. Olivia Cooke plays a girl diagnosed with cancer and handles the disease the way a real teenage girl might. She never reduces her character to a mere victim, and nails key emotional scenes that give the film its power. R.J. Cyler's character provides a lot of comedy, but his performance has unmistakeable depth that brings Earl to life. These characters are defined by how they are, not just what the movie says they are. Each performance speaks beyond words, with each of these actors embodying a person, not simply checking off character traits.
The writing gets credit for creating this authenticity as well. The dialogue is meant to sound realistic, and it never misses the mark. Such honest writing is what gets us to really care about these characters and get invested in their worlds as the film's depths unfold. It explores original thematic territory that feels true for the characters and for life.
Alfonso Gomez-Rejon's direction is extremely stylish and inventive but it always feels right with the movie. The obscure camera placements and movements make the film exciting and high on energy, but they also feel purposeful. The wide angle lens is often used to emphasize spacial relations between characters, which usually reflect the distance that Greg puts himself at with other people. One of the film's more emotional scenes is done in one shot from one of these unusual angles and it works incredibly well.
The film's last thirty minutes feature multiple scenes of unforgettable emotional power and resonance. Sure, it's a cancer movie, but what's sad/uplifting about it goes beyond the sadness of cancer. This will remain one of 2015's best films because it matches its emotion with honest reasons to care. It's exciting to see so much new talent in the film, and I hope the director, writer, and actors continue their greatness. Everyone go see. - DirectorJames PonsoldtStarsJason SegelJesse EisenbergAnna ChlumskyThe story of the five-day interview between Rolling Stone reporter David Lipsky and acclaimed novelist David Foster Wallace, which took place right after the 1996 publication of Wallace's groundbreaking epic novel, 'Infinite Jest.'5/5 With The Spectacular Now, one of 2013's best films, and now The End of the Tour, one of 2015's best, James Ponsoldt solidifies himself as one of today's most exciting filmmakers. Both films showcase Ponsoldt's ability to connect emotionally with his audience through the depth he pulls from his characters. It's almost a purely conversational movie, but it's exciting for it's insight and humanity.
Although "Tour" is almost entirely conversation, it nonetheless deserves to be a film, not just on paper. Ponsoldt and his cinematographer highlight the white, bare, and snowy Illinois. Much like the feeling of the film, the lighting is simultaneously bright and dull, uplifting and depressing. But more crucial is how the two leads come alive on screen thanks to sensitive direction and fantastic lead performances.
Jason Segel and Jesse Eisenberg are the anchors of the film, representing acting at its very finest. Every line of dialogue from Jason Segel is delivered with sincerity, where we really feel like we are getting to know Wallace through a complex performance that is no less than transformative. He's an extremely memorable and rounded character, with his depression, insightfulness, regularity, addiction to television, insecurity, and faint joy surfacing through Segel's performance. Jesse Eisenberg is awkward and a bit nerdy like other roles he's played, but his performance here goes far beyond that. The sadness he wears on his face as the two characters conflict brings a new layer to his character and the film itself.
Much like Richard Linklater's fantastic "Before" trilogy, the film is mostly heavy dialogue between two characters, but it's full of intriguing conceptual ideas and philosophies that make it really involving. The two discuss entertainment, depression, emptiness, success, ordinariness, the American dream, and more. How audiences piece together and interprets these ideas will certainly vary, and makes for great re-watchability and discussion.
What should be constant for everyone, however, is the liveliness of conversation, of getting to really know someone, of minds feeding off of each other. Watching the film, we feel the life of human interaction. Whether it's the truth behind their profound conversations or just the sheer humanity, it's hard not to feel moved after watching The End of the Tour. - DirectorTodd HaynesStarsCate BlanchettRooney MaraSarah PaulsonAn aspiring photographer develops an intimate relationship with an older woman in 1950s New York.5/5 Todd Haynes, Rooney Mara, and Cate Blanchett have created an internal romance that speaks deeply through the eyes of the actresses and Haynes' understated direction.
Rooney Mara and Cate Blanchett are incredible at conveying so much meaning in every subtlety. Watching their faces and eyes alone will tell you so much about the characters, their lives, and their passions. Mara's character is in a relationship with a man she has no passion for that she's fallen into because of her saying "yes" to everything. Haynes constructs this "yes" society of the time period through the careful crafting of the production elements to look almost like it was filmed during the 50s. It all feels so conventional and structured, which makes it feel more powerful as the characters attempt to venture outside of that. The cinematography helps us to feel how distant Therese feels from society, and Carol becomes her escape from that, her something more. Through Mara's performance, we feel the ignition of sparks in her eyes when she is around Carol, and the emptiness outside of that relationship.
Blanchett's Carol is magnetic and carefully composed on the surface, and like Mara, she always allows us to see beneath her exterior. The biggest difference between Therese and Carol is their maturity. Carol understands what happens in relationships like hers and Therese's, but Therese is yet to realize. She also struggles with the custody of her daughter in a divorce that she's making between her and her resistant husband, played by a great Kyle Chandler. Blanchett, like Mara, shows how her character feels distant from society, struggling not to compromise her passions for conformity, but with more understanding of the way the world works than Therese.
The way that Mara and Blanchett exchange looks is a miracle of acting, able to communicate so much with so little. They deliver the film's carefully used dialogue with deep understanding of the truth of the material. A phone call that takes place around the midpoint of the film conveys a lifetime of suppressed feeling with only two short lines of dialogue.
Technically, the meticulousness of Haynes' craft is undeniable, but it's also all purposeful. The overall style is a less extreme version of the 50s mimicking Haynes did with Far From Heaven, giving the film a distinct feel for its period and a freedom to use more modern techniques. Right down to the colors of the walls, every element is carefully chosen to create precise feeling and moods in a film that relies so heavily on the audience reading them.
Carol shows us two women who live for the sparks they get from their passions, but whose passions aren't allowed. Therese and Carol face the turmoil that comes with trying to live a life of love under futile conditions. Like the train sets in the film, the train always comes back to where it started, but that doesn't mean it isn't worth boarding.
After watching Carol two times, I can say that it gets better the more one thinks about it, and that not everyone will have the same visceral response. My emotional response was mixed, not as powerful as I wanted it to be, or as others have had, but that's simply how the movie is. Without a doubt, Carol is a great and singular film with a lot of meaning that expertly tells a love story through the insides. - DirectorAlex Ross PerryStarsElisabeth MossKatherine WaterstonPatrick FugitTwo women who grew up together discover they have drifted apart when they retreat to a lake house together.5/5
- DirectorDenis VilleneuveStarsEmily BluntJosh BrolinBenicio Del ToroAn idealistic FBI agent is enlisted by a government task force to aid in the escalating war against drugs at the border area between the U.S. and Mexico.5/5 Dennis Villeneuve knows the power of finely tuned filmmaking and uses it to create this dark and gripping thriller about the drug war that also has a political bite.
The pacing of the film is nearly perfect, opening with an impressive home raid sequence that kicks the film off with a bang. This is a political movie, so you get your share of talking and explaining, but these scenes are still engaging and never overstay their welcome because they feel purposeful to the story. An exhilarating sequence comes early on where the Americans attempt to arrest suspects at their cars within clogged border traffic. So nail-biting and expertly filmed was this sequence that I was worried it would be the film's peak. Not so, for it is at least equally matched in multiple sequences towards the film's end, right where the best scenes should be.
Roger Deakins' cinematography might just be the star of this show, and his expertise makes the film feel like one. His skills are always present, but range from subtle to obvious. He films daylight scenes with unique brightness, giving clarity and detail to each frame, and not with contradiction to the film's dark overtones. Night scenes look incredible, especially black and lusciously detailed. The scenes where the crew walks into the tunnel at night and when they use night vision inside are pure visual showmanship.
Emily Blunt does a great job as the moral center of the film, opposed to and unprepared for the world of darkness she's entering. Josh Brolin and Benicio Del Toro have both crossed over this line and embody that really well. Each have their moments of subtle ferocity, but it's Del Toro's mysterious demeanor and hidden depth that make him the true standout of the cast. He feels like the king of the darkness, or as one character calls him, the ghost.
The score by Johann Johannsson is the most intense and creative I've heard this year. Softly pounding drums, deep cello drones and strings that bend downwards are distressingly tense. So are tracks like "The Beast" where a sort of beat is created out of rough, scratchy ambience that's crashing on itself. The sound outside of the music is fantastic as well, adding to the overall intensity. It deserves nominations for score and sound mixing.
Even the use of helicopters in this film is fantastic. Sometimes we will get amazing looking helicopter shots of the action, edited expertly into the sequence that work because there are helicopters present in the action, often made present by the sound. Sometimes Johann Johannsson's score and the sounds of the helicopters blend together amazingly.
So the technicals all check out perfectly, but the film goes beyond being a merely well-crafted thriller with its political direction. It's an anti-war film at its heart, or lack thereof, exposing the corruption of the U.S government in the war on drugs. It doesn't focus quite as much on the futility as Traffic did years ago, although it's certainly there to an extent. What makes Sicario unique to the conversation is its unrelenting darkness and assault on morality. It's a must see. - DirectorBill PohladStarsJohn CusackPaul DanoElizabeth BanksIn the 60s, Beach Boys leader Brian Wilson struggles with emerging psychosis as he attempts to craft his avant-garde pop masterpiece. In the 80s, he's a broken, confused man under the 24-hour watch of shady therapist, Dr. Eugene Landy.5/5 Love & Mercy brings its protagonist to life in a way that few other biopics do. The schizophrenic Brian Wilson, with all of his troubles and oddities, still feels completely understandable, and that's quite a triumph. This is the kind of movie that's engaging and entertaining because of the character driven drama, not just the stuff that the people in the movie do.
Dano and Cusack each craft two sides of the same person, seeming to play off of each other even though they're never seen together. Dano's version is a younger Wilson, at a creative peak and at the start of his mental issues, and Cusack plays the older Wilson, with his issues having taken hold of his life, and a struggling relationship with a new woman. This is the unconventional but extremely affective way that this biopic is told. Dano and Cusack probably share an equal amount of screen time, and this unfolds the character with twice the depth. We come to understand both Wilson's skillfully at the same time as the film switches back and forth. Knowing the man in two states, after seeing the film, feels like the only way to truly know him.
I knew almost nothing about this movie, or Brian Wilson before I came into the theater. Because of this, I noticed how Wilson, as well as several other characters in the film, are revealed to us by time. If you didn't know Wilson was schizophrenic before watching, you wouldn't for quite a while into the film. It chooses to reveal its characters like how we get to know people: we see how they behave, and as we spend time with them, understand their struggles and depths.
Giamatti's Eugene Landy and Elizabeth Banks's Melinda work in similar ways. Giamatti is a scene stealer as Landy, sometimes very funny, and sometimes not all after his character's motivations are revealed. Banks is excellent at convincing us of her character's emotional connection with Wilson, even though it's a seemingly strange combination.
One of the film's great achievements was that I felt that I understood Wilson's schizophrenia so much that to even think of describing him as insane feels completely inappropriate. He was a creative spirit in need of solitude and freedom, and the world, as well as important people in his life, were unable to give that to him. It's extremely rare in a movie to find that level of depth in a mentally unstable character. Audiences can relate to him as artists or creative people, or just people who have too many others trying to pull them in directions away from their own.
In the end, we get a clip of the real Brian Wilson singing Love & Mercy, and understand what the song means to him. This is an emotionally satisfying and entertaining movie because of how the film treats and understands its characters. Other biopics can place too much emphasis on the physical achievements of their subjects, but this one knows where the good stuff is and how to access it while avoiding conventions with ease. I think everyone will enjoy this movie and go see it. - DirectorPete DocterRonnie Del CarmenStarsAmy PoehlerBill HaderLewis BlackAfter young Riley is uprooted from her Midwest life and moved to San Francisco, her emotions - Joy, Fear, Anger, Disgust and Sadness - conflict on how best to navigate a new city, house, and school.5/5 Inside Out is more than just a great concept. It understands its potential to be smart and philosophical, making for a uniquely introspective experience that is also fun and entertaining.
The film does much more to develop the world of the mind than personify emotions. It includes memory, identity, imagination, and more into a network that feels surprisingly accurate. Audiences with the capacity to think critically (meaning not small kids) will practically be forced to examine their own minds and those of others. It's easy to relate Riley's emotional experiences in the film to your own, even if you didn't move to San Francisco and don't play hockey. Her physical experience isn't important to relate to; what's important is the turmoil.
On the surface, the emotions are eccentrically animated and voiced and are fun to watch. Even though they're labels, they're capable of thinking for themselves and don't feel as one-dimensional as one might fear. The protagonist, Joy, for example, always tries her best to think positively, but she certainly struggles with it from time to time. The voice acting from the whole cast, Amy Poehler especially, is very fun. The jokes, which are mostly on the side, not crucial to the story, will play well with most audiences, and got a few chuckles out of me even though I didn't think it was hilarious. There's enough color and fun adventure for children to enjoy, but I wouldn't bet that this is going to be an absolute Pixar favorite for the little kids. There's so much here that's targeted at more mature audiences that goes beyond the surface, but still remains accessible.
The film is always in two places at once, which is the genius of the screenplay. There's what happens physically, and what's happening metaphorically. Even though the metaphors are obvious, they are thought provoking because they get you to think about what the film is saying about the process of the mind, and how it relates to your own. It shows that a film can be deep without sacrificing accessibility.
Although the majority of the film is fueled by abstract ideas, it sometimes just has fun. For example, when they walk through the abstract place or go into the subconscious, nothing profound is being said about abstract thought or the subconscious. This is fine because the movie knows where it wants to focus, and doesn't get too convoluted by digging into everything.
The film's main message is easy to grasp and predictable to a fault, but there's so much detail that it goes far beyond the confinements of a single, simple message. It's a movie that allows for a lot of discussion and interpretation. I've even pulled ideas from the film that went outside what's actually in the movie. It works tremendously well as a coming-of-age film, too. I'm trying not to spoil anything about the plot, but I'll say there's a lot of ideas you can dig into here, and all feel warmly truthful, big and relatable.
There are some satisfyingly emotional moments, but the predictability factor slightly hindered the impact of the climax for me. With so many other pluses, I can mostly overlook this flaw. No Pixar film has been nearly this conceptual since Wall-E, and it's the kind of Pixar I like to see. It's a thought-provoking experience that's thoroughly enjoyable and certainly will stand among the year's best films, and among Pixar's greats. - DirectorLászló NemesStarsGéza RöhrigLevente MolnárUrs RechnA Jewish-Hungarian concentration camp prisoner sets out to give a child he mistook for his son a proper burial.4.5/5 Son of Saul tells the story of a Jewish man during the Holocaust who has a role as a worker in the camps. The film opens with Saul helping the Nazis carry out their routine of gassing tons of people by working lower positions such as collecting coats and sweeping floors. Saul, played by Geza Rohrig, and others in his position, are scheduled to be killed in the near future and they know this. In many ways, they’re dead already.
So much of this film is carried on Rohrig’s performance. He feels completely immersed in the world of Saul. His gaze is trained to look downwards and he reacts without emotion to the suffering around him. He’s been completely numbed, stripped of a soul, performing orders with the compliance necessary to minimize further suffering. Geza Rohrig carries all of this through his eyes and physical performance every second he’s on screen, and he’s on screen pretty much every second.
Laszo Nemes keeps the camera on Saul all the time, filming each scene as a closely held tracking shot. The background is often blocked out because of the style, and sound plays a huge role in our experience. The filming style, like Rohrig’s performance, conveys the numbness of the character’s soul. This isn’t the kind of Holocaust film that asks us to cry at the events. Rather, we respond to them more coldly, feeling as Saul feels about his environment.
Saul’s personal mission is to find a rabbi and properly bury the body of a child he’s snuck out of the medical room. Meanwhile, a rebellion is being plotted among the Jews, but Saul doesn’t play an active role in it.
While most are fighting for life, Saul is fighting for death. He is the only one who understands in all ways that count, that they are already dead, that the Nazis have numbed them and stripped them of life. Saul fights for the soul, the only thing that can’t be taken from him.
There is a lot that is conveyed through the filming style and lead performance, but the style feeds us the same information over and over. As a result, the style can only carry the film so far when not much is occurring with the story. Son of Saul feels like it could be a fair chunk shorter and have the same impact. However, the film mostly makes up for this with a very powerful ending that will leave audiences appropriately speechless. - DirectorCary Joji FukunagaStarsAbraham AttahEmmanuel AffadziRicky AdelayitorA drama based on the experiences of Agu, a child soldier fighting in the civil war of an unnamed African country.4.5/5 A poetic and beautifully shot look at a child soldier in Africa brought into war without a choice. This is a brutal watch that will leave audiences speechless in a way that few films do. It's one of the most unforgettable and powerful movies of the year.
Cary Fukunaga takes a quiet and meditative approach to the subject that lets actions speak for themselves. The editing style is loose, sometimes montage-y in a Terrence Malick kind of way, but it's not at all an imitation. The poetic style makes for a unique experience where we are at once put right in the center of the action through the protagonist's perspective but are asked to stand back and contemplate what we're experiencing. This is a winning combination, orchestrated masterfully by Fukunaga.
Everything is filmed beautifully by Fukunaga himself, who neatly highlights the of the African forests and villages. These are the only locations in the movie, so what I'm saying is that every shot looks great. The prettiness of the shots adds to the poetic feel of the movie, contrasting beauty to ugliness, reflecting the confusion between the two that Agu feels. The ambient score does this as well when it floats blissfully above the brutality.
I appreciated that the film feels so authentic in bringing you into Africa despite it being an American movie. It really immerses you in its location and lets you taste the atmosphere. It's not surprising that this was a difficult film to sell, but it's great that Netflix picked it up, and that we may see marketability get less important if this trend continues.
Abraham Attah is insanely good in the lead role. Mostly without words, we witness him become one with the war due to brutality and manipulation. Idris Elba thankfully doesn't stand out as the one non-African actor in the film, immersing himself into the world of this war as the commandant. His character makes the soldiers feel like they're apart of something great, but later on Elba lets us see that he is a damaged and vulnerable being, struggling for power and a feeling of importance.
The film shows how child soldiers are manipulated into feeling powerful and part of a group that's fighting for a good. The damaging effects that the war has on Agu are revealed as he and other soldiers eventually discover the emptiness of it all. This isn't a perfect movie, however. It's not quite as dense and ripe for discussion as it feels like it should be, especially for its runtime and poetic nature. Because of this, it's not quite on the pedestal of other brutal films like 12 Years a Slave and Schindler's List, but it's not terribly far off. Without question, this is an important movie that masterfully depicts the effects that war has on a child. - DirectorAndrew HaighStarsCharlotte RamplingTom CourtenayGeraldine JamesA married couple preparing to celebrate their wedding anniversary receives shattering news that promises to forever change the course of their lives.4.5/5
- DirectorJohn CrowleyStarsSaoirse RonanEmory CohenDomhnall GleesonAn Irish immigrant lands in 1950s Brooklyn, where she quickly falls into a romance with a local. When her past catches up with her, however, she must choose between two countries and the lives that exist within.4.5/5 Brooklyn acts as a compelling romance and a thoughtful drama about change and transition. The relationships in the film sparkle and feel very genuine thanks to the actors and Nick Hornby's screenplay which knows exactly when to let the film speak through dialogue and when to let the moment simmer. Hornby allows the emotions to breathe on their own by avoiding clichés with ease. The broad appeal of the emotions and themes allows for the audience to relate the process of change in Eilis's life to any transitional period in their own, which I found myself doing during and after the film.
Saoirse Ronan carries this film on her shoulders in every scene, conveying all of the emotion of her emotional journey often without having to say anything. She really tells her characters story through her eyes and face, and it's hard to imagine the film working so well without her. She deserves all the Oscar consideration she can get. There are some solid supporting performances as well, notably from Emory Cohen and Julie Walters.
It's a nice looking and nice feeling film that has subtle but great period aesthetics and visuals that enhance the emotion. A thoroughly enjoyable watch on a surface level that anyone can enjoy because Saoirse Ronan and director John Crowley make it easy to identify with the central character and to relate to her experience.
There was an important point in the film where I didn't quite get the reason a character made a decision because it arose too quickly and was motivated by something that felt too external. It distanced me from the film a little and diminished the overall impact a bit for me. Nonetheless, I certainly felt like I came away from the film with a lot and really enjoyed my viewing experience. Would highly recommend. Hard not to like. Saoirse Ronan was great. - DirectorAlejandro G. IñárrituStarsLeonardo DiCaprioTom HardyWill PoulterA frontiersman on a fur trading expedition in the 1820s fights for survival after being mauled by a bear and left for dead by members of his own hunting team.4.5/5 The Revenant is a singular experience that raises the bar for cinema in many ways. It’s extremely impressive on a production level, so full of moments that would stand out in any other film that we take them for granted as we watch (that’s a good thing). It didn’t quite live up to my extremely lofty expectations on a thematic level, but on an atmospheric level it’s nothing short of enthralling.
Emmanuel Lubezki is my favorite cinematographer because he has been reinventing cinema for years and we didn’t even realize it until we started giving him his deserved Oscars. Everything he films turns to gold, as he extracts the beauty in everything he films. This adds an extra layer to these films, and this layer can be seen in every frame of his best works. The Tree of Life relied on an experiential quality and a feeling of the sequences to enjoy, which was captured through his swift camera movements. In Gravity, the perspective of looking down at earth in a contemplative manner was key to the full experience, and Lubezki captured that entirely visually. The long takes he’s known for that peaked with Birdman show what a film can accomplish without interrupting a take. His signature organic movements, wide angle lens, and depth of field are what makes all of these achievements possible. That, and some sort of magic only he can strip from a camera.
The Revenant may be his greatest achievement yet, because it exemplifies all of these and more. Movies don’t usually belong to the cinematographer but I really do think Lubezki is the MVP here. Each frame highlights the cold, untouched wilderness, weather muddy, snowy, or misty with unparalleled beauty. He and Iñarritu use long takes once again that are so often they simply blend in to the film and don’t usually call attention to themselves, even though you will often be watching in awe. Nature plays a large role in the film and Lubezki captures this perhaps better than anything in the story does.
There is so much cinematic wizardry, moments where you will wonder how they did what they did. Sometimes the camera movements are what is impressive, sometimes it’s the moments that play out in single takes that make it difficult to understand how they were made. The effect of all this is a cinematic experience that is often enthralling. The bear attack, like a few other scenes, is so insanely realistic that it’s like “whoa” gruesome and you may not be able to sit still during it.
Production designer Jack Fisk creates subtle but realistic sets that look organically built, weather they’re Native American or American settler settlements, that bring you into the unique setting of the snowy American western 19th century. The costumes accomplish this as well, as does the fact that the crew ventured out to the wilderness to film everything. Without the on location filming, the film would have lost its atmospheric qualities, which are extremely powerful.
Leonardo DiCaprio’s character Hugh Glass is continuously beaten up in this movie, and his survival story is incredible to experience, not inspiring in any way, but the movie isn’t trying to be inspiring. His physical struggle of survival is powerful to watch on a visceral level, and it would not have this power without DiCaprio’s performance. Largely without dialogue, Leo effectively evokes lots of suffering and physical pain, and each stage of his physical condition feels gruelingly real, and that says a lot considering the condition he’s in.
DiCaprio is matched equally by Tom Hardy, who has clearly sunk deeply into his role. Hardy has always been great at playing a brute, but with each performance, it’s a different kind. Here, he embodies an animalistic and merciless nature that is significant to the savagery the film emphasizes about the people in this world. It really feels like Hardy has transformed himself, and we see very clearly it through his hollow, ape-ish gaze.
So much of the film is without dialogue, and relies on experiencing Glass’s survival and bathing in the atmosphere. The combination of the story and atmosphere is poetic like a Terrence Malick film, where most of the content and subtext of the story comes from the experience. The emphasis on nature gives hints to a God pervading the film, and the film explores this idea a little, but not quite enough. For a film that feels so spiritual, it left me unmoved. The attention that went in to the production was not the same attention that went into creating an emotional or spiritual takeaway for the audience. It is so impressive that sometimes it forgets to build meaning.
The climax of the film certainly evokes a kind of message that feels connected to other aspects of the film, but too loosely. This is because so much less time is spent developing themes than it is atmosphere and impressive stuff, that when it comes to the film’s climax, it doesn’t feel like the themes dominate the work the way a spiritual climax should. Part of this is because our protagonist doesn’t deal with a lot of turmoil that is not physical. He wants to overcome death in his family, but it is unexplained as to what exactly about the death of his wife is tormenting him and what she represents. She repeats to him a line that he repeats to his son about how trees look like they’re going to fall, but don’t, but this seems to apply too basically to the character’s survival than it does to themes of revenge, nature (yes, even though it’s a tree), and brutality.
What the film captures best thematically is a sense of a society that is full of meaningless pursuits of survival and violence. Overall, however, it is thematically inconsistent and suppressed by its physical scope. Many of my feelings towards the film are of being impressed, and it was damn impressive. I also take away the experience of being enveloped in it in a way that is very rare. - DirectorTom McCarthyStarsMark RuffaloMichael KeatonRachel McAdamsThe true story of how the Boston Globe uncovered the massive scandal of child molestation and cover-up within the local Catholic Archdiocese, shaking the entire Catholic Church to its core.4.5/5 Spotlight does justice to an incredible true story through its faith towards and deep understanding of the real events. It's eye opening to witness the discovery of this massive scandal with the catholic church, showing just how important investigative journalism is.
The film has quite the ensemble cast with some really good performances. Michael Keaton and Mark Ruffalo really capture the essence of their characters (I'd know because we saw them at an interview after the screening) and closely embody many details including speech and physical mannerisms. Liev Schreiber and Stanley Tucci were also standouts with their characters. Rachel McAdams was good, too, but she's not doing anything we haven't seen her do before. There isn't quite a main character in the film, and we don't go very deep into any particular character. This is mostly forgivable because what the characters are tackling is much bigger than they are. Even though we don't feel the story much through any particular character, we feel it effectively as a whole. That isn't to say that the performances lack depth, however. Several of the actors do a great job of conveying a passion for justice in their work, particularly Keaton and Ruffalo, who are the clear and equal standouts in the film.
Thomas MacCarthy is great at making the audience feel like they're really experiencing this investigation as it unfolds. It's hard to find wasted screen time as the story is constantly moving. The screenplay, which is apparently incredibly accurate, is concise and full of intelligent and witty dialogue that propels each minute of this thriller paced drama. Watching the film, we are put right in the center of several major discoveries like just how big of a problem child molestation is in the Catholic Church and how the church has gotten an entire country to sweep the scandal under the rug. It shows how such a large situation can go unnoticed by the word, despite its massive size, and this is a shocking discovery that we make as the Spotlight crew does.
The film is a perfect homage to investigative journalism, honoring the heroes of the Spotlight team and the victims who come forward to help justice surface. Spotlight shows that the time to act is the time when you're told to keep your mouth shut. It would be hard to imagine a film depicting the many layers of how this story was uncovered and celebrating those who sought out the truth better than Spotlight does.
The broad approach certainly pays off in a satisfying way, but I can't help but feel that the film may have been even more moving if it took a more intimate approach. It's a slight loss that we don't really connect with any characters, especially when it's clear that the film could have done so without diminishing the overall impact. Still, Spotlight gets so much right that it's hard to complain. This is a really incredible story and it's great to feel that MacCarthy and his crew know it. - DirectorSebastian SchipperStarsLaia CostaFrederick LauFranz RogowskiA young Spanish woman who has recently moved to Berlin finds her flirtation with a local guy turn potentially deadly as their night out with his friends reveals a dangerous secret.4.5/5 An exhilarating film that is one 140 minute shot. It's not only incredible because of the mere achievement of shooting the movie in one take, but because of the totally unique cinematic experience you'll have while watching it.
Victoria starts out in a nightclub when she meets a group of guys, one of whom, named Sonne, she starts to like a lot after they hang out. She gets caught up in the criminal activity of Sonne and his buddies, not knowing exactly how her night is going to unfold. This all takes place in two hours and we see every second of it from Victoria's perspective in a single shot. The filmmaking strategy makes the whole film a thrill ride where we go through a series of different emotions and life changing events. We feel the chemistry of Victoria and Sonne in the beginning, the thrill of the robbery in the second part, and the tragedy as they struggle to escape towards the end. Once the main conflict settles in, the film unfolds like a roller coaster.
Only 12 pages were written for this film. That means there's a damn ton of improvisation from the actors, and this method of giving the actors a loose script and having them improvise without any cuts makes for some incredibly impressive acting and genuine character interactions. Because these actors must work off of nothing but their characters, the film only works if they are absolutely alive in their characters' skins, acting as if they're really going through the night we're witnessing. The actors are absolutely up for this, and the two leads deliver some of the best performances I'll see all year. They were incredibly convincing as a couple meeting and starting conversations with each other. Frederick Lau does a better job at pretending to be intoxicated than any actor I've ever seen. He also feels like such a full, genuine human being, and the same can be said for Laia Costa and her character. Both go through the more than two hours adapting to each scene in the film as it comes about perfectly. The energy that comes from the improvisation never dies down because the actors are so invested that they feel like they're going through the night as it occurs, and in a way, they really are.
No, it wouldn't work without the one take, but in a way, that's kind of the point. It shows what can be achieved through this kind of filmmaking, and you don't understand the achievement unless you really watch it. And no, it is not Birdman. The authenticity of the single take and the story surrounding it makes for a better use of that take than Birdman does. They're totally different films, but Victoria is a better one shot movie. It's a thriller, it's more spontaneous, and it's more genuine. It's better at showing what one take can do.
Towards the film's beginning, it's hard not to feel like it's going nowhere for a while. This is easy to forgive because when it goes it GOES. Though there was never a point where I wasn't thrilled after the story picked up, the emotional tone sometimes stayed the same for so long that it lessened the impact for me. The story is minor, but the film is not very interested in blowing its audience away with the story. It is interested in the experience, and it certainly delivers on that level. In many ways, the story is great because it works so well for this one shot. To try for more story may have hindered the thrill that the film achieves. I don't think it's a masterpiece but I'm really content with it not being one because what it was was such a great, singular experience.
There's so much to appreciate about the way the film was made and how it was pulled off so well. But more than that, Victoria is a hugely thrilling experience that should be a mandatory viewing for anyone interested in filmmaking. - DirectorPaul WeitzStarsLily TomlinJulia GarnerMarcia Gay HardenA teenager facing an unplanned pregnancy seeks help from her acerbic grandmother, a woman who is long estranged from her daughter.4.5/5 In Grandma, Elle (the grandma) tries to borrow money from people she knows for her granddaughter to pay for an abortion scheduled for later that day. The film acts as a road movie as Elle encounters people from her past and the journey becomes more important than the destination.
As Elle, Lily Tomlin is funny in her direct and confrontational nature, where she won’t take *beep* from anyone, but the character is much deeper, holding that part of her close to herself and trying to teach Sage, her granddaughter, the same. There’s more compassion and purpose in her attitude than one might expect. Her layered performance gives us a sense of her values and her flaws. It’s a great performance surrounded by great supporting performances.
In Sam Elliot’s brief time on screen he conveys a lifetime of hurt from his past with Elle that resonated through the film’s entirety. Marcia Gay Harden’s performance has that same great effect as she appears late in the film, filling in the missing generational gap between Elle and Sage. She’s a tough and obsessively organized woman with a broken relationship between her mother and daughter. Harden communicates this with ease, her life a desperate attempt to maintain an illusion of control. Judy Greer succeeds in showing the experiential gap between her and Elle, and Julia Garner is careful and effective in revealing her Sage’s insecurities.
Paul Weitz gives each character a unique face and devotes lots of attention to each’s personal issues. The dialogue ranges from witty to poignant, and the humor is very well balanced. Weitz wisely chooses not to intervene much with the simple, handheld camerawork, letting his characters speak for themselves.
This movie just might fill your heart when Sage and Elle give each other a hug at the end of their long day. We see that Elle is trying to teach her granddaughter self-acceptance in a world where it’s too easy to beat yourself up, because life is too short to apologize for who you are. Elle learns something about herself as well, that wanting the best for yourself doesn’t mean you can’t want the best for others. It’s a small film with a big heart that feels true to life, and a hidden gem underneath this year’s bigger ticket movies. One of the year's best, in fact. - DirectorRamin BahraniStarsAndrew GarfieldMichael ShannonLaura DernA recently unemployed single father struggles to get back his foreclosed home by working for the real estate broker who is the source of his frustration.4.5/5 99 Homes smartly explores class issues in capitalist America through the real estate business. What's compelling is the relationship between Rick Carver (Michael Shannon), the cold, corrupt real estate king and Dennis (Andrew Garfield) as the good hearted, struggling father working for him. The twist is that Dennis' house was evicted under Carver and he's working for him secretly out of desperation. The morally conflicting scenario makes for a quietly thrilling and thought-provoking look at capitalism.
The two lead performances anchor the film and both actors do great work. Andrew Garfield's performance has a lot of heart and makes the emotional argument of the film convincing. His moral conflict is the center of the film as he struggles to be a good man and one who can provide for his loved ones. He finds it difficult to do both. Garfield carries the film through displaying guilt and hardship. Michael Shannon is a cold hard real estate tycoon who doesn't let his emotions surface, but in doing so, is able to get ahead in the game of capitalism. His performance is fierce and his presence always dominates the room.
The screenplay is great at developing the conflict between honesty and power, keenly observing the flaws of American capitalism. In the film's depiction, the 1% get ahead by feeding off of the poor through corruption. Rick Carver says that only 1/100 get to go on the ark, and asks Dennis if he wants to sink or stay afloat. It's interesting how Ramin Bahrani (the director and screenwriter) doesn't put his characters in a struggle to fix the system, but suggests that as long as we have this system, there will inevitably be this divide between the 1% and 99%. It's almost hard to blame Dennis for shifting to the 1%. After all, as he puts it, the government has never been fair to him.
Behind the camera, Bahrani does an excellent job of creating tension and thrilling moments out of human sized drama. His camera captures a lot of emotion in its subtle handheld movements, especially in eviction scenes. One of the film's most compelling sequences is when Dennis must put a family in the same tragic situation he was once in. Garfield carries this scene through the complex emotion on his face.
99 Homes has a lot to say about the current state of capitalism in America through a screenplay that's one of the year's finest and some great performances to enhance it (Laura Dern is also excellent as Dennis' mom). If there's a flaw for me, it's that the film's end doesn't quite top some of the film's middle. But it doesn't stop the film from being one of the smartest of the year. See it and take your Dad. - DirectorYann DemangeStarsJack O'ConnellSam ReidSean HarrisIn 1971, a young and disoriented British soldier is accidentally abandoned by his unit following a riot on the deadly streets of Belfast.4.5/5 Even though there's very little character establishment or exposition, '71 succeeds because it puts you right in the center of the action. The film doesn't take sides on the war, understanding that both sides face the burden of circumstance and that no life is more valuable than another simply because it's on one side of a battle. By not delving into the politics around the war, the film focuses on the value of humans, not what they're fighting for.
Yann Demange's direction keeps the film thrilling and gritty, but the director is not only concerned with crafting a mere thriller. He is concerned with the emotional aspect of war as well. As Private Hook runs around the war divided city, there's a purposeful sense of urgency and confusion. Hook didn't do anything wrong to get there and those who are chasing him are not in the wrong either. We root for Hook because we want him to survive, but as the film goes on we begin to sympathize for those threatening our protagonist's life. MINOR SPOILER: ////// In one incredible moment of the film, Hook has no choice but to kill someone to save his own life. The way that the two look at each other as Hook kills him speaks volumes. \\\\\\
By the end of the film, we have witnessed the chaos of war. There's an endless confusion and lack of humanity, and to consider the value of human life is tragically futile in the face of war. To a fault, the film masks itself as a thriller more than I think it really is. It's emotional in bursts that color the entire film with their power, but I wish it was a bit more consistent. Still, the film gets at the humanity and truth of war as well as the best war films. - DirectorAlex GarlandStarsAlicia VikanderDomhnall GleesonOscar IsaacA young programmer is selected to participate in a ground-breaking experiment in synthetic intelligence by evaluating the human qualities of a highly advanced humanoid A.I.4.5/5 Visually impeccable, isolated and intelligent, Ex Machina is near-great science fiction film that quietly thrills its audience and leaves them thinking.
First time director Alex Garland has surprising skill, with direction that simply feels masterful. His sense of pace, space, and control over all elements of film is rare. It's not even that one has to read deeply into the film to find how great Garland is, the skill is just felt and that's what watching great filmmakers feels like.
The atmosphere of the film stands out tremendously, with art direction that deserves Oscar consideration, and cinematography to enhance it. There are reflections everywhere, and Oscar Isaac's house, despite its cleanness, feels claustrophobic in a maze-like way. Even just blank walls have so much character to them. These reflections give us the sense that we don't truly know the intents of the characters. The film twists like a thriller as it unfolds. It's confined and explosive.
We are stuck on Isaac's estate with just three characters who form a complex and ambiguous character triangle. Domhnall Gleeson is mostly good in his role, but sometimes has unrealistic moments of awkwardness. Oscar Isaac is fantastic and very funny in a way we can probably relate to others we've met. He's the kind of guy who tries to make you feel more comfortable than you want to feel. His character's genius also comes off, and so does his bluntness. All of these characteristics wrap up in a full and understandable, if detached, human being. Also great is rising star Alicia Vikander as Ava, who is believable as an A.I, and that's saying a lot. Her movements are very subtly off-kilter, and her soul is ambiguous.
The film has ideas on its mind as well about the possibility of artificial intelligence and what weaknesses humans have when put up against them. For me, some of the A.I. ideas felt too familiar, and by the end I felt like the movie was saying something I'd kind of heard before. On the other hand, the flaw of humanity that the film reveals was very effective and new. The metaphor with the Jackson Pollock painting sticks in my mind.
This is one of the more exciting sci-fi films in recent memory. It's physically small, but as intense as any big budget flick and with many more ideas and masterful visuals. I recommend to everyone. - DirectorTom HooperStarsEddie RedmayneAlicia VikanderAmber HeardA fictitious love story loosely inspired by the lives of Danish artists Lili Elbe and Gerda Wegener. Lili and Gerda's marriage and work evolve as they navigate Lili's groundbreaking journey as a transgender pioneer.4.5/5 Though some are bothered by Tom Hooper's style and his films being so Oscar bait-y, I really enjoy his unique way of crafting period films. His sets and costumes might be lavish, but they don't call attention to themselves in a glorifying way like other period dramas like to do. The images are grayer than they are golden, but still delicious for the eyes. Certain shots are stunningly good looking, and the visuals are consistently beautiful in a way that suits the tone, at once gritty and lavish.
The film's first thirty minutes showcase Einar and Gerda's love for each another that goes far beyond attraction, and into trust, deep friendship, and mutual growth. As Eddie Redmayne's Einar discovers himself, we watch him grow into Lily, and glow under her skin. The power of his transformation is shown when after a while of being Lily, Einar goes back to being Einar, and he seems so bare, like his soul has been sucked from him. Through Redmayne's performance, we understand the experience of being trapped in one's own body and how it feels to be set free from that.
Alicia Vikander's performance is an equally powerful anchor for the film. Through it, we see how much she loves her husband from the inside and out, and how she makes him a better person through that love. Although it's difficult for her, Gerda accept's her spouse's identity because she's seen into his soul and knows that it's really there. Vikander's character shows how the truest form of love is understanding, and how letting loved ones be who they are is the greatest gift one can give, even if that means a sacrifice from themselves.
In depicting the transgender experience, The Danish Girl does a great job. I don't understand that first hand, but I imagine the film gets it right, because it appears to have a deep understanding of its subject. What allows the audience to understand this experience is how universal it makes its subject. While it's about the transgender experience, the film makes it easy to relate that to authenticity and allowing your true self to thrive. There are many lines to highlight from the screenplay about living as two people, one of whom is trapped inside the other, caged by society.
The film is so soaked in tears that the emotional impact of each scene is weighed down by all the others. It doesn't save any punches, and therefore doesn't punch hard enough in any particular scene, instead punching softly throughout. It's common to feel that during the movie that you're treading on the same thematic territory you've been on for the past hour. This makes it feel overlong, and after a certain point we aren't fed any new thematic material. I feel like it could have ended about twenty minutes early and I would have liked it the same.
As a depiction of the transgender experience, of being your authentic self, The Danish Girl couldn't be much better. It's also a testament to what it means to truly love somebody. Both Redmayne and Vikander display some of the best acting of 2015, and they alone give the film so much of its power. Also Alicia Vikander is such a lead performance. The Academy should not put her in supporting. Moving her will not decrease her chances at a nomination, I can confidently say. - DirectorRobert ZemeckisStarsJoseph Gordon-LevittCharlotte Le BonBen KingsleyIn 1974, high-wire artist Philippe Petit recruits a team of people to help him realize his dream: to walk the immense void between the World Trade Center towers.4.5/5 The riveting final act is a mandatory IMAX experience, but even before it the film has a high spirit and cinematic direction that gives you a reason not to wait until on demand.
Joseph Gordon-Levitt is great at capturing Philippe Petit's spirit and love for life. He's the only man who would see a picture of the renovation of the World Trade Centers and want to walk a tightrope over it, and Levitt makes us believe that he was that man.
The film's first two acts are getting a lot of criticism for being pale in comparison to the third. While no one can deny that the end is the best part, and the selling point of the movie, I really enjoyed the middle as well. Robert Zemeckis takes advantage 3D and IMAX constantly, crafting clever shots that work towards giving the audience a delightfully silly and energetic experience that feels in tune with Petit's view of life. It's a heist movie about how Petit's team illegally hung the wire, and it was fun to see how it went down. Sure, the character development is minimal and doesn't stand at all among the final spectacle, but the film makes up for this by the end.
The final act, the walk, is an exhilarating cinematic experience that delivers in every way possible. IMAX has maybe never been put to better use than it is here. The film really takes its time with this sequence, which lasts for maybe 30 minutes, each one marvelous, anxiety-inducing, and moving. Zemeckis' camera feels boundless, floating above the what Petit refers to as "the void" with such depth that we almost feel like we're up there with him. The filmmaker understands what an incredible work of art Petit's achievement was, and the sequence helps us to understand that, too. It's filled with all kinds of emotions, and audience members will have varying experiences.
Not only does the film tribute the man who took the walk, but the towers, and the meaning Petit gave to them through his stunt. It's a perfect ode to the towers and the heights that mankind is capable of reaching. - DirectorPatrick BriceStarsKatie AseltonPatrick BriceMark DuplassA young videographer answers an online ad for a one-day job in a remote town to record the last messages of a dying man. When he notices the man's odd behavior, he starts to question his intentions.4.5/5 This is as no budget as movies get. Mark Duplass and Patrick Brice wrote the story, both acted as the only two characters in the movie, and Brice directed. Nothing fancy here, hardly no effects, but extremely suspenseful and creepy. This is one of the best found footage horror movies I've seen, and one of the better horror movies that I've seen period.
Like other movies that Mark Duplass is involved in, the film is compulsively watchable. Duplass's performance is extremely entertaining, and his appearance or presence commands the entire film, since he's the only person not holding the camera. His character is weird and ambiguous until the very end, which is one of the mysteries that the film holds onto for its entire runtime.
The problem with many horror films is that they reveal too much before the end. Creep avoids this entirely by sustaining a sense of mystery and unpredictability throughout the entire runtime. It builds perfectly, never letting one situation run on until it's stale. The suspense is Hitchcockian, if not greater. If you bite your nails, slide towards the edge of your seat, or curl up in balls when you experience suspense, you'll be doing one of those things.
Another thing I really liked was that it felt plausible and the characters weren't stupid. The protagonist's reaction to his situation felt real. He did what we might have done, which is hard to find in a horror movie, and it can be frustrating when the protagonist is stupid and unrealistic.
Creep can be funny, too, but it's not quite a horror comedy because it's unmistakably creepy. The film's ending will leave you stunned and disturbed, and I won't say no more. It's a testament to how effective minimalist filmmaking can be. The movie comes out on Netflix tomorrow and this is a great find if you want to see a truly suspenseful found footage horror film. Acceptable for sleepovers as well as long as your friends aren't dumb and won't be complaining about the budget. - DirectorJ.J. AbramsStarsDaisy RidleyJohn BoyegaOscar IsaacAs a new threat to the galaxy rises, Rey, a desert scavenger, and Finn, an ex-stormtrooper, must join Han Solo and Chewbacca to search for the one hope of restoring peace.4.5/5 I'm not a big Star Wars guy, (only seen A New Hope) but I thought this new flick was really exciting all around. The entire cast is bursting with energy they work to create not just one, not just two, but four awesome new characters. Abrams does a spectacular job with the visuals, as well as making it feel like good old, and good new Star Wars fun. This will surely be a treat for fans, and likely just about anyone who walks into the theater.
Daisy Ridley and John Boyega are perfect choices for their roles, bringing both personality and energy to their characters. Most of their performances, as well as the film itself, work on a surface lever, but they do so extremely well. Rey is stern and strong but not tightly defined by that in an annoying way. It's fun to watch her use her talents and also discover more of what she's capable of. Boyega plays Finn with a lot of charisma, and he's always fun to watch when he's on screen. The two characters develop a great chemistry together and become a great duo.
So much of the cast is likable from right when we meet them, particularly Oscar Isaac's Poe. Even though he's not as big as other characters, he's just magnetic, which is mostly a testament to how cool Oscar Isaac is. The fact that BB-8 is a real robot and not CGI is responsible for him being really cute and really cool. Adam Driver is a fantastic villain. With the mask on, his voice has command and personality that is hard to find in most voices. With the mask off, Driver reveals a vulnerability and insecurity to his character just beneath a psychotic and sometimes frightening surface. There are so many great new characters from rising actors that all deserve the spotlight.
Harrison Ford has the largest returning part, and he matches the rest of the cast, playing his classic role just as charismatically as he did in the past. There are a few characters who I didn't really care about, like Princess Leia and Domhnall Gleeson's character, but that hardly matters when the rest of the cast is so great.
Even though I don't know a lot about the films, they're so integrated into movie culture that I still liked seeing old pieces come back, and being swept into the Star Wars universe. It's unmistakeable that not only is justice being done to the old films, but that it's being reinvigorated. A lot of the style of The Force Awakens plays with the dichotomy between classic and new cinema. You can certainly see the best of modern visual effects and sound effects here, but there's never CGI for the sake of CGI, which is nice to see. The art direction and John Williams' score both evoke nostalgia and fit the modern flare of the film. Daniel Mindel's cinematography does a great job highlighting and integrating visual effects and set design into the nice look of the film. I liked that Abrams includes plenty of wide shots to soak up the scenery, as well as exciting camera moves to make you feel apart of the adventure. Whether it's riding along with the Millennium Falcon or witnessing a light saber showdown, there's abundant excitement, and lots of diversity among the action scenes.
There are a ton of questions that audiences will have about the future of the franchise. The writers do a good job making this feel like a complete movie, and at the same time making audiences excited for the next one. However, I was a bit disappointed that they saved so many of these questions. I was interested in learning about the backstories of some of the characters, but found that all of those are being saved for the next films. Still, unlike some of the Hunger Games movies, this really does feel complete. It just could have been a bit better. The flaw many have with repetition with A New Hope is irrelevant to me because I haven't seen the movie in a while and don't really remember it.
Overall, I was really happy to find myself sucked into the story much more than I'd expected. There are surprises aplenty, and a few made me go "ADOOH!!" like I was a fan. From my perspective, one of The Force Awakens' biggest achievements is its ability to suck me in and turn me into a fanboy for over two hours. I got the feeling that the whole crew was just really excited about making the movie, and everyone was on their A game, which made it really fun. Fun fun. Exciting. - DirectorJudd ApatowStarsAmy SchumerBill HaderBrie LarsonHaving thought that monogamy was never possible, a commitment-phobic career woman may have to face her fears when she meets a good guy.4/5 Very very funny
- DirectorCéline SciammaStarsKaridja TouréAssa SyllaLindsay KaramohA girl with few real prospects joins a gang, reinventing herself and gaining a sense of self confidence in the process. However, she soon finds that this new life does not necessarily make her any happier.4.5/5 A great coming-of-age film that is powerful, thought provoking, and original in theme. The unique perspective this film takes is through a 15 year old French black girl who joins a group of older girls in an attempt to find who she growing up. The protagonist, Marieme, is blank enough that we can put ourselves into her for reflection, but feels completely human nonetheless thanks to Karidja Touré, who always allows us to access the interior of her character. Céline Sciamma's direction lets the setting and characters breathe on their own, but there is a guidance to Marieme's journey that is unmistakeable.
What Marieme wants is best reflected in a motto that her new friend has her repeat: "you do what you want." Girlhood reflects on this desire that all adolescents hold, and the ways in which we attempt to achieve it, and how these ways often get us exactly the opposite. Sciamma addresses how these issues are especially oppressive to women and those in impoverished communities, specifically black ones. The film's message is powerful enough to reach well outside of these categories however, and sticks with you long after it ends. The end is both tragic and hopeful in the best way. It started to drag a bit for me by the end, and it's more memorable for what it says than for the experience. I would recommend it to those interested in coming-of-age films and fans of foreign cinema. - DirectorColin TrevorrowStarsChris PrattBryce Dallas HowardTy SimpkinsA new theme park, built on the original site of Jurassic Park, creates a genetically modified hybrid dinosaur, the Indominus Rex, which escapes containment and goes on a killing spree.4.5/5 With only mediocre expectations set on this movie (I nearly skipped it), I am happy to say that I was extremely surprised with how much I enjoyed Jurassic World. It's a thrill ride of a movie with great 3D visuals (see it in 3D please), genuine characters, and some thoughtful writing.
This movie is the difference between watching an action movie where you just look at the stuff blowing up on screen and are supposed to be impressed by it, and being a part of the adventure. Even the film that everyone is calling the pinnacle of modern action films, Mad Max: Fury Road, lacks the immersive entertainment of Jurassic World. It's the kind that makes you want to cling onto your seat, or move your head back when a character has a dinosaur in their face. It's what true adventure filmmaking is all about, and it's very rare to have that in your typical blockbuster.
The director, Colin Trevorrow, previously made the great 2012 indie hit Safety Not Guaranteed. I thought I might have been disappointed to see him venture into blockbuster filmmaking, but if he keeps this up he can make as many big budgets as he wants. He's very concerned with the adventure feel, not just what happens and what explodes and who dies. His direction makes you feel like you're there with the characters. When they're being chased, the camera is swooping alongside them, and when they're in danger we're right at the center of it, apart of it. Trevorrow's last film also showed that the filmmaker is talented at writing solid dialogue and in developing character. These talents were surprisingly, though more subtly, reflected here, too.
No, the characters aren't amazing, but for a movie that could have let them slip and be forgiven for its spectacle (Godzilla), it gave them quite a bit of care. The two boys have a nice, warm relationship with one another, despite the eldest's girlfriend at the beginning serving oddly no role in the film. Chris Pratt and Bryce Dallas Howard's characters have an interesting dynamic due to initially contrasting ideologies. These ideologies are reflected elsewhere too, which is why I would claim that this movie has some depth to it, even if it's second to the spectacle.
Howard's character believes in a sort of statistical control of things, which reflects the control man is executing over the dinosaurs and over nature by modifying it genetically, and Vincent D'Onofrio's hope that this modification can eventually lead to military dinosaurs. In contrast, Chris Pratt's character understands that life isn't about control over nature, but respect for it, something that Howard's character has forgotten. Irrfan Khan's character says, (and this may be a misquote) "The only way to be happy is to accept that you cannot control everything." This theme of control is presented in the character's lives, and in a man vs nature context. I know it sounds like I'm looking too far into the movie, but I do believe this is a thoughtful movie with a consistent message, even if the center of an adventure blockbuster isn't the most hard hitting place to contain one. It's a whole lot more than the dumb entertainment that many films settle to be, and that some people think this movie is.
The climax of the film does not disappoint either, and I was left wholly satisfied with the film, extremely surprised by how much fun it was. Technically, the movie looks and sounds great. I appreciated that the colors were nice and bright rather than clouding everything with darkness and rain (*cough, Pacific Rim). The 3D looks really great too, with the shots of crowds standing out as very good looking. With an experience movie like this, the 3D is definitely worth it. I don't really understand why people don't love this movie all that much. Sure, it has those nitpicks here and there, but what mainstream blockbuster doesn't? Aside from the fact that the original Jurassic Park was an achievement for its time, I see little reason to call the first one a better film. This one might even be better. It reminded me of the kind of action/adventure filmmaking that sucks you into the ride that I nearly forgot about, and that it has thoughtful writing is a bonus. - DirectorDeniz Gamze ErgüvenStarsGünes SensoyDoga Zeynep DogusluTugba SungurogluWhen five orphan girls are seen innocently playing with boys on a beach, their scandalized conservative guardians confine them while forced marriages are arranged.4/5
- DirectorGeorge MillerStarsTom HardyCharlize TheronNicholas HoultIn a post-apocalyptic wasteland, a woman rebels against a tyrannical ruler in search for her homeland with the aid of a group of female prisoners, a psychotic worshiper and a drifter named Max.4/5 As a straight action movie, it's one of the best I can think of and stands as an achievement for its genre. It's refreshingly inventive in the visuals and in the atmosphere, and the story is original, though not the strongest part of the film. Mad Max sticks to the action, veering only sometimes outside of that for appropriate stake building, and this leads to a film that's great action even if it's still not a great movie.
Max gets a short introduction in the beginning of the film before it jumps directly, and while the film jumps right into the action. Here, the film wants to ditch the slow start up that action films often have, and I admire that it wants to do that. However, it does it a little too quickly. Stakes are built not too far later on, and I was reminded of how action is more engaging when those stakes are there. Still, the stakeless opening 20 minutes of this film does have a visually spectacular sandstorm that's one of the most exciting moments in the film.
The world that the film creates is what helps it feel fresh and original. The desert post-apocalyptic insanity is not something that we've seen before, and Mad Max takes great advantage of its world. Much of the world building is implied through the characters, actions, and sets rather than told in useless exposition. Because of Miller's full realization of this world, we get seemingly endless inventiveness in what happens during the action. For a movie that's 75% action, there is hardly any repetition. People are fighting and encountering obstacles in new ways all of the time.
Also fun to watch are the vehicles, which are rusty and hand-made with neat functions and designs. There is a ton of detail on them, with curled-up ropes, cranks, and pipes that each function as a part of some contraption or defense that we might not even see used during the film. It's this level of detail, which is present throughout the film, that makes us feel like the world was there long before we witnessed it.
The visual design of the film is spectacular, with computer effects and digital colors beautifully enhancing the film in a way that feels very modern and that represents the best of what technology can do for films, and shows the world what it can do for an action film. But this is not a CGI loaded movie. A ton of practical effects are used with the car chases, crashes, and stunts all feeling very authentic. It's impressive when thinking about how difficult the film must have been to create, but that level of ambition has certainly payed off.
Miller's directorial style includes a frantic camera that films from a variety of angles, tight and wide, and is always on the move. With the editing, these are stitched together to create action sequences that are coherent and fast paced. The use of fast and slow motion is notable because it feels like it really fits. Something about the film feels B-movie and 80's, and yet there's so much of the film that feels so modern. It's a winning combination.
So the action in the film is pretty much perfect, but an action film can't only be action because there's a story. And to not the least of my expectations, the story doesn't live up to the greatness of the action.
One thing that bothered me was the lack of attention to Max's character. Max sees flashes of flashbacks in the movie because he's haunted by people he couldn't save. I was pretty sure that this was the filmmaker telling the audience that we would find out what's going on with his past and then have him overcome it, but nope. These were totally abandoned by the end of the film. He overcomes nothing and seems to learn nothing during the film, and neither does Furiosa. The movie gets about as deep as the word "hope" itself. There wasn't really much heart to it either, and the most emotion in this film is badassery and I don't consider that an emotion of value.
So it's great for action and if all you want out of a movie is action then you'll get your share. I found the film to be original, inventive, and an achievement in its genre, even if I wouldn't call it great overall. - DirectorF. Gary GrayStarsO'Shea Jackson Jr.Corey HawkinsJason MitchellThe rap group NWA emerges from the mean streets of Compton in Los Angeles, California, in the mid-1980s and revolutionizes Hip Hop culture with their music and tales about life in the hood.4/5 Straight Outta Compton tackles a rare subject for Hollywood with surprising prestige. It's an immersive two-and-a-half hours (even as it loses focus in its second half) thanks to a top-notch cast and crew who bring you into NWA’s world with confidence.
In the film’s riveting first half, we are introduced to the group members in Compton. It’s important for us to understand the group’s perspective if we are to understand their music, and this is one of the things the film does best. We see the police brutality they face and how drugs and violence are a means of survival in their community. When Ice Cube looks out his bus window at groups of white teenagers hanging out in their cars and waving at officers, I felt his perspective even though what he saw is much closer to my reality. Rarely does a film make white people feel like outsiders.
The formation of the group is fun to watch as the film avoids familiarity and the clichés we might expect from a musical biopic. It’s exciting when the group begins to create together and perform in the face of criticism from those who don’t understand the art behind their music. The film’s first half allows the audience to be a part of N.W.A’s movement.
The peak of the film for me was at the concert where the group rebelliously performed “*beep* The Police”. At this stage, I felt the music, the stakes, and the motivation. As the film’s second half begins and the group splits apart, so does the focus of the film. It diverts between its three main subjects: Eazy-E, Dr. Dre, and Ice Cube, all of whom get a good share of the story, allowing each to develop their character and for each of the actors to shine. The quality of the filmmaking never diminishes and the entertainment value stays high, but that feeling of the movement of the group that worked so well in the first half fades.
F. Gary Gray often creates a sense of excitement with the motion of the camera, working with Matthew Libatique to make the visuals consistently eye pleasing. The film is expertly edited with upbeat pacing between all its subjects for an impressive runtime, and all three of its main actors along with Paul Giamatti are excellent. The film addresses a lot of relevant issues in America today, perhaps even better than a historical film like Selma because of its immediacy. Anyone should see this thoroughly entertaining film, even, and maybe especially those who don’t think it’s their kind of movie. - DirectorRidley ScottStarsMatt DamonJessica ChastainKristen WiigAn astronaut becomes stranded on Mars after his team assume him dead, and must rely on his ingenuity to find a way to signal to Earth that he is alive and can survive until a potential rescue.4/5 Unusually feel-good for a sci-fi film, especially a Ridley Scott one, but The Martian works because it knows just what it wants to be and stays there.
Matt Damon anchors the film with his character's optimism and smarts, and there's a solid bunch of supporting players as well.
The cinematography gives Mars a really nice look that separates it from feeling like it was filmed on earth.
Visual effects are used in a healthy restraint that makes the riveting climax all the more special.
Although much of it is upbeat, there enough tense moments that keep the film from feeling monotonous. Tonally, the film hits all the beats that it strives for with ease.
Character development isn't much of a concern, and one can't help but feel that adding some would make the character's struggle more compelling.
Still, it's hard to complain too much with The Martian because it's an original and entertaining piece of sci-fi that makes you feel good about being a member of the human race. - DirectorRyan CooglerStarsMichael B. JordanSylvester StalloneTessa ThompsonThe former World Heavyweight Champion Rocky Balboa serves as a trainer and mentor to Adonis Johnson, the son of his late friend and former rival Apollo Creed.4/5 You might not expect much more than a cash grab judging from the concept of Creed, but don’t worry, because director Ryan Coogler will make you care. This is at once an intimate character drama and an exhilarating sports film in great balance. Coogler is faithful to the environment and emotional concentration he captured with Fruitvale Station, but Creed showcases his abilities even more, leaving me convinced that he can do just about anything.
The environment that Coogler creates here is similar to that of his great independent hit, Fruitvale Station. Both take place in small cities and highlight a grittiness that reflects a unique and underrepresented perspective in cinema. His film does not, for the sake of Hollywood, shy away from having a black voice. It’s refreshing that Coogler is confident about sticking to his roots and showcasing what he knows. Creed is certainly a Rocky film and has plenty of references to the old ones, but works, as I’d hoped, entirely on its own, thanks to a director who makes films that are distinctly his.
Coogler spends a lot of time with his characters, increasing the emotional stakes and creating genuine tension between them so that we care for far more than just the boxing. He manages to get great performances out of actors Michael B Jordan, Sylvester Stallone, and Tessa Thompson. Jordan convinces us of his character’s innate aggression and will to fight, but certainly allows us to see his insecurities and emotional side. Tessa Thompson gives far more depth to her character than one might expect. Her unique interests make her a well-rounded character, and Thompson gives her character a fitting amount of wittiness, intelligence, and independence that is rare to see in her type of role. Stallone relives his character in an extremely grounded way that exposes subtle emotional turmoil.
The boxing scenes in Creed are exhilarating. The first boxing scene is more intimate, small scaled and personal, filmed all in a single shot. Each punch feels so real that audiences will cringe at every hard blow. The single shot captures an intensity and moment of exhilaration for Adonis. The finale boxing sequence is filmed completely differently, but is equally effective. This time the stakes are much higher and the fight is being broadcast nationally, and we get broadcasting narration, which is put to surprisingly well use. The editing brings this scene together fantastically, as we cut between shots we’d see on television to more intimate shots, to reactions of Adonis’ loved ones. Although this scene makes a heavier use of editing, it never uses editing to disguise the punches, and evokes that same cringe-worthy feeling from the audience as the first match did.
What kept me from loving Creed is that for all the time it spends with its characters, and for how developed they are, I didn’t feel that the character’s spiritual motivations were as strong as they could have been. Certain issues in Adonis’s life as well as Rocky and his girlfriend’s life could have been explored deeper to give the film a more triumphant feeling that wasn’t just accomplished through the fighting. That doesn’t mean Creed is a flat film thematically, but it didn’t bring a level of depth I think it could have for the great characters it built.
Audiences should flock to the theaters to see Creed and will flock away very satisfied with not only the boxing, but with the characters, weather they wanted a character-driven movie or not. - DirectorSeverin FialaVeronika FranzStarsLukas SchwarzElias SchwarzSusanne WuestTwin boys move to a new house with their mother after she has face-changing cosmetic surgery, but under the bandages is someone the boys don't recognize.4/5 Goodnight Mommy is a unique horror film that doesn't quite go for scary. Instead, it is more psychological, and you're bound to feel disturbed and unsettled by its end. The pacing is fairly slow, but the air is always filled with dread even in its quietest moments. It's shot much like other foreign films out of Europe where the camera feels like it's quietly observing the characters, and the style works really well here. As a twin myself I can say that the relationship between the twins in the movie felt genuine and I enjoyed that a lot. There have been a good bunch of horror movies this year, but it's Goodnight Mommy that wins the prize for most unsettling.
- DirectorLenny AbrahamsonStarsBrie LarsonJacob TremblaySean BridgersA little boy is held captive in a room with his mother since his birth, so he has never known the world outside.4/5 Excellent performances from Brie Larson and Jacob Tremblay make Room's extremely interesting concept a heartfelt tale of mother-son love. That this concept is reduced to a mother-son love story is something I'm mixed about, but for sure Room is an enjoyable and touching movie.
The young Jacob Tremblay carries the film on his teeny shoulders with surprising ease. This is a weirdly good performance from a child and I mean that in the best way possible. Tremblay's mature performance effectively conveys his character's ignorance to the world and how he experiences the world for the first time. Brie Larson is great as well as the mother who does her best to protect her son and properly raise him in their strange situation. Her character isn't explored explicitly, since the film is through Jack's eyes, but we understand her through the depth of Larson's performance where she unveils years of psychological torment through her eyes. She is also great in capturing the loving kindness of a mother, no matter how imperfect she may be. Together, Larson and Tremblay have believable and often beautiful chemistry as a small family who has lived in a shed with (pretty much) only each other for five years.
Lenny Abrahamson's direction is effective at showing us the world through Jack's eyes. Through his camera, Room (what they refer to their shed as) feels like a home where nothing else needs to exist, and the outside world is often scary or dizzying. Off-kilter angles convey Jack's perspective very organically and the close-ups and handheld movements of the camera capture the emotion of the characters.
Watching the film, I was excited to see where the film would take its concept and how it would choose to study its main characters. After all, the concept is so interesting. The film signaled to me the potential to explore themes of trauma or parenting through this unique scenario. I was let down a little by the end, when it seemed that the film wanted to settle for a sweet mother-son love story when I thought it would go somewhere deeper and more exciting. It seems to understand the psychology of the mother and son, but never quite examines it the way the film practically demands.
It doesn't fail at being a sweet movie and emotional movie. For me, the emotional peak was in the middle, but nothing made me need tissues despite many having advised audiences to bring them. In presenting a touching story of a mother and son who were each other's strength in overcoming what they did, the movie mostly succeeds, and the two lead performances are unforgettable. I just hoped there would be a little more. - DirectorDavid Robert MitchellStarsMaika MonroeKeir GilchristOlivia LuccardiA young woman is followed by an unknown supernatural force after a sexual encounter.4/5 It Follows is damn good for a horror movie because of its thoughtful direction, original, mysterious concept, and terrifying score. Although the film doesn't live up to all of its ambitions and peaked early on for me, it doesn't leave my mind because of certain scary scenes and standout visuals.
The premise is ambiguous, with an "it" following the characters that isn't explained. Director David Robert Mitchell understands that horror is scariest when it's not fully revealed, which is why this premise works. It's even purposely underdeveloped, which might leave some asking questions about the rules, but I didn't feel the need to because it was affective overall and doesn't detract from the scares.
Things follow the characters, and it's scary. The reason it's scary is because of Mitchell's astounding direction, which is comparably thoughtful in its visceral effectiveness to that of great horror films such as The Shining. The cinematography uses wide angle, deep focus lenses that make us aware of the character's full 360º surroundings just as they are. We are constantly searching the background of shots, waiting for something to appear. The camera follows, it spins, it zooms slowly, all so that we have the experience of our followed protagonist. There's no shaky camera, no editing of close-up after close-up. The shots are clean and spacious, and as a result we don't feel gimmicked. These are authentic scares.
The score by Disasterpeace has two sides. There's the 80's-esque synthy theme music, and deep, droney, pulsating electronics during the scary parts. Some of the tracks lay in between, like the song Heels played in the eye and ear opening opening sequence. There's a combination of tribute and originality within the score, just as there is in the film, and I appreciated all of it. I took special note of the score during the scary parts, however. The music establishes tension with repeating distant booms, and explodes into chilling soundscapes. These sounds are at times quite simply fear in music form and it's amazing. Listen to the track Doppel for an example of this. The music is so good, and so contributive to the scares, that I wondered if the film could do so well without it. But it's part of the film nonetheless, and I'm thankful for it.
My main issue with the film was that after the first three or four scares, where the film was going extremely well, it started to get stale. I was waiting for the film to maybe twist the plot a bit so that the scares wouldn't be the same scary people walking towards the protagonist coming to get her, and it didn't. I was disappointed that my favorite parts of the film were within the first forty minutes, and that it didn't reach that level again because it failed to introduce anything that new. It never got too silly or ridiculous thankfully, so I enjoyed it anyway.
The film seems to have larger ambitions on its mind somewhere. Maybe this ambiguous "thing" that follows is a metaphor for something? Maybe it's a coming of age story where the characters are entering a sort of horrific aftdulthood? None of this came across for me. The horror in the film just doesn't seem to stand for anything other than its own scares. There's also an obvious water metaphor and I didn't know what it meant, but the movie was telling me there was one.
As for the acting, Maika Monroe is very good, even if you can't tell. This is because she is never laughable, which is an accomplishment when you're screaming and crying over weird things all the time. Her character is care-able, and the side characters are too, even if the performances there are just okay.
There's no getting around it: this is a standout in its genre even with its faults. It's been a over week since I've seen it and I'm thinking about it still. Some of the horror sequences are not just scary- they're visceral experiences. But for me they were all in the beginning. I think for that reason this is a good one to go to the theaters for. - DirectorJoel EdgertonStarsJason BatemanRebecca HallJoel EdgertonA married couple, Simon and Robyn, run into Gordo, an old classmate. Things take a turn when Gordo begins to drop in unannounced at their house and inundates them with mysterious gifts.4/5 This is an original thriller that benefits from layered performances, a surprising story, and tense direction.
The film often succeeds in building its tension because it develops the relationship of each of the three characters in a sort of triangle where trust is questioned. Jason Bateman proves that he deserves more dramatic roles. His character maintains personal security with seeming ease, blending occasional humor and wit to create a three dimensional character. Joel Edgerton's character is awkward in the unsettling way he should be, but he's also capable of gathering our sympathy when needed. If there's a protagonist it's Rebecca Hall's character, who acts as our vehicle for observing the mystery around her in a way that feels very natural, almost invisible for the audience.
The tension and mystery sustain throughout the entire film, not letting up even by the film's end. Every turn is unpredictable and leaves us thinking about the next turn, and never are any of the surprises conventional. I really enjoyed how Simon and Gordo (Bateman and Edgerton) both are slowly revealed throughout the film. The dialogue is very well crafted, and scenes dominated by dialogue are just as tense as those with more action.
Visually, Edgerton and his cinematographer do a great job of keeping the atmosphere haunting and dim. The camera is often aligned under eye-level, creating a distance between us and the characters we're observing. The architecture of the house that Simon and Robyn move into also provides significant tension. The varied textures are framed to create a sort of enigma, and the glass walls at the perimeter of the house give the feeling of a lack of security.
Many films with twists end up detracting from the story because they either convolute the narrative too much and leave only the twists to think about. I was happy that The Gift avoided that by not having any twists that were too extreme. However, some things that are revealed about a certain character (not gonna spoil anything here) made that character feel like I knew them less because of the extreme of the thing. Additionally, when the film ended it felt more complex than it really was. I didn't find that there was enough thematic ambiguity, despite there being some nice ambiguity within the story.
Nonetheless, the film has a few good insights about the past and it was very tense in a small, character-driven way. The best way. I look forward to Edgerton directing more movies. Certainly worth checking out for anybody. - DirectorOlivier AssayasStarsJuliette BinocheKristen StewartChloë Grace MoretzA film star comes face-to-face with an uncomfortable reflection of herself while starring in a revival of the play that launched her career.4/5 It's slow, but it pays off thematically with thought provoking ideas about generational transitions. To a slight fault, the dialogue carries these ideas more than emotion or events do, which is why the film feels slow. I like when you can feel the message of a movie as well as understand it intellectually, and this is certainly a more intellectually driven film, but it's a very good one.
The natural performances are excellent in their restrain from each actor. Kristin Wiig and Juliette Binoche play off of each other very well in disputes about the meaning of the play Binoche is preparing for, their interpretations varying in which generation they belong to. When the two read the script, the themes of which clearly reflects their lives, it can be difficult to tell if they are reading a script or just having a conversation, all to great effect. Chloe Grace Moretz’s presence later on perks up the film in a welcome way.
If you want something thought provoking, this is a highly reccomendable watch. Don’t watch this movie if you are looking for something entertaining. - DirectorQuentin TarantinoStarsSamuel L. JacksonKurt RussellJennifer Jason LeighIn the dead of a Wyoming winter, a bounty hunter and his prisoner find shelter in a cabin currently inhabited by a collection of nefarious characters.4/5 The entire cast is a lot of fun to watch. Each actor creates a unique and colorful character that Tarantino cleverly arranges in his game. Jennifer Jason Leigh stands out even when she's just smirking on the side of the frame.
I enjoyed how the plotting of the script felt to fluid, boundless by structure, and unpredictable because of it. The plotting is tense and the dialogue has plenty of wit and engaging monologues to sustain a three hour movie. Everything explodes perfectly towards the end of the film.
Tarantino showcases his talents with his visuals, writing, and ability to work with actors. No matter how often his style gets imitated, it's never as good as when the real man does it.
With his wide instrumental palate, Morricone's score bursts with excitement and adventure. It's practically showboating, but it's so good it's allowed to.
Still, this three hour movie is empty of substance, as many of Tarantino's films are. His movies are things, but they're fun things, and artfully crafted ones, too. This might not be one of his most eventful movies, but it was nice seeing the director do a smartly woven mystery with a colorful cast. Certainly worth the watch. - DirectorLevan GabriadzeStarsHeather SossamanMatthew BohrerCourtney HalversonA group of online chatroom friends find themselves haunted by a mysterious, supernatural force using the account of their dead friend.4/5 This movie was a pleasant surprise. It might not be all that scary, but what engaged me was how the gimmick of the computer screen was pulled off and some of the ideas this film had. I felt unsettled throughout.
The entire film is our protagonists computer screen in real time, where her and her friends are tormented through cyberspace by the ghost of a dead classmate or friend (depending on which of the characters you ask). For the horror elements, there is a lot that is effectively unseen, and this is enhanced through the small, glitchy boxes that we observe our characters through. The progression of the night over real time, where characters have their deepest secrets forced out and their lives (physically and socially) ruined, is disturbing.
A lot of people have been complaining that these teenagers are annoying, unlikeable or one-dimensional. I felt however, that for a real time video chat these characters showed a realistic amount of themselves, and it was believable enough to me that this was a group of friends. Are they annoying? Are they bad people? They're teenagers, that's what they are.
While some audience members might not be able to relate the seriousness of the mistakes and lies to themselves and their own friends, I would say that there are certainly groups like this. The film is a metaphor, and pretty obviously, for the way that secrets are never safe with the internet. Pictures and videos that you'd never want anyone to see can surface and torment. This worked more than a simple middle school lecture about the dangers of the internet because it involves morally ambiguous teenagers. Teenagers make mistakes, and this movie shows how the internet is unsympathetic to the underdeveloped teenage mind.
The generic horror aspects of the film aren't that scary, but I didn't mind because the film actually works psychologically very well. I was glad that the physical horror didn't overwhelm the psychological horror, aside from the last two seconds, which were terrible. I really wished that the movie didn't end the way it did. It felt extremely cheap to me, and I'm sure it did to many others in the audience.
I think the film will leave the audience asking themselves how this situation would play out among their own friends. It questions what secrets the audience has and what their friends might have, and I found that unsettling. It dissects the condition of modern day teenagers and how the internet, a home for many teenagers, is ironically, the place that may destroy them. - DirectorAna Lily AmirpourStarsSheila VandArash MarandiMarshall ManeshIn the Iranian ghost-town Bad City, a place that reeks of death and loneliness, the townspeople are unaware they are being stalked by a lonesome vampire.4/5 I really enjoyed the unique atmosphere of this film. It doesn't create its world out of set pieces and costumes, rather, through the cinematography. Each shot has deep blacks and dark shading that pull you into the alternate reality that is Bad City. While relatively slow paced, the film always had my attention because of its unique look and intriguing story.
Thankfully, this isn't a film that coasts solely on its visuals. The vampire story is highly original, even if it channels Let the Right One In at times. I really liked Sheila Vand as the vampire, who rides around on a skateboard, stalking and sometimes killing the people of Bad City. Vand can be terrifying at times, but she strategically reveals depth to her character when she's alone listening to music and when she develops an attraction for the boy.
The tone has a wide range: gothic, at times oddly romantic, at times scary. It balances these tonal colors perfectly, very assured of what it wants to be, even though it wants to be like nothing we've seen before.
I liked how the film used a minimal amount of characters who we get to understand the town through. Each feels like they serve a unique purpose to the story.
It felt like the film ended on a cliché even though it's not a familiar story. I feel like if there were more vampire movies, it would become more obvious, and I can't go into what it was because spoilers, but for the rest of the film feeling so unique, it was the only part that was a little obvious. It's the same way that the town being called "Bad City" is obvious.
From the film's first shots, I became quickly engaged in director Ana Lily Amirpour's one-of-a-kind universe and remained engaged until the credits. It's nice to see a movie that stands out so prominently from everything else, and in a way that's enjoyable to experience. - DirectorPeter StricklandStarsSidse Babett KnudsenMonica SwinnChiara D'AnnaA woman who studies butterflies and moths tests the limits of her relationship with her lesbian lover.4/5 Although it will probably leave audiences mystified and confused, as it did me, it may also excite depending on how much you like art house films. Personally I enjoyed the originality of the film's abstract tone. It was like an ancient, dark, sexual autumn. Peter Strickland commands all elements of filmmaking here to create this one-of-a-kind atmosphere. The color palate is that of autumn, the art direction creates an old mansion that blends with the woods surrounding it, the editing is abstract, repetitious, and hypnotic, and the music embodies all of these aurally. There are lots of details that Strickland fills each frame with that make this film the stimulating puzzle it is.
It's very sexual. There are no men in the film. If a man were to pop up it would somehow disrupt everything. And there are butterflies. I don't know what the butterflies mean. Is it a puzzle worth solving? Or is it a puzzle that is so difficult to solve that to attempt it wouldn't be worth it? I would bet on the second one. Even though most audiences won't leave with a clear understanding of the film Strickland still gives us enough to eat. I don't know what I'm eating, but it tastes pretty *beep* good and I've never tasted anything like it.
Though it doesn't form a whole for me, it's not so strange that it registers as a bunch of random images. There's a story, there are characters, they have goals, and our understanding of those goals is vague, but in some way familiar on an emotional level, which is why this movie can still be engaged with despite a lack of story coherence. For me this movie worked best to simply bathe in. - DirectorSteven SpielbergStarsTom HanksMark RylanceAlan AldaDuring the Cold War, an American lawyer is recruited to defend an arrested Soviet spy in court, and then help the CIA facilitate an exchange of the spy for the Soviet captured American U2 spy plane pilot, Francis Gary Powers.3.5/5 With any Spielberg film, one can expect impeccable craft in all areas, and Bridge of Spies certainly has that. I can't say, however, that the film measures up to Spielberg's best, or even comes all that close. It's a good film for sure because of the witty screenplay from the Coen brothers, and the craftsmanship makes for an entertaining thriller. But the story is flawed and it lacks the kind of spark you get from Spielberg's best.
The film starts out great with a thrilling music-less chase sequence. Mark Rylance as the captured soviet spy, Abel, is excellent, embodying a mysteriously compelling character whose presence dominated the film's first act. Tom Hanks will meet your expectations as the American lawyer hired to defend the soviet spy. The conflict between Tom Hanks and the rest of America as Hanks tries to give Abel a fair, constitutional trial in the first act is very engaging. Not only that, but the film's beginning also features a tension between the quiet and observant Mark Rylance and Tom Hanks that we hope to see develop in the rest of the film. Abel is so mysterious that we naturally want to find out more about his character and watch a relationship between him and Hanks unfold.
Unfortunately, the film's second act almost entirely abandons Abel and the initial storyline when Hanks goes overseas to try to swap captured spies with Russia. While still entertaining, the story lost the promise of digging into Abel and has a less compelling story that feels oddly disconnected from the first. Sure, in both Tom Hanks is working for justice, but the difference is that he initially fights for constitutional justice and later just wants to bring home two Americans instead of one by being persistent, a less complex thing to honor.
Throughout, the film is kept afloat through the screenplay, the final draft of which was edited by the Coen brothers, and it really shows. I loved the way that humor was woven throughout the film. The dialogue was consistently witty, and the jokes were surprisingly funny. Had the dialogue not been so fun, the film may have been boring, but thankfully it never was. It's also great that we have Tom Hanks in the lead because he nails the comedy.
As usual, Janusz Kaminski and Spielberg create splendid visuals with full compositions and lots of backlighting (some of which felt purposeless). The art direction and music everything was great, but none of it felt used in an original way, or a way that hasn't been done better in Spielberg films before.
Abel comes back in the end of the film, but it's hard not to feel that we didn't know him as much as we could have. It's also hard to pinpoint exactly what about Hanks' character we should celebrate. It's clear that he's a hero, but there are two different things that he does that are heroic and they don't connect that well.
You'll leave the film with an approving eyebrow raise followed by a shrug. It's not a particularly heartfelt film and doesn't have much Spielberg magic, but it's definitely good, and that doesn't quite cut it for Spielberg. Hopefully The BFG will be more magical. - DirectorSean BakerStarsKitana Kiki RodriguezMya TaylorKarren KaragulianA hooker tears through Tinseltown on Christmas Eve searching for the pimp who broke her heart.3.5/5 The totally unique style that brings us into the wild world of these transvestite prostitutes in a way that I haven't seen before. The performances and use of music help us to experience a day in their life like it's any other. This movie doesn't truly explore these characters' lives. It lets them be, which I can appreciate. However, with a film so bold and without reservations to take us where it does, I couldn't help but feeling that there was a missed opportunity to get beyond the surface.
- DirectorMarielle HellerStarsBel PowleyAlexander SkarsgårdKristen WiigA teen artist living in 1970s San Francisco enters into an affair with her mother's boyfriend.3.5/5 If this sounds like a typical indie movie, it is. If this sounds like a typical teen exploring her sexuality story, it's that, too. However, it's a good one of those.
Bel Powley is excellent as a naïve teenager who is exploring her sexual desires and adolescent need to be loved. It's entertaining and well written, exploring several serious themes relating to adolescence such as self-worth. However, the message is pretty obvious, and the protagonist gets self-esteem way unrealistically quick by the film's end.
Still, this would be a good movie for adolescent girls to watch and I enjoyed it, too. - DirectorPaolo SorrentinoStarsMichael CaineHarvey KeitelRachel WeiszA retired orchestra conductor is on vacation with his daughter and his film director best friend in the Alps when he receives an invitation from Queen Elizabeth II to perform for Prince Philip's birthday.3.5/5 Youth is a bunch of powerful moments that just float there. To an extent, I admire that Paolo Sorrentino can create something that feels big out of nothing, but I still wish that the bigger picture was more clear.
Regardless, Youth was actually a fun movie to watch for me, which is something that's rare to say about movies that are difficult to fully grasp. I definitely felt that way about his last film, The Great Beauty as well, but that one feels like the pieces hold together more.
I really like Sorrentino's sense of humor, which interestingly will come about through the cinematography. The entire film has a crisp, pretty, and unconventional look to it, and he'll use that to elegantly frame an odd looking person or some old people in a sauna and it will come out funny.
This was an enjoyable artsy outing with a great ensemble of performers. It's difficult to come away with any solid meaning from the film because it's just a bunch of big moments with little to tie them together. The music choices are great, but they also feel a bit manipulative in making you feel like the movie is being beautiful when you aren't even quite sure that it is. There are a couple of really good original compositions too, one of which was nominated for the Best Song Oscar. - DirectorRonit ElkabetzShlomi ElkabetzStarsRonit ElkabetzSimon AbkarianGabi AmraniAfter a lukewarm marriage of over twenty years, a woman appeals to her husband's compassion to obtain the desirable divorce document in front of a court, which proves to be more challenging than she would expect.4/5
- DirectorSarah GavronStarsCarey MulliganAnne-Marie DuffHelena Bonham CarterIn 1912 London, a young working mother is galvanized into radical political activism supporting the right for women to vote, and is willing to meet violence with violence to achieve this end.
- DirectorM. Night ShyamalanStarsOlivia DeJongeEd OxenbouldDeanna DunaganTwo siblings become increasingly frightened by their grandparents' disturbing behavior while visiting them on vacation.3.5/5 The Visit has a unique blend of comedy and horror that makes for a perfect sleepover hit. It’s ridiculous, it’s self-aware, it’s a little stupid, it’s got scares, it's got laughs, and it’s all in good fun.
If you want to watch this movie to hate it (as many in my theater did) you’ll think it’s terrible but you’ll still have fun. Recognize, however, that the movie knows what it is and it kind of lends itself to being watched that way. So if you think it sucks but had fun, you actually liked it.
Shyamalan redeems himself here by letting the audience laugh with him, where in previous bombs they laughed at him. There is some oddly written dialogue here and there but for the most part everything works because the film never takes itself seriously, resulting in some delightfully over-the-top moments.
I enjoyed the performances of both the children and grandparents. Both kid actors are funny in how seriously they take themselves, and the grandparents are eerily offbeat and occasionally hilarious.
The film really picked up for me after the twist came, prior to which the film is watchable and moderately fun, but not quite the thrilling ride it becomes. This last 30-40 minutes contains the film’s most hilarious scene and scariest moments. Although the end is better than the rest, it’s better that a horror film gets continuously better as it goes along rather than to make the common mistake of peaking midway through.
I appreciated that the film attempted to deal with the psychological effects of a departed father and the actors handle this drama well, but it really has nothing to do with the actual movie itself. The way in which the children redeem themselves spiritually is a joke. Though out of place, this drama thankfully doesn’t interfere with the film’s entertainment value. Overall, its surprising amount of comedy blended with thrills that deliver make The Visit a uniquely enjoyable ride. - DirectorScott CooperStarsJohnny DeppBenedict CumberbatchDakota JohnsonThe true story of Whitey Bulger, the brother of a state senator and the most infamous violent criminal in the history of South Boston, who became an FBI informant to take down a Mafia family invading his turf.3.5/5 Black Mass makes little effort to dig deep into its subject and is never quite riveting, but Johnny Depp's gripping centerpiece performance and Cooper's direction make it a good watch.
Technically, it's a well made film all around with nice looking cinematography and direction that avoids being generic. The directing is good. I don't know why exactly I think it's good, but I know it is.
Johnny Depp is terrifying, commanding, and unpredictable in his screen presence. He seems only to know the life of power in getting what he wants. Depp is transformed here, and it's a bit of a shame that the film doesn't get far inside his head because we know the actor is already there. Joel Edgerton plays as big a character as Depp does as an FBI agent forming an alliance with Bulger. Edgerton is excellent in showing his character constantly bluff to keep the deal afloat.
The dialogue is often tense and keeps the film engaging. The pacing is patient, letting the film sizzle throughout, but never picks up the way it lends us to believe it may. The screenwriters lacked interest in dissecting any of these potentially very interesting characters in favor of a surface-level story that shows the events well enough, but doesn't provoke any afterthought.
Shoutout to Joe The Pasta Guy from my school who dies the second he shows up on screen but it was cool to see him cause I was like "that's the *beep* guy who serves pasta at my school." - DirectorChristian PetzoldStarsNina HossRonald ZehrfeldNina KunzendorfAfter surviving Auschwitz, a former cabaret singer has her disfigured face reconstructed and returns to her war-ravaged hometown to seek out her gentile husband, who may or may not have betrayed her to the Nazis.3.5/5 Phoenix is well done in many departments, but is flawed in its tradeoff of developing its allegory for a surface-level story that is admittedly engaging.
The film's first 20-30 minutes are slow paced, but laced with allegory and metaphors for the Jews' post-holocaust struggle for getting back their former selves. I thought Nelly's physical unrecognizeableness (I know it's not a word) was a good way to represent her inner loss of identity.
From start to finish, the film impresses technically with perfectly decayed walls in the art direction and finely crafted cinematography, particularly how it highlighted the Phoenix nightclub.
Nelly wants to find her husband, but discovers not only that he does not recognize her (because she got face surgery from her face being holocausted), but thinks she's dead, and wants to use her to pretend to everyone else that she's Nelly to get some money. Nelly doesn't tell him it's really her; she wants him to find out himself.
Suspending the disbelief that he would recognize her voice, body, or hands, it's a tense plot, with the question as to weather or not he will find out lingering over the film. However, once this plot point is established, the film stops developing its allegory altogether. Now it's just a movie about her and her husband, having lost the political context along the way.
Not only does it lack political context, it lacks emotional context. The situation feels entirely Nelly's, and there wasn't anything I could latch onto as a person not having survived the holocaust and trying to rekindle with my husband who doesn't recognize me. The question as to weather or not she gets her identity back is not that engaging thematically either. If she does, then the movie states that Jews were able to get theirs back. If not, then they weren't. If in between, then it's just a question. Without developing the themes or allegory any further, the film dooms itself to being basic.
This is not to say that it's a failure of a film. The acting by Nina Hoss is superb, looking into her husbands eyes, desperate for him to recognize her soul beneath her own. Ronald Zehrfeld is great as well, responding to these looks, curious with her uncanny resemblance, but still (somehow) ignorant to the truth. The facial exchanges between the two are pretty remarkable. Still, it's a bit strange how emotionally devastated Hoss is the entire movie in front of everyone she encounters and how none of them seem to notice or ask if she's okay. Petzold should have requested a bit more subtlety from his actress at times.
It's also a fairly tense mystery, building on Nelly finding out things about her husband she'd never had known otherwise, forcing her to rethink her relationship. This develops the film thematically a bit because it shows that no matter the outcome, the couple's relationship may not be the same. The ending is a perfect climax to the story and a great combination of acting, direction, and editing.
In the end though, the film relies heavily on allegory for its thematic heft, and then drops it, leaving me with no way to really connect the film to much at all. Strong performances and story kept me interested, but I don't see how the film is great. - DirectorPaul KingStarsHugh BonnevilleSally HawkinsJulie WaltersA young Peruvian bear travels to London in search of a home. Finding himself lost and alone at Paddington Station, he meets the kindly Brown family, who offer him a temporary haven.3.5/5 Better than you'd expect if you were expecting nothing but the 98% is a little damn high. It's a good movie, it's kind of cute, some nice lessons, a flat villain, some quality production elements and direction. For sure a good-hearted kids movie that should leave all audiences satisfied but it doesn't do anything spectacular.
- DirectorNoah BaumbachStarsBen StillerNaomi WattsAdam DriverA middle-aged couple's career and marriage are overturned when a disarming young couple enters their lives.3.5/5 I enjoyed much of the journey of this film as well as many of the performances. Ben Stiller is really good here, but Adam Driver steals the show as an adventurous hipster, and he never feels less than completely genuine. His character breathes a life of spontaneity and excitement that was as inspirational to me as it was to Stiller's character, though this feeling eventually fleets.
The writing is thoughtful and has some good ideas, but it feels cluttered and unfocused at times. The films presents more ideas than it ends up carrying out, which lead me off track trying to piece together things in my head that didn't really fit together. By the end, what I got felt a bit underwhelming, but there was still a lot I enjoyed.
Baumbach has a talent for writing strong, realistic characters whose journeys are easy and fun to invest in. The journey of Ben Stiller's character was thoughtful, but with a more focus on what the audience should think about and relate to, this could have been an even more engaging movie with greater payoff. - DirectorMatthew VaughnStarsColin FirthTaron EgertonSamuel L. JacksonA spy organisation recruits a promising street kid into the agency's training program, while a global threat emerges from a twisted tech genius.3.5/5 Fun spy movie. Good act, good enough story, good style and edit in action. Silly movie. Some cliché, but some not chiché. See if want fun gun movie.
- DirectorPeter SohnStarsJeffrey WrightFrances McDormandMaleah Nipay-PadillaIn a world where dinosaurs and humans live side-by-side, an Apatosaurus named Arlo makes an unlikely human friend.3.5/5 The Good Dinosaur is a fine family trip to the theaters. The parents may cry, the children will bounce, it's all in good fun, but it's surprisingly cliché for Pixar. Aside from the stunning quality of animation and few touching moments, it's pretty much any other animated movie.
Pixar has never made a better looking film as far as photorealism goes. The characters are cartoony, but the landscapes around them are shockingly detailed and realistic like you've never seen.
For the most part, the plot feels almost lazy in how formulaic it is. The dinosaur has to find his way home after his dad *beep* dies and learn how to be courageous. I don't consider the dad dying to be a spoiler because it's so obvious and we've all seen it before in other Disney movies. In fact, before the film a guy from Pixar thanks you for watching the movie and says how the inspiration for it was movies like Bambi and Dumbo, so he's practically giving it away. And if you saw the trailer you can easily tell it's a dad dies movie. The dad was hilarious when he was alive because he was such a cliché wants-his-son-to-be-tough and laughs with a southern "heh, heh, heh."
The dinosaur meets a human who is a dog along the way and they bump into a few Disney cliché side characters (a group of them ARE the hyenas from The Lion King). The way the side characters are introduced is so side character-y, it's like, "who are you?" "I'm the this! I'm a wacky character! Happy journey!" or they attack them. The t-rex side characters were alright and Sam Elliot was good as the big t-rex. The side characters usually share some philosophy that relates to the dinosaur and some of it was pretty deep, but Pixar didn't reach high enough this time for any of it to resonate that deeply.
The dinosaur falls and yells too much. I'm serious, it's a problem with the movie. Far too often, the film puts the dinosaur into situations because he falls off a rock or into a river. The amount of times it falls is actually like "okay, that's enough, it's getting hurt and it's hurting its legs again and again." It also screams a lot, which happens whenever it falls.
So many obstacles in the film are putting the dinosaur in physical danger rather than having it deal with its emotional problems. Of course, a kids movie has to have the physical peril, but the best Pixar movies have more subtle chase sequences that don't feel mindless and balance them with the characters dealing with personal *beep* A lot of the scenes here are the characters getting attacked for the sake of them getting attacked.
When the two aren't in physical danger, they share a cute chemistry that leads for some touching moments. This movie will likely leave tons crying, but unlike Inside Out, you won't cry because you relate to the characters, you'll cry because it's sad or happy. The emotion is pretty manipulative, surface level, and obvious, but it works, and that's certainly something.
The message about courage is pretty good for a courage message, but that isn't saying a lot. At the film's end there is a key emotional moment that didn't work for me because it oddly favored family over friendship for no good reason, especially when this movie was convincing me that friends were family. Another mixed message is that the dinosaur's parents wanted it to prove itself with physical strength, and I wanted the dinosaur to prove itself in heart or something greater because that's clearly more important, but I guess not.
I know I said a lot of negative things about this movie, but here's the deal. It was good. I enjoyed the movie the whole way through because it had its touching moments, looked great, and was an entertaining, fun adventure. It may be full of clichés and is pretty far off from the Pixar greats, but it's hard not to recommend it for a Thanksgiving weekend family outing. - DirectorBaltasar KormákurStarsJason ClarkeAng Phula SherpaThomas M. WrightOn May 10, 1996, mountain guides Rob Hall and Scott Fischer combine their expedition teams for a final ascent to the summit of Mount Everest. With little warning, a storm strikes the mountain and the climbers must now battle to survive.3/5 Everest is the kind of movie you'd casually have on in the living room at a weekend family gathering because the owners happen to have it on DVD because they saw it on the Walmart shelf by the register and decided "why not?" that you don't need to pay much attention to and can just walk in and out of the room while it's on and everyone can agree that it's a pretty good movie and acceptable to be playing in the current setting.
It should have been the exciting, immersive experience that its trailer promised, but it ends up playing it very safe and settling for merely good to a disappointing degree.
The film's first half is too long, where we anticipate excitement without getting much of any. It's only moderately entertaining, spending most of its time working on characters who don't reveal themselves to be worth spending a whole lot of time with. A few exciting moments come about here and there, but one wishes the movie would move on after a point. There's a big cast of very good actors here who are just good because they don't have a whole lot to work with. We really don't get into anybody's head much, and the conversation they have about why they climb ends on an unfortunately shallow note.
We get a fair share of thrills once the stakes finally pick up that are gripping and distressing as the crew struggles to survive. There is a good shot here and there, but the film's visual style could have been much more inventive given the story. What carries the tension most is the sound, where we really feel the harshness of the weather. Everest is ultimately effective in making the audience feel the suffering of the climbers, even though there's room for improvement.
It's generic fare that includes the usual emotional moments here and there and most of the tension you'd expect out of this kind of story. We already knew it wasn't going to be a great, deep, survival movie like 127 Hours (despite the fact that it's the same writer). Problem is, the trailer looked like one of those experience movies, and it wasn't technically impressive or daring enough to be one. - DirectorPaul FeigStarsMelissa McCarthyRose ByrneJude LawA desk-bound CIA analyst volunteers to go undercover to infiltrate the world of a deadly arms dealer and prevent diabolical global disaster.3/5 Though it's not as much as a hoot as I hoped it would be, the swell performances from a great cast and solid jokes make Spy an entertaining and funny enough mainstream comedy.
The entire cast is solid and flawlessly picked. Each character has a distinct and loud personality that allows for fun interactions between characters. They make the film very entertaining, each distinct and a welcome sight whenever they come on screen. Melissa McCarthy carries the film very well, creating someone who is as easy to care for as she is to laugh at/with. If I were to pick characters who I found to be highlights it would be difficult not to mention everyone.
Spy's funnies are usually clever and well-thought out, never resorting to dumb gags and typical jokes. This means that even when the jokes aren't hilarious they don't fall on their faces, and when they work they work nicely. Funny scenes to me where one where McCarthy and Law's characters are having dinner together, as well as a scene where McCarthy and Hart's characters are at a table just talking. These scenes feature smart, witty dialogue, with the actors enhancing it through character and sometimes complex expressions and tones.
Another highlight for me was when Statham's character listed the badass things he's done as a professional. He's surprisingly funny in the role.
Most of the funnies also happened to be in the first half, which seems to be a trend in many comedies. After a while, the film recycles the kind of jokes it's making, and they become familiar and less effective. For example, the amount of "You look like a ____" jokes, despite often being clever, is excessive. One small character in the film plays off of the same joke the entire time. McCarthy and Byrne's characters develop a chemistry that didn't totally make sense to me based purely on insults. Paul Feig seems to have a thing with insults. He's not bad at them, but there's so many that the humor is less dynamic.
Feig's action directing is given slightly more care than you might expect from the comedy director, mostly in that the action is very coherent and doesn't feel very cheated. The action includes a good number of funny scenes, but I'd say that overall the calmer scenes are the funnier ones. By the end, the film gets too wrapped up in its surprisingly complex plot. I actually didn't know what was going on, and was questioning why a comedy like this contained such a hard to understand story. There are so many traitors and sides that it's hard to who is fighting who and why. While this is going on, the movie contains less laughs than other parts, and I wasn't enjoying it all that much.
In the end, the movie gets by nicely thanks to genuine laughs, consistent entertainment value, and a fun cast despite the oddly complex plot and sometimes repetitive jokes. A mostly satisfying comedy that will mostly satisfy audiences. - DirectorJames KentStarsAlicia VikanderKit HaringtonTaron EgertonA British woman recalls coming of age during World War I - a story of young love, the futility of war, and how to make sense of the darkest times.3/5 If you look at the poster, you get the idea. A wartime period costume love story that has some nice images, emotion, and some romance. Much of the film feels very conventional, but there are elements that separate it from being pure convention, namely the visual look and performances. It pays off because of some well-done moments and a solid crew all around, but the experience is often shallow and overlong.
The romance in the film is pretty standard wartime fare, with letters and departing trains. The actors gave it a nice chemistry though, and I enjoyed the seeing the relationship because of it. There is also a brother sister relationship that was very affective, again thanks to the actors, but I also appreciated the care given to the non-romantic relationship which could have easily been overlooked.
Alicia Vikander's performance is very subtle, but she can be quite a force at times. I felt that Vikander was working with a bit more than she was given here. Her subtleties may have paid off more if the story gave her character a bit more depth, and the same goes with the film itself. There are a couple of ideas about war that I like that the film touches, but it only touches them. Much of it is focused on the surface or the emotion of war grief and relationships, but there's nothing that complex or thought provoking to be found here. This isn't always a bad thing, but a stronger internal struggle from the protagonist could have helped the film from meandering on the surface, which is what made the 129 minutes feel like it was too much.
By the end, the long reserved protagonist gives us her conclusions from her experiences, which felt very welcome, and just won me over to feeling good about the movie overall. The movie does a good job of putting you through a Vera Brittain's World War I experience, but I wouldn't call it exceptional. I recommend this movie based on how much the poster makes you want to see it. - DirectorSam Taylor-JohnsonStarsDakota JohnsonJamie DornanJennifer EhleLiterature student Anastasia Steele's life changes forever when she meets handsome, yet tormented, billionaire Christian Grey.3/5 I didn't think it was bad. Watching this movie, I didn't expect much. What I got were nice visuals, a protagonist who felt real, and a conflict that felt genuine. I wasn't objecting to this movie in my head as it happened and it was surprisingly inoffensive and not just a mess of erotica. Sure, these characters aren't all that deep, and their bondage even less so, and the conflict does get repetitive towards the end. But there wasn't anything in this movie that bothered or irritated me very much, and there were actually some pluses.
Possibly the best part of the film was that the protagonist, played by Dakota Johnson, felt real. Johnson portrays her character's shyness without seeming fake, and is able to sustain her realness even in weird situations where you might expect a stumble. Her relationship with Christian Grey was also believable. She spends a whole lot of this movie objecting to Christian's ideas of a relationship, asking the same questions that we have. I found her easy to identify with within this movie that would not have worked at all without that due to the weird subject matter. As the movie progresses and the conflict rises, we even get a glimpse into the depth of Christian Grey, who is totally one-note, but why becomes the question that Anastasia asks. I felt like most of the movie we weren't rooting for her to be Christian's submissive, and I expected the audience to only want her to get *beep* and whipped. It's not porn whatsoever. Expectation defied.
Speaking of subject matter, which is getting this movie a ton of attention, it seems much more dedicated to other aspects of its story. This movie wasn't even sexy. I didn't want it to be so that's fine. Some people might want that and might be disappointed, but I didn't care. The sex scenes weren't too enjoyable for me and I couldn't tell how much the movie wanted me to be aroused by them. The fact that the subject was different actually prevented this movie from being over familiar, since we don't see this kind of relationship on film very often.
The visuals are nice looking, and best of all they're spacious. I could see this story being suffocated by mediocre cinematography, but the director and cinematographer give us a lot of breathing room. They're slick and clean looking.
There are stupid lines of dialogue, sure. I suspect that the director was aware of how silly these lines were, and I think they're supposed to make us laugh, and they succeed. The movie knows that you know what it is.
Problems? Sure. There are some minor inconsistencies and ehh moments throughout the film, but nothing that ruined it for me. Anastasia's desire for a real relationship with Christian, the main conflict, becomes pretty repetitive after a while. This movie could have easily been twenty minutes shorter. There is also a lack of depth in Anastasia's fascination with Christian, and his fascination with her. Their attraction is just that they love each other. It's surface level, but that's good enough to work in this movie. While I felt that Anastasia's character was real, she's not that deep and nothing is revealed about her past. Christian is the opposite, where he feels almost unreal, but there are hints of depth in him, most of which are left hanging by the end of the film. I actually liked what the film left the audience hanging with and the decision that the protagonist ultimately made. I can see a lot of people becoming bored somewhere towards the end of this film because of the repetitiveness of the story and blandness of parts, especially if you want a lot of sex, but I was into it most of the time.
Overall this movie surprised me. There's nothing here that hints at greatness, but I can't complain all that much. I think if you want to go see this movie with some friends for fun or whatever, go for it. You could easily go into this movie wanting to hate it and getting exactly that, but I think people who go in with an open mind might just find themselves enjoying it more than they expected. - DirectorDavid O. RussellStarsJennifer LawrenceRobert De NiroBradley CooperJoy is the story of the title character, who rose to become founder and matriarch of a powerful family business dynasty.2.5/5 Joy had me interested enough in its story to keep me engaged throughout its runtime, but there's somehow nothing really that interesting about it.
I like that David O'Russell is interested in his characters, but this time his characters aren't that interesting. Jennifer Lawrence does a good job of quietly carrying tension and letting it out in just the right ways. Her character has some depth, but not quite enough to be an interesting character study. The rest of the cast is good as well, but it's really only Joy who has any meat.
The story feels oddly directionless. You don't know if it's trying to be happy or sad, if it's going to end up tragic or victorious. Not to say that the movie should be predictable, but it treads this weird middle ground the whole movie until it decides last minute what it wants to be.
The story has to do with fulfilling the American dream and battling with mundanity. At times, you feel that from the movie, and there are some good moments. However, it would nearly impossible to say that the movie lives up to its potential. The way it explores its themes is so scattered and indecisive. It's difficult to see what O'Russell saw in this story that made him want to make a movie out of it.
What's confusing is that it doesn't snap, crackle, or pop, it's not uplifting, not necessarily fun, yet it's supposed to be inspirational. I didn't think it was bad, in fact, it was kind of entertaining, but it there's a lack of passion and direction. - DirectorThomas VinterbergStarsCarey MulliganMatthias SchoenaertsMichael SheenIn Victorian England, the independent and headstrong Bathsheba Everdene attracts three very different suitors: Gabriel Oak, a sheep farmer; Frank Troy, a reckless Sergeant; and William Boldwood, a prosperous and mature bachelor.2.5/5 It's exquisitely made across the board with really good performances and direction, but the story was uninteresting to me and left me feeling bored and emotionally detached.
The cinematography is fantastic, with natural lighting and a ton of gorgeous outdoor landscape shots. Everything: the art direction, costumes, all that is great. Movie looks great.
The story is what kept me from being interested in the film. I have no clue what the source material is like so I'm judging the movie completely on its own. Carey Mulligan is really good and nails all of the subtleties, yet I didn't quite feel like I knew her character, what she was all about, and why she was having trouble making her decision on which man to take.
The entire movie is about Carey Mulligan not choosing the man she should obviously take. We know that she's going to take him by the end and she's just being weird about it, and it's hard to know why because we don't know her character as well as we should. What has lead her to have this difficulty? Is it her past? Her need for independence? Those questions weren't pondered enough, so there wasn't much for me to be invested in beyond the surface.
What bored me about the film was that I knew exactly what was going to happen the entire movie, not because I'm smart, but because it's obvious. There wasn't any surface tension because of the predictability, and there's no tension underneath because the characters lack development. Her relationship with the man she should take also lacks a spark. I couldn't tell where I was supposed to engage with the protagonist emotionally because she was difficult to understand, and it seemed clear that the film wanted to provoke some emotional connection.
This isn't a terrible movie, however. The visuals certainly held my attention. It feels like there's more to the story but it's not in the film I watched. There are some ideas about feminism that pop up but don't seem to fit overall, and Mulligan seems to understand her character better than the audience will ever know. I suspect that this is because the book has depth and the movie either didn't bother with it or assumed that the audience already knows. There feels like a lot that's missing from the big picture and it left me wondering why the story felt like it wanted to be so basic and predictable. - DirectorHsiao-Hsien HouStarsShu QiChang ChenYun ZhouA female assassin receives a dangerous mission to kill a political leader in eighth-century China.The visuals are incredible and unparalleled in perhaps all of cinema in some ways, but The Assassin is undeniably boring throughout most of the movie and I didn't know what the hell was going on.
I found nothing to take away from the story. I knew within the first ten minutes that I would not be able to understand the neither the plot nor the themes if the film even has any. It's not even that this is a particularly complex, surreal, or unconventional narrative. Everything that anyone says just comes out my other ear because I don't know where it belongs in the story or how it relates to the film's visuals. Often times it's as if the actors are trying to deliver the lines at 0.2x speed just for the sake of being slow. Most of the movie is characters sitting doing nothing, slowly delivering dialogue from behind an opaque sheet, or walking across an incredible landscape. The action, when it arrives, is very brief but extremely well done and is exciting while it lasts, even if you don't know who is fighting who or why. The Assassin doesn't even seem to want to be about anything, it just wants to showcase its visuals and craft and be a kind of tone piece. However, a tone piece can only go so far without a story to back it up.
The cinematography is amazing. The sharpness and textures of the images makes you feel like you know what it would be like to exist and breathe in that space. Assisting this is the sound, which is crisp and meditative, recorded with supreme quality and edited to perfection. The landscapes that they film are breathtaking, where we sometimes see towering mountains while observing the texture of the ground. Each composition does not waste a pixel, and nobody would deny the mastery of the photography. All of the costumes and production design as well look perfect. The film really allows you to absorb these incredible visuals, and there's no doubt that you'll appreciate its craft and surface level beauty, but that doesn't make up for the lack of story. Certain shots are totally out of context and are for the sake of visual beauty, proving that the movie only cares about the way it looks.
There is nothing positive I can say about The Assassin as a story, but I can go on about how great the cinematography looks. The combination of a story with zero engagement and these visuals is a sometimes pleasant experience when I'm not feeling like the movie is putting me to sleep. I liked when it was outside, highlighting locations, because it feels kind of nice as an experience, like you're sitting outside. Most of the movie for me was wondering why it was so slow. There are slow movies where I can understand why they are slow, like Bela Tarr's films. I don't understand what The Assassin was trying to do or why it felt the need to be so boring. The visuals do not bear a connection to the story, which makes them nearly purposeless. I didn't hate it, but I didn't enjoy it, and I don't really know who would like it. - DirectorMyroslav SlaboshpytskyiStarsHryhoriy FesenkoYana NovikovaRosa BabiyA deaf boy joins a boarding school for similar children. Confronted by the violent and criminal antics of some of the other boys and girls, he struggles to conform and join the 'tribe'.1.5/5 Wow. Stunning. Just so bleak. What power. What long takes. What artistic gratuity.
Let's start with the long takes. Just wow. So long and probably difficult to execute. No take is even under a minute and a half, I bet. Any film with long takes would suggest that there is a master filmmaker working behind the curtain. Watching characters walk up and down four flights of stairs becomes a simultaneously thrilling and beautiful experience.
The film is entirely in sign language, which by default makes it stunningly singular. It is without a doubt a well executed experiment, and that alone makes it one of the year's finest works of art. The Tribe might not have words, but it speaks volumes for people walking down entire hallways and people hitting people on the head with blunt objects. Even though there's no dialogue, Slaboshpitsky crafts such multi-dimensional characters that you may not even be able to tell some apart. The film's central theme about people who live in a community that is bad resonated deeply with me.
The film features some stunning images of sex and violence, which are all that I remember from the movie. The buildup to these scenes is slow (albeit full of tension), but once we get that delicious violence shot with an unflinching camera, or those realistic sex scenes, it's all worth it. It's a shocking, haunting, and bleak film, but I can handle it. Simply harrowing. Brutal, some might say. I'm running out of adjectives to describe my stunning experience, but you get the point.
The more I think about the film, the more I realize how little lays under the surface, but that's precisely the point. This is an experience of long periods of waste, stunning violence, and artsy sex, but it is shot with such elegance that it cannot be mistaken for anything but high art. This is a sumptuous feast for serious audiences such as myself, and I recommend it to all audiences who like long takes and well crafted craft. - DirectorShira PivenStarsKristen WiigJames MarsdenLinda CardelliniWhen Alice Klieg wins the Mega-Millions lottery, she immediately quits her psychiatric meds and buys her own talk show.1.5/5 You don't need to be an expert on Borderline Personality Disorder to realize that this movie is almost a joke of a portrayal of mental illness. The film uses Alice's BPD to reveal that she is emotionally fragile and unstable as well as narcissistic, which is fine. But why is she generally just a *beep* weirdo? It seems that the film uses BPD as an excuse for the character to do stupid funny things. Aside from the movie saying she has BPD, there's no insight into this character, and no reason to buy her as a real human being.
Kristin Wiig's Alice might belong best in a comedy sketch series. It's perfectly okay that the movie wants to laugh and make light of her BPD, but my problem is that when I watch any movie, I want to understand the main character. I found it unrealistic that for a character so consumed with herself, she doesn't display a hint of introspection. She's often hollow and stupid just for laughs, not knowing how to pronounce "carbohydrates", freezing on camera after entering the stage, and neutering dogs on her show. Why is she so dumb and weird? The only explanation the movie seems to have is because she has BPD, and that's not actually an explanation.
Her egoism and desire to announce herself to the world would be intriguing and maybe even relatable if they were actually explored or given any depth rather than just placed there so I can watch them sit and do nothing. If you're not going to develop characters, you need to develop ideas. This film does neither. I get that the TV show is supposed to reflect society's narcissism, but this is one of those films where the mere idea is as far as it goes. I'm aware of the narcissism in myself, yet it didn't reach me at all. Heck, the opening quote to the film was the most insightful observation about any of the film's motifs.
Kristin Wiig has some genuine moments and does the comedy right, but is equally as guilty as the writer and director for consistently making the character a simpleton. It's a shame to say that because I know she's great because I saw The Skeleton Twins.
The film isn't totally unenjoyable and there's a certain weirdness to it that's sometimes appealing. I didn't find it very funny mostly because I couldn't understand the protagonist, but the comedy doesn't fail as much as the movie does overall. I simply did not believe this character. No one so ridiculous would take themselves so seriously without having an intellectual disability, and that's apparently what the filmmakers think BPD does. All of the film's ambitions are crushed under the weight of its non-person protagonist. - DirectorRick AlversonStarsGregg TurkingtonJohn C. ReillyTye SheridanEn route to meet his estranged daughter and attempting to revive his dwindling career, a broken, middle-aged comedian plays a string of dead-end shows in the Mojave desert.1.5/5 A movie about a comedian who stares at *beep* tells jokes, then stares at more *beep*
First off, I like the comedians Rick Alverson uses in his films and I like seeing them take on dramatic roles. I mostly enjoyed his last film, The Comedy for this reason and because Alverson attempted to expose a darker side of our current comedic generation. With Entertainment, Alverson is trying to be weird in showcasing existential emptiness, and it comes off as boring and dismissive. It seemed like Alverson was being surreal because he thought it would be cool, but it does serve a purpose he was likely intending: to capture emptiness. He sure accomplishes that. If he's trying to say something about entertainment, about the crisis of the modern comedian, about existentialism, about emptiness, then he should just say it. Instead, we get a tone piece of non sequiturs with a protagonist who is not a real person.
My issues with the film lay heavily in the underdevelopment of the protagonist. All he does it sit and stare at things when he's not doing his Neil Hamburger routine, which is funny, but I can find it on YouTube. He calls his daughter multiple times, and clearly has a failed life, but somehow he doesn't seem to care. When asked where he wants to go, he responds that he doesn't have a direction. It's about a guy who clearly has depression, whose life is obviously empty, but who is content with it and doesn't want much else. Why he is sad person and if he likes being a comedian are questions we don't get answers to, so we don't really get much of a person. There is oddly, no struggle, so the character goes nowhere and does nothing. I like to understand the characters I watch in movies and Alverson purposely makes it difficult to do that because he prefers his protagonist to be a drone.
The protagonist finds himself in many strange situations that feel completely purposeless both on their own and in the larger context. Some are amusingly strange, and some are just strange and I don't care. It's a very surreal film, but almost in a try-hard way. I enjoyed only a few scenes, mainly the comedic ones because I do like the sense of humor in the film and the actors are funny. I gave up on this movie about halfway through when I realized it was just going to continue to be a bunch of pretentious *beep* that doesn't make sense. I took away nothing from the movie except that the non-person protagonist has a sad life for no reason. I get the emptiness. I get the existential void. I get that the nothing is somehow the point. But how am I supposed to connect to it and why do I care? - DirectorKornél MundruczóStarsZsófia PsottaSándor ZsótérLili HorvátThirteen-year-old Lili fights to protect her dog Hagen. She is devastated when her father eventually sets Hagen free on the streets. Still innocently believing love can conquer any difficulty, Lili sets out to find her dog and save him.1/5 This is the most useless and stupid movie I've seen in a damn while.
So movie starts out with our ONE-DIMENSIONAL-ASS protagonist and her one-dimensional-ass relationship with her dog. She likes her dog and so do we because it's a dog and it's a dog. No convincing needed. But for absolutely no reason, every adult in the movie hates dogs like hell in the most idiotic, flat, G-rated movie way imaginable. Dog runs by a kitchen, the butcher tries to kill it. So we like the girl because she doesn't want to kill her dog and hate everyone else because they do.
So by this point, I guess what I'm watching here is a Benji-esque kids movie about a girl and a dog who get separated and try to find each other just because. Which is weird because the movie doesn't seem to want to be that, so what the hell is it?
Well, the dog gets beaten by angry adults who just want to be bad guys and pound people who want to catch it because they're angry and mean. So this is a very violent kids movie that's not for kids. And it's not for me either. I didn't want to watch a dog run around and get chased by bad guys and watch a girl with zero development try to escape her father's house to get it back. If the movie was going to be that simple of a tale, then it might as well end, because I don't need to watch that.
The movie is filmed pretty nicely with indie camerawork, but I don't have a clue what this style is supposed to be doing for the movie. The choreography and training of the dogs is impressive, sure, but I don't know how it can be called an achievement when it's put in such waste. I have no idea what the filmmaker, Kornél Mundruczó, was thinking with this movie. The director even plays a role in his movie as one of the bad guys. In one scene, his character is counting his money, thinking, "I'm so bad. Money money money! I hate dogs! Money money money!" I am in disbelief that this filmmaker is so aware of his zero-dimensional villains.
There are a few turns in the plot that caught my attention but ultimately went nowhere and made the film more convoluted. The first was when our protagonist goes to a club and drinks a lot, presumably because she misses her dog. So now the movie has brought up that it might be a coming-of-age tale. But there's absolutely nothing here that explains what she's experimenting with here and what she takes away from this experience.
In a turn towards the end, the dogs get violent and it turns into a horror movie where the dogs are somehow intelligent enough to start a rebellion and kill those who have done wrong to them. I can suspend my disbelief for this, but the violence felt totally out of place and was just weird. I have no clue as to what the filmmakers intention was to make the dogs kill everyone. It actually made the dogs out to be pretty mean for the first time. Maybe this is why everyone in town hates them.
So what's the point of this? A first-grade surface level girl-and-her-dog story with harsh and unmotivated animal cruelty that turns into a revenge thing. The resolution to the story was just obvious and dumb, with "love" symbolically saving the day through a corny, predictable and nonsensical solution. I just didn't know what the *beep* this movie wanted to be, why it wanted me to watch it, or what it was.
An ALLEGORY you say? Yes, you're right, it does want to be an allegory. For race, maybe class struggle, but it's the flattest, least detailed allegory I've ever witnessed. Dog are cute. Girl like dog. But adult hate dog. Rar! Get that dumb mutt! Girl want dog back. Dog kill people because dog angry at mean people. They just need some love! Put any suppressed class into this allegory and what do you get? Absolutely nothing new or insightful. Man vs. beast you say? What is explored in this relationship? Man explicitly abuses dog. What an intelligent take on man's relationship to nature and animal!
This movie fails to make an argument for anything. Our sympathy for the dog and the girl is disgustingly basic, as is our hatred for the meanies. That is as far as the argument goes. We already know that it's bad to be mean to things that don't deserve it. This movie fails on the most basic of movie terms by containing characters with no ideologies that are brought into question, therefore the audience questions nothing about their own world views, and then we have a waste of two full hours. And on top of this, it's tonally ambiguous, tensionless, and mind numbingly dumb. Possibly even more confounding than the film itself are the glowing reviews for it which made me see the film in the first place; it won a prize at Cannes, got an 80 on Metacritic, a 91% on Rotten Tomatoes, and gathered enough hype for it to come into America. I simply do not understand how this movie could be read into deeply. It is childlike in its simplicity. I thought it was atrocious.