The Official Review Thread of 2015

anonymous1980
Laureate
Posts: 6377
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
Location: Manila
Contact:

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2015

Post by anonymous1980 »

THE BIG SHORT
Cast: Christian Bale, Steve Carell, Ryan Gosling, Brad Pitt, Melissa Leo, Hamish Linklater, John Magaro, Finn Wittrock, Rafe Spall, Marisa Tomei, Jeremy Strong, Tracey Letts, Adepero Oduye, Margot Robbie, Anthony Bourdain, Selena Gomez.
Dir: Adam McKay.

Anchorman director Adam McKay turns into a serious (well, somewhat, it's still a comedy after all) filmmaker in this film about how the massive economic catastrophe of 2008 due to the collapse of the housing market caused by bad loans and banking deregulation. The film is compelling and though I was sort of lost with all the Wall Street and banking jargon (despite the humorous cutaways of celebrity cameos trying to simplify it for the layman), I still cared. The performances of the ensemble cast are all good and the film's heart is in the right place and I agree that this story is Important with a capital I. But the film is kind of a mess and often veers into preachiness at times. McKay still has trouble balancing the humor and the seriousness of the subject matter. It's still a worthwhile effort though. But I recommend checking out Inside Job.

Grade: B.
Okri
Tenured
Posts: 3345
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2015

Post by Okri »

I think Rampling did a lot more campaigning, whereas Courtenay pretty much refused to do anything. Both were remarkable, though.

I didn't think anyone loved Macbeth as their favourite Shakespeare play. I think it might be my least favourite, actually. That or Taming of the Shrew.

Shaun the Sheep Movie is utterly delightful from start to finish.
anonymous1980
Laureate
Posts: 6377
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
Location: Manila
Contact:

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2015

Post by anonymous1980 »

MACBETH
Cast: Michael Fassbender, Marion Cotillard, Paddy Considine, David Thewlis, Jack Reynor, Sean Harris, Elizabeth Debicki.
Dir: Justin Kurzel.

Macbeth has always been my favorite Shakespeare work so I'm always excited and interested in seeing different takes and adaptations of it. This is no exception. The trailers looked good and the cast is great. Now that I've seen it, I will say this is the fourth best cinematic adaptation of the play behind Throne of Blood, the Polanski version and the Orson Welles version that I've seen.....but I've seen only four of them so that's not really a compliment. Though slickly made, and features faultless performances from Michael Fassbender and Marion Cotillard, this particular adaptation feels a bit tired, dragging and tries too hard at times to appeal to the Game of Thrones crowd. If you've never seen a performance or a film adaptation of Macbeth, this is fine but for someone like me who has seen a lot, it doesn't feel particularly fresh or new.

Grade: C
The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4312
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2015

Post by The Original BJ »

I completely agree that Tom Courtenay should be a Best Actor nominee alongside Charlotte Rampling for 45 Years. (I feel like he's this year's Gordon Pinsent/Jean-Louis Trintignant -- two other men in later-life romances left out in the cold despite doing work that's nearly on par with their nominated co-stars.) And he has a tricky part, spending much of the movie trying to convince his wife (and maybe himself?) that their relationship is solid, while the new information he has received about a past love both shakes him and sends him off to explore all sorts of strange things. He does a wonderful job balancing these elements.

But Charlotte Rampling is just superb from beginning to end. She's long been an actress who can convey so much with her facial expressions -- I recall the emotional scene on the beach in Under the Sand pretty vividly. And here she gets a part that requires subtle shifts of emotion without dialogue, and she nails it from beginning to end, from the early-film scene where Courtenay gets the letter, to the attic revelation, to that scene of despair in the bathroom at the anniversary party, to the final dance. As Mister Tee says, the story here is fairly simple, but the story Rampling is conveying with her face is practically a whole movie on its own. Her Best Actress bid was one of yesterday morning's classiest nominations.

I'd actually be really interested to hear your interpretation of the movie's final moments, Mister Tee. Because that was actually the one part of the film where I thought maybe the filmmakers could have done a more concrete job of elucidating their ideas. Much of the first part of the movie is full of small gestures that seem to be building to something, and I'd say they do in the attic scene, which is probably the biggest actual moment of plot in the whole movie. The second half of the movie essentially builds toward the anniversary party (with a lot of will it/won't it happen?), but what's interesting is that the attic reveal doesn't really change the dynamic of the movie in any superficially obvious way. I didn't have a problem with this -- in fact, I kept thinking that a lesser movie would have had her confront him about it, which could have come off too big/melodramatic a moment to fit in with the rest of the film. But the way the film ends, I didn't feel like I had fully grasped what had specifically led to Rampling's final gesture, and why it came in the specific moment that it did (I mean, beyond the general malaise of the previous few hours). I think Rampling is doing wonderful work in this scene -- the mixture of wordless emotions she conveys is sensational. But I wondered if Haigh wasn't relying too much on her to convey his meaning in the final moments, making it a bit of an abrupt conclusion for me. (No surprise that people are leaving this movie with different interpretations of the finale.)

On the whole, though, I agree that this is a very sensitive, thoughtful drama, with very fine work by both of its stars.
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2015

Post by Mister Tee »

A question that quickly emerges after seeing 45 Years is, why didn't Tom Courtenay get the same push for awards that Charlotte Rampling did? He's perfectly wonderful in the film -- in fact, for much of the way I'd have given him the MVP trophy (though that changed with her wonderful final scenes). Especially given the woeful best actor slate this year, it's a great shame he wasn't considered.

(I DON'T TOTALLY SPOIL HERE, BUT I DO GO INTO PLOT DETAILS)

I liked the movie quite a bit. It's small, but resonant -- arising from a topical premise (global melting reveals a long-buried body) that many might have used for a thriller but that Haigh (and the writer whose work he's adapted) mines instead for an exploration of marriage and the mysteries even a long, successful one can hold. The plotting is fairly simple -- dealing with this discovery and facts related to it, alongside planning/staging an anniversary party. (I had the idea that, rather than 45 Years, the film might be called something like The Delayed Celebration -- a title that would encompass both elements.) But Haigh fills the film with a non-spooky but definite brand of suspense: I read a interesting suggestion that the film uses tropes of the gothic/ghost story -- creaky sounds in the night, a dog barking a warning not to go into the attic -- to highlight the idea that this discovery ends up haunting the marriage every bit as much as an actual ghost would (and the dog is correct: what Rampling encounters in the attic merited the warning).

A very interesting element of the film is how it encourages us, early on, to listen to the words of the oldies being played on the soundtrack. Perhaps I noticed this more acutely because they were songs I know backwards and forwards (many of them were from the period 1965-1968, when I had the radio on all the time), but they seemed to be chosen for their literal lyric meanings: "Tell It Like It Is" could describe the basic plot premise (Courtenay having to finally come clean with the story of Katje); "Young Girl (Get Out of My Mind)" so hilariously pinpoints what Rampling is feeling at that moment she shuts off the radio in a rage; "Happy Together" is the song to open the anniversary party, but, trying for "Higher and HIgher", Rampling is fuzzy on who was responsible for it (it WAS Jackie Wilson); then, fatefully, she chooses "Smoke Gets In Your Eyes" for their big dance, in a scene filmed just beautifully (the most visually striking sequence in the entire film).

I had a disagreement with the friend with whom I saw the film about just what the meaning of Rampling's final gestures were. I'll not go into my precise interpretation (I might subsequently, if someone responds to this), but my feeling is, Haigh has taught us to listen to the words being sung, and the final verse of "Smoke Gets in Your Eyes" clearly talks about "when a lovely flame dies". And then the blackout moment is punctuated by the other song Rampling chose to be played -- the Moody Blues effort, whose title and first line tell me something dramatic has happened.

Anyway: a quite beautiful film, one that's staying with me. That BAFTA failed to nominate the two lead actors tells me they've totally committed to playing the Oscar game, and no longer care about highlighting the best in British cinema.
Last edited by Mister Tee on Sat Jan 16, 2016 2:14 am, edited 1 time in total.
Uri
Adjunct
Posts: 1230
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 11:37 pm
Location: Israel

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2015

Post by Uri »

ITALIANO wrote:I had never heard of this Bryan Cranston, but I can sort-of understand why he might be Oscar-nominated - the role is a conventionally "big" one, full of lines, words, long speeches, and he plays a filmmaker with principles, something rare but which many members of the Academy would love to identify with. But it's not a great performance, and there are moments when the camera seems too unconfortably close to his face, and he in turn doesn't seem subtle enough to handle this.
Subtle? You want subtle - watch him in Breaking Bad. Not really. He is a professional actor who is efficient enough so he can get away with overstated characters and over the top dramatic gestures and there are quite a few people who are happy to embraced it as great acting (hence his 5 Emmys and the cult following of him and his show).
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2015

Post by Sabin »

A 74 year old socialist is currently leading our Democratic primary and stands to trounce capitalist monster Donald Trump by 14 points in the general election. It's not that. One of the reason why The Black List appeals to Leftist Hollywood so much is that it's very easy to fetishize from a distance. It's kind of astonishing that we don't have as many Oscar-contending Black List films as Holocaust dramas.

I think it's because the Black List was a battle of ideas that resolved itself afterwards over an extended period of time. American cinema is very good at structure, for better or worse. Sometimes a movie like 'Lincoln' comes along that manages to externalize ideological/political conflicts in a way that results in a strong film, but even then it ends up losing the Oscar to something far more simplistic like 'Argo.' The 1970s was the era for a film about the Black List. A filmmaker like Sergio Leone, Francis Ford Coppola, or even Warren Beatty could have wrangled it into form. Not today, in an age where film has never seemed more like television and television has never seemed more like film.
"How's the despair?"
ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2015

Post by ITALIANO »

Mister Tee wrote: I've almost given up on there ever being a great film about the blacklist era
Yes exactly, and American cinema has traditionally made great movies about the country's main tragedies - including the Vietnam war. But I guess the anti-communist persecution is still something Americans feel ambivalent towards, and I'm afraid - I hope I am wrong of course - that most Americans would still support it - even if Communism wasn't a danger back then and certainly isn't a danger today.
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2015

Post by Mister Tee »

ITALIANO wrote:
Sabin wrote: I'm starting to wonder though that if Leonardo DiCaprio doesn't win, perhaps Bryan Cranston could.
Everyone says that Fassbender can't win because his movie has been a flop (which is true I guess). But has Trumbo been a hit in the US? I can't believe it...
Trumbo has made less money than Steve Jobs, but had a far lower profile and didn't start off with high-flying grosses and crash, the way Boyle's film did, so it isn't seen as such an egregious flop. I still think Cranston topping DiCaprio is a pipe dream -- in that match-up, I'd actually root for DiCaprio, which it isn't easy to make me do.

I've almost given up on there ever being a great film about the blacklist era -- there've been a number of attempts, and you keep thinking something OUGHT to be able to grab the brass ring with it, but it never happens. What would even qualify as the best? Maybe The Front? Certainly not The Way We Were, which is semi-successful as romance, but the blacklist portions are pretty much the worst aspect.

There have been a few literary works that have got close to being great on the subject -- Jonathan Lethem's recent Dissident Gardens, and, my favorite, Philip Roth's I Married a Communist.
ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2015

Post by ITALIANO »

Oh ok. So no - it will be Di Caprio...
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2015

Post by Sabin »

Trumbo isn't a hit, but it's a lower profile, lower-budgeted, lower-prospected film than Steve Jobs. It doesn't need to be a hit.
"How's the despair?"
ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2015

Post by ITALIANO »

Sabin wrote: I'm starting to wonder though that if Leonardo DiCaprio doesn't win, perhaps Bryan Cranston could.
Everyone says that Fassbender can't win because his movie has been a flop (which is true I guess). But has Trumbo been a hit in the US? I can't believe it...
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2015

Post by Sabin »

Italiano wrote
Absurd as it may seem, Americans, at least some of them, are still obsessed with Communism, and this movie is accused of being "red propaganda". This movie. In 2016. Talk about brainwashing...
Where did you hear this?
Italiano wrote
I had never heard of this Bryan Cranston, but I can sort-of understand why he might be Oscar-nominated - the role is a conventionally "big" one, full of lines, words, long speeches, and he plays a filmmaker with principles, something rare but which many members of the Academy would love to identify with. But it's not a great performance, and there are moments when the camera seems too uncomfortably close to his face, and he in turn doesn't seem subtle enough to handle this. I know that this will be a very weak Best Actor race, but I can't believe that this year American cinema hasn't produced better work from its actors.
You saw him in 'Argo'. Bryan Cranston was the lead actor in 'Breaking Bad', a massively acclaimed television show about a meth-dealing high school teacher that won him four Emmys for acting. He's a very fun actor who has a theatrical energy to him who was destined for a string of character parts until he got that part on that show and now he's going through a mid-life renaissance. Whatever problems Trumbo has, Cranston isn't one of them. He's still not good enough to qualify as a virtue. I'm starting to wonder though that if Leonardo DiCaprio doesn't win, perhaps Bryan Cranston could.
"How's the despair?"
ITALIANO
Emeritus
Posts: 4076
Joined: Mon Jan 06, 2003 1:58 pm
Location: MILAN

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2015

Post by ITALIANO »

Seeing Trumbo the day after Carol hasn't been a good idea. A movie which was certainly bland seemed even blander, more unnecessary. And it's not like its subject - blacklist and the American witch-hunt - isn't an interesting and potentially absorbing one. There probably still hasn't been a truly great, important movie on this theme - Trumbo clearly isn't great or important. As others have said, it looks like a tv movie, with no real feeling for the period, and definitely no real depth. The most interesting thing about it is the comments it has led to - not on this board but for example on the IMDB. Absurd as it may seem, Americans, at least some of them, are still obsessed with Communism, and this movie is accused of being "red propaganda". This movie. In 2016. Talk about brainwashing...

I had never heard of this Bryan Cranston, but I can sort-of understand why he might be Oscar-nominated - the role is a conventionally "big" one, full of lines, words, long speeches, and he plays a filmmaker with principles, something rare but which many members of the Academy would love to identify with. But it's not a great performance, and there are moments when the camera seems too unconfortably close to his face, and he in turn doesn't seem subtle enough to handle this. I know that this will be a very weak Best Actor race, but I can't believe that this year American cinema hasn't produced better work from its actors.
Helen Mirren plays a villainess without subtext, which may have been enjoyable for her, and definitely very easy. But if she's nominated, it will be one of the laziest nominations ever - a reliable (and much-loved by the Academy) thespian giving a technically professional but uninspired performance in a two-dimensional role. And as Supporting Actress seems to be potentially interesting this year, I can only hope it won't happen.
flipp525
Laureate
Posts: 6163
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 7:44 am

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2015

Post by flipp525 »

Is Helen Mirren supposed to be playing Hedda Hopper as British in Trumbo? In that scene with L.B. Mayer, I seriously never heard her even attempt an American accent.

Is Best Supporting Actress so bereft of candidates that this is the kind of thing that's going to be nominated? Is Rachel McAdams actually happening for Spotlight? Or is this the kind of year when the actual nominees deviate from any sort of radar and turn out to be huge surprises? Is there a Marcia Gay Harden-type candidate, waiting in the wings? It's certainly possible that this could be the weakest line-up we've seen in years if the Academy doesn't go their own way.
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."

-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell
Post Reply

Return to “2015”