The Official Review Thread of 2016

anonymous1980
Emeritus
Posts: 4913
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
Location: Manila
Contact:

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2016

Postby anonymous1980 » Sat Sep 10, 2016 12:00 pm

SULLY
Cast: Tom Hanks, Aaron Eckhart, Laura Linney, Mike O'Malley, Anna Gunn, Jamey Sheridan.
Dir: Clint Eastwood.

This is Clint Eastwood's film about the pilot who saved 155 lives by landing on the Hudson River back in 2009. Wow. Has it really been that long? I'm kind of amazed it was that long ago. How time flies. Tom Hanks is actually the perfect guy to play Captain Sullenburger. During interviews i've seen with him, he always struck me as an ordinary man who was thrust into the limelight and fame due to his miraculous accomplishment and he definitely pulls it off. Clint Eastwood, as a director, still manages to make pretty good movies even at this age. This one, though far from a masterpiece, is still a pretty darn good film which somehow manages to mine drama and suspense despite the fact that most people know this story already.

Oscar Prospects: Picture and Director are doubtful. Actor (Tom Hanks) is possible. Supporting Actor (Aaron Eckhart) is only possible if they end really loving the film.Visual Effects and MAYBE Original Song are both possible.

Grade: B

PETE'S DRAGON
Cast: Bryce Dallas Howard, Oakes Fegley, Robert Redford, Wes Bentley, Karl Urban, Oona Laurence, Isiah Whitlock Jr.
Dir: David Lowery.

This is the remake of the 1970's Disney live-action animated musical about a boy and his friend Elliott, who happens to be a dragon who can go invisible. This film is decidedly very different in that it's not a musical and more of a family drama....with a dragon in it. This year, Steven Spielberg directed his first film for Disney and personally, I thought the result of that would be closer to this than The BFG. This feels like an old-fashioned family picture that doesn't feel the need to do fart jokes, "hip" humor or action scenes every 15 minutes to satisfy all demographics. It's a film which simply and elegantly tells the story of a lost boy and his dragon, quite stripped down and very, very refreshing. They almost never make movies like these nowadays.

Oscar Prospects: Widely deserving of Visual Effects, Cinematography, Original Score and (maybe) Original Song.

Grade: B+

Okri
Professor
Posts: 2470
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2016

Postby Okri » Sat Sep 10, 2016 11:32 am

American Pastoral

A difficult (maybe impossible) novel to adapt and this films really flounders. Most of the blame will be rightfully be placed on the screenplay, but no one gets away clean. McGregor demonstrates some minor directorial chops - I'd be interested in seeing him take on a thriller or something where he can get his calisthenics in before returning to "serious" material - but he drops the ball regarding the performances. It's one of those films that is less than the sum of it's parts, but at best, most of the parts are competent.

Mister Tee
Laureate
Posts: 5835
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2016

Postby Mister Tee » Fri Sep 09, 2016 3:43 pm

Hell or High Water, this summer's indie cause celebre, has some things to recommend it. There are interesting plot elements, the dialogue is fresh and has some snap, and Jeff Bridges is pretty much wonderful. (Had he not won that career Oscar, there'd be a maybe-successful effort to win it for him here in support. He may well get the nomination even now.)

But, as is the case with so many dead-season entries, I think people a bit overstate its merits. (THOUGH I'LL BE MOSTLY VAGUE HERE, SOME PLOT SPOILERS MAY BLEED THROUGH) Its plot is interesting but not especially ingeniously worked/mapped out. In fact, when I got to the end, I found myself imagining the plot reworked to disclose information in a more unraveling sort of way (possibly through the investigation of the Bridges character). As it is, we get the central "why-they-dunnit" info plunked down all at once, mid-film, with the rest of the story playing out somewhat routinely. I'm thinking the filmmakers might respond that they were making a social-statement film, about the evils of banks, not a thriller -- but I'd answer that I don't think their story/gestalt is strong enough to stand alone as social drama: it'd work better as serious undercarriage to a heist-y thriller.

Restructuring might also unmuddle some of the morality of the characters' actions. I was unclear at the end whether Pine's character had been ruthlessly using Foster's brother character -- certain he'd behave the way he did, to Pine's advantage-- or if things just turned out the way they did and Pine was as surprised as we were. The final scene tried to raise these issues, but I thought they did so in an opaque way. I'm fine with nuanced moral judgments; I'm less patient with purely murky ones.

Foster's character is, by me, one of the film's weakest elements. If there's anything I'm tired of in films, it's the loose cannon/rattlesnake character, who might do something phenomenally stupid or reckless at any moment. To me, it's lazy writing: it gives the scripter free rein to have him do anything without regard for common sense. And casting Ben Foster in the role? -- remember when people said casting Morgan Freeman as Nelson Mandela was redundant? Ditto here.

I also did a "Huh?" when Bridges, having stood in one place for about 24 hours, declaring it the clear way to play, suddenly comes up with a new plan on a moment's notice, for no particular reason.

The "blame the banks" theme is probably helping make the movie popular (it's something of a lift from Bonnie and Clyde), and it has its ingenious aspects, plus some nuance attached (Bridges' partner noting the people now being robbed of their land had their own ancestor-history of land-grabbing). But the political analyst in me couldn't help noting that, geographically/demographically, the characters in the film have probably spent the past few decades voting for exactly the people who made the bank perfidy possible, so my sympathy for them was somewhat muted.

Now that I've unloaded all this way, I have to caution that I didn't dislike the movie at all. It's a brisk enough 100 minutes, and, as an original script, it's somewhat on a par with Ex Machina -- another off-season success I found overrated but which was decent and well-liked enough it got Academy nominations. I'd say Hell or High Water could match that film's writing/acting nods next January, and wouldn't be entirely undeserving. Just don't go expecting a knockout.

User avatar
taki15
Temp
Posts: 360
Joined: Sun Jan 28, 2007 4:29 am

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2016

Postby taki15 » Sat Sep 03, 2016 7:57 pm

Ok, first time I do that and English isn't my mother tongue, so be gentle.

Suicide Squad (2016)

★★★

An unscrupulous government agent rounds up the worst super-villains and recruits them to form a black ops team against supernatural threats that can't be defeated by normal military means.

Despite the poisonous word-of-mouth that afflicted its release, "Suicide Squad" isn't the worst superhero/comic book adaptation ever. Not even close. But that doesn't mean that it's very good either. As a matter of fact, taking under consideration the potential of its prime material, "disappointing" and "wasted opportunity" are more accurate descriptions of this flick.
The opening act which introduces our (anti)heroes and chronicles their capture and recruitment is strong and engaging. But when the main story starts, everything goes south. Hackneyed plotting and unoriginal action abound, and everything culminates into a climax that will leave only precious few satisfied. Granted, the movie never becomes mind-numbingly boring (like "Superman Returns") or hopelessly trashy (like "Batman & Robin"). But that's what we call damning with faint praise.

The main reason the film not only survives but is quite enjoyable are its actors. Will Smith as Deadshot turns on his charisma and gets the maximum out of his character. The fact that he has the most detailed and simple backstory helps immensely of course. Margot Robbie is deliciously sexy and unhinged as Harley Quinn. She even manages to make a couple of clunky one-liners sound good. The rest of the cast deserves kudos for not embarrassing themselves despite portraying paper-thin characters that look more like a screenwriter's pawns. Even the usually wooden Jai Courtney and Joel Kinnaman are quite good.

As a piece of mindless entertainment, "Suicide Squad" can be considered semi-successful. It won't set your world on fire but you won't be feeling robbed afterwards either. As usually with over-hyped franchises, the hostile reaction is more indicative of the moviegoers' heightened expectations than the quality of what's presented on-screen.

anonymous1980
Emeritus
Posts: 4913
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
Location: Manila
Contact:

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2016

Postby anonymous1980 » Sat Sep 03, 2016 7:21 pm

DON'T BREATHE
Cast: Stephen Lang, Jane Levy, Dylan Minette, Daniel Zovatto.
Dir: Fede Alvarez.

Three young thieves break into the house of a blind Army veteran to steal his money only to get more than what they bargained for when they find out the blind man isn't as helpless as he seems. Fede Alvarez did a fairly solid job of remaking Evil Dead a couple of years ago. It's nice to see him tackle something original this time and really show his chops. This is a scary and inventive horror film that actually builds more on character and tension rather than cheap scares and shock value. It's also refreshing that there was an effort made to not make characters do stupid and unbelievable things for the sake of the plot like in many horror films and an effort to not write them in familiar tropes. It has been an unusually good year for mainstream horror cinema, I must say.

Oscar Prospects: None but something has to be said for this film's cinematography and sound mixing.

Grade: B+

anonymous1980
Emeritus
Posts: 4913
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
Location: Manila
Contact:

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2016

Postby anonymous1980 » Sun Aug 28, 2016 1:01 pm

THE SECRET LIFE OF PETS
Cast: Louis CK, Eric Stonestreet, Jenny Slate, Kevin Hart, Albert Brooks, Ellie Kemper, Steve Coogan, Dana Carvey, Lake Bell, Bobby Moynihan, Hannibal Buress (voices).
Dir: Chris Renaud.

After his owner brings home an intrusive newcomer, a little dog plots to get rid of himself. This results in both of them getting lost and having to find their way back home. If that story sounds familiar, it's the exact same plot of the firstToy Story. It even follows similar narrative beats. Though, obviously, this is nowhere near as great as Toy Story, it's an okay feature-length animated film with good animation and some colorful and funny characters. Louis CK is good as the lead dog but Kevin Hart steals the show as a crazy rabbit. It's certainly no PIXAR but it's far from horrible. It's entertaining enough.

Oscar Prospects: Animated Feature seems competitive this year. There's no room for filler. This one will have a tough time getting in. Alexandre Desplat's score is pretty good though.

Grade: B-

Sabin
Laureate
Posts: 6772
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2016

Postby Sabin » Sun Aug 28, 2016 12:57 am

There's nothing much to say about Southside with You. If you want to see a dramatic (I use that word very loosely) reenactment of Barack Obama and Michelle Robinson's first date, have it at hoss. It's always nice to see a movie where two intelligent people court each other, but it's reigned in by a suffocating respect for authenticity. Watching the film, it's not difficult to lapse into sorting the film into two piles: written dialogue and pulled quotes. Remove the importance that the viewer puts up on these two on the screen, and it's the story of a black lawyer at a white law-firm who is exhausted at leading a double-life both in and out of work. She barely has an opinion of dating Barack because the idea of it just sends her mind into potential ramifications. Both Tika Sumpter (who is a bit too studied but with the harder role) and Parker Sawyer convince the viewer that you're watching two people who have no idea that they're destined for "superhuman" greatness (to reference a comment made by Barack early in the film) but it's effective and it's perfectly timed for saying goodbye to our 44th President in a more graceful way than Oliver Stone's W.

That said, it's a slight affair, poorly-shot, baiting nostalgia somewhat successfully, but it ends up feeling somewhere between tribute and pointless.
Philomena is one of the year's best Philomenas!

anonymous1980
Emeritus
Posts: 4913
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
Location: Manila
Contact:

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2016

Postby anonymous1980 » Sat Aug 27, 2016 12:56 pm

FLORENCE FOSTER JENKINS
Cast: Meryl Streep, Hugh Grant, Simon Helberg, Rebecca Ferguson, Nina Arianda, Christian MacKay, Alan Corduner.
Dir: Stephen Frears.

During the 1940's, A rich heiress living in New York decides to become an opera singer. She becomes a sensation but for all the wrong reasons. (Hint: Basically, she was the 1940's equivalent of William Hung). I'm personally surprised I liked this as much as I did. I thought it was going to be a nice, fluffy little biopic and in a way it is. But I didn't expect this to be as funny, sweet and moving as it was. Largely thanks to Meryl Streep's performance. Yes, Meryl Streep gave a great performance. Big deal. But her gifts are well utilized here. This character could have easily been a ridiculous cartoon but she made us feel for her even though we may laugh at her ridiculousness. She's matched by both Hugh Grant and Simon Helberg as her husband and accompanying pianist respectively. It may not be the most exciting film out there but it's a delightful, solid little dramedy.

Oscar Prospects: Streep obviously may have one spot locked up. Hugh Grant is actually a co-lead here even though I think he will be campaigned as Supporting (which Simon Helberg is). Production Design, Costume Design and Makeup & Hairstyling are all strong possibilities.

Grade: B+

WAR DOGS
Cast: Jonah Hill, Miles Teller, Ana De Armas, Bradley Cooper, Kevin Pollak, Shaun Toub.
Dir: Todd Philips.

Based on a true story, this is about two twenty-somethings who find and sell weapons to the U.S. army during the second Iraqi War. It tracks their rise to their meteoric downfall. This film is basically what director Todd Philips seemed to be heading to as the Hangover movies become darker and progressively shot more like thrillers than comedies. But still, even though it's slickly made and is filled with great ideas, this film falls horribly short. It clearly wants to be a Wolf of Wall Street-type of dark comedy but the serious elements and comedic elements doesn't seem to jive with each other well. Plus is it just me or does anyone else think Todd Philips simply can't write women? There's one female character here and she's severely underwritten and barely serviceably acted by someone who's attractive and nothing more.

Oscar Prospects: None.

Grade: C+

The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 3795
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2016

Postby The Original BJ » Sat Aug 20, 2016 6:17 pm

I kind of hate to be a grouch about something as amiable as Florence Foster Jenkins, but I have to admit that I wasn't all that taken by it, especially compared to some of you guys. For me, this was a lot closer to Mrs. Henderson Presents Stephen Frears than The Queen Stephen Frears. I think the movie benefits from an overall air of likability, and certainly a game cast -- this is the kind of part twenty-first century Meryl just has a field day with, Hugh Grant hasn't been this light on his feet in a long time, and Nina Arianda is a dumb blonde hoot. (I would emphatically NOT include Simon Helberg on this list, who is the one member of the cast who I thought just needed to take everything down about five notches.)

But I think the movie suffers from two significant problems. The first is simply that there just isn't that much incident in the story. About half way through the movie, I found myself thinking, this plot hasn't extended much further beyond what I saw in the trailer. Florence Foster Jenkins sings badly but doesn't know it, starts singing in public, and then becomes something of a popular phenomenon...and up until the last reel of the movie, that's virtually all that happens. There are other elements woven in -- a traumatic backstory for Florence, the peculiarity of the relationship between Florence and her husband -- but none of these are fleshed out in any particularly impactful way. For a while, I started to feel like the movie pretty much had one joke up its sleeve -- Meryl sings badly! -- and I could only watch so many scenes of that before I got antsy.

The movie, eventually, does reveal that it has a bit more on its mind, but this led to what I felt was the other big issue: I don't think the filmmakers quite worked out what their take on the Florence Foster Jenkins story is. For much of the movie, the audience is invited -- no, encouraged -- to laugh as much as possible at Florence and her antics. And then comes the scene that flipp cites, where it seems like all of a sudden the movie views such laughter as cruel, and now wants us to sympathize with -- and even cheer for -- a woman just trying her best, no matter that her talent is abysmal. (The fact that Nina Arianda's character is the one who emblematizes the movie's shift in attitude -- and that her own character's change of heart is completely unmotivated and out of the blue -- brings out the problem even more.) It seems like there COULD be rich material to mine here, particularly if the movie had had a stronger point of view on what Grant is doing and why -- why he's in a relationship with her at all, why he's willing to encourage her to the point of public embarrassment, and why he might even realize that a bad product that's raking in money might possibly be a worthier investment than a good one that isn't. But instead I thought the movie didn't go much deeper than, "you go, girl!", and that, for me, was a disappointment.

SPOILER ABOUT THE ENDING OF THE MOVIE

Also, can I just point out how much I HATE endings where the protagonist articulates a very clear theme statement as their literal last words before dying?

anonymous1980
Emeritus
Posts: 4913
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
Location: Manila
Contact:

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2016

Postby anonymous1980 » Sat Aug 20, 2016 10:28 am

CAPTAIN FANTASTIC
Cast: Viggo Mortensen, George MacKay, Frank Langella, Kathryn Hahn, Steve Zahn, Samantha Isler, Annalise Basso, Nicholas Hamilton, Shree Crooks, Charlie Shotwell, Ann Dowd, Missi Pyle, Erin Moriarty.
Dir: Matt Ross.

A hippie, far-left father of six who's raising his kids completely off the grid in the woods of the Pacific Northwest finds out his bi-polar wife killed herself and takes a trip to her funeral against his father-in-law's wishes. This would have easily have been an annoying, smug and too-quirky-for-its-own good indie but thanks to the more nuanced writing and characterization, as well as Viggo Mortensen's great performance, this film didn't suffer too much of those flaws. It does flirt with them occasionally, particularly towards the end. However, the film mostly avoids these missteps and presents us with a thought-provoking comedy-drama about an unusual family. Kudos as well to the kid actors who play the kids.

Oscar Prospects: Viggo Mortensen wouldn't be a bad Best Actor nominee.

Grade: B+

Mister Tee
Laureate
Posts: 5835
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2016

Postby Mister Tee » Sun Aug 14, 2016 9:51 pm

Okri wrote: I'm not quite sure what to make of Indignation except to say I'm VERY curious what Tee thinks of it and there's a stunning scene partway through that might go down as the best writing of the year.

Look further down: I started a thread on it.

Okri
Professor
Posts: 2470
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2016

Postby Okri » Sun Aug 14, 2016 8:35 pm

Did a double feature of Pete's Dragon and Indignation.

The former is a kid's film. I have no nostalgia for the original and can't definitely say if I've seen it or not. But it's made with enough feeling that it's passable, though I was definitely getting bored. My favourite moment came from an audience. The titular character is in peril and a kid in the back cried "are they going to hurt the dragon?" and spent the next portion of the film audibly worried.

I'm not quite sure what to make of Indignation except to say I'm VERY curious what Tee thinks of it and there's a stunning scene partway through that might go down as the best writing of the year.

anonymous1980
Emeritus
Posts: 4913
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
Location: Manila
Contact:

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2016

Postby anonymous1980 » Sun Aug 14, 2016 11:55 am

THE SHALLOWS
Cast: Blake Lively, Oscar Jaenada, Brett Cullen.
Dir: Jaume Collet-Serra.

A young woman goes surfing in an isolated Mexican beach then she is attacked and stalked by a man-eating great white shark so she must fight to survive. I've heard people say that this is the best shark movie since Jaws (a lot of the shots of this film probably were directly ripped off from it). That's kind of like damning it with faint praise because there weren't a lot of shark movies in between these two films that were any good. But this is in fact a very good movie. Jaume Collet-Serra has been making his name doing some interesting genre flicks now and this may be his best work to date. Blake Lively is likewise also doing some of her best acting work in this one as well rising up to the challenge of acting alone through a huge chunk of the film as well as the physical demands of the role. Oh and I love Steven Seagull!

Oscar Prospects: Maybe for Visual Effects and Sound Editing. Lively wouldn't be an embarrassing Best Actress contender though.

Grade: B+

THE BFG
Cast: Ruby Barnhill, Mark Rylance, Penelope Wilton, Jemaine Clement, Rafe Spall, Rebecca Hall, Bill Hader.
Dir: Steven Spielberg.

Based on the Roald Dahl book, this is about a little orphan girl who meets and befriends a Big Friendly Giant (the BFG) and tries to help him defeat the bigger, meaner giants. This is director Steven Spielberg first directorial collaboration with Disney and the last work from late screenwriter Melissa Mathison who both brought us E.T.. This is definitely no E.T. though it does have all the elements to make it come close. The visual effects are outstanding. Ruby Barnhill is an absolutely wonderful child actress who pulls off a wonderful natural performance especially since you realize she must have been acting with blue and green screens half the time. Mark Rylance as the title character also likewise gives a warm, funny and soulful performance underneath the mo-cap CGI. There are lots of funny and sweet moments throughout. But unfortunately, it feels a wee bit too long and it doesn't really quite come close to being a fantasy classic. It's a perfectly fine film but a mid-tier Spielberg at best.

Oscar Prospects: Strong contender for Visual Effects, Production Design and Original Score.

Grade: B.

Okri
Professor
Posts: 2470
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:28 pm
Location: Edmonton, AB

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2016

Postby Okri » Sat Aug 13, 2016 11:29 pm

I just came from Florence Foster Jenkins, and I'll largely echo flipp's take with a dash more enthusiasm. I was pretty taken by the whole thing. Admittedly, it gets a lot of mileage from the premise, but the amount of joy in the performances really goes a long way as well.

The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 3795
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2016

Postby The Original BJ » Sat Aug 13, 2016 1:56 am

Ira Sachs is the kind of filmmaker I very much WANT to like. He's clearly interested in films about real people, he has intuitive observations about human behavior, and he understands that the nuances of modern life can often be messy. But Little Men is now the second wildly acclaimed film from him that has left me mostly underwhelmed, and I just have to conclude that, despite obvious admirable qualities, he just doesn't excite me all that much as a filmmaker.

Part of this problem has to do with the fact that "stories about real people" can pretty easily flirt with mundanity, and think Sachs's style tips too far toward the latter for my taste. The central conflict of the movie revolves around the lease of a dress shop -- Greg Kinnear's father left the property to him in his will and he now wants to raise the rent closer to market value, tenant Paulina Garcia doesn't think her rent should be hiked all of a sudden, and both of their sons become friends as this conflict develops. It's not like this is an uninteresting premise -- both sides make good points, and no one's really in the wrong -- but I don't think the script ever really takes this set-up anywhere that compelling or unexpected. I know a lot of people thought House of Sand and Fog took its story in increasingly melodramatic directions, but I thought that was a narrative about a property dispute that actually had some plot propulsion -- it WENT somewhere. Sachs's approach is obviously far more low-key, but I didn't find that a virtue -- there's a scene between Garcia and Kinnear where she reveals something his father once told her, and my thought was, that's a pretty minor thing to be the biggest "revelation" this story gives us.

I think there's definitely something to the idea that the conflict between these parents has an unwitting ricochet effect on the relationship between their sons, and there's an innate sadness to that fact that's moving. And yet, I found the boys' story not much more interesting than the real estate plot, a real issue given that Kinnear's son is the ostensible protagonist of the movie. He's clearly coded as gay, and may or may not have an attraction to his new best friend, but this is mostly a quiet observation rather than a plot engine, and in fact, most of the scenes between the two kids could be described as observation -- playing sports, playing video games, in acting class, on the subway, in a dance club -- an approach that I just didn't find as elucidating as many critics have. (The two kids are very well cast, though, and you can see why they became friends even despite their obvious personality differences.)

There's a scene near the end of the movie when Jake, our protagonist, does take some major action, and I thought this was a strong moment, a smart take on the idea that kids can often meddle in adult problems having the best of intentions, without really understanding the murkiness of the waters into which they're treading. But then, frustratingly for me, the movie just went right back to dwelling on the ho-hum, failing to provide really any resolution to the adults' conflict, giving us a heartfelt but peculiar father-son scene that seems to convey an idea mostly unrelated to what the movie has been dealing with, and then concluding with a sequence that isn't without poignancy, but that just doesn't amount to as much as it might have because the preceding scenes have been so afraid of dramatic incident.

Hopefully the fact that I wrote as much as I did suggests that, even despite my qualms, I think there are still plenty of elements of the movie worth mulling over, and it's such a humane thing that I could never be mean-spirited about it. But, as with Love is Strange, I think the enthusiastic raves are really overlooking some of the movie's clear limitations.


Return to “2016”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest