The Official Review Thread of 2017

Post Reply
criddic3
Tenured
Posts: 2874
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 11:08 pm
Location: New York, USA
Contact:

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2017

Post by criddic3 »

Mister Tee wrote:So...Logan.

Take the film for what it is: an interesting enough piece of pulp, among the better super-hero efforts to which you'll be subjected this year. Pretending it's anything more is debasing cultural standards.
This is a fairly offensive theory. The idea seems to be that some genres are inherently unworthy of ever being called art or being taken remotely seriously. Logan certainly isn't Shakespeare, nor is it the greatest superhero film ever made (Superman, 1978; Spider-Man 2, 2004; The Dark Knight, 2008 are probably the ones most would name for that title). However, the performances and above-par screenplay certainly make it worthy of praise.
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4312
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2017

Post by The Original BJ »

Roman J. Israel, Esq. isn't so much an actively bad movie as a generally shapeless thing, with genuinely compelling scenes alternating between obviously misguided ones. There are moral complexities here that are interesting -- the idea of a man who has spent years fighting the good fight for the less fortunate starting to wonder if his efforts have truly been worth it is pleasingly cynical territory -- but the whole thing is just too muddled to take this idea in an exciting enough direction. In particular, I found Washington's Roman J. Israel a very difficult character to get a grasp on -- there are times when the movie clearly wants us to view him as a dispenser of sage wisdom, but too often I thought he came off like a socially awkward asshole. (When Carmen Ejogo's character has her emotional breakdown at dinner where she admits she thinks he's such an unbelievable human being, I thought, seriously, THIS GUY?!) I also thought the legal brief, which occupies a lot of space in the narrative, was a pretty bad MacGuffin -- I feel like I needed to know a lot more about what was in there for anything about the ending to land emotionally. As for Washington's performance, I can sort of see why he's getting nominations -- the character is certainly a CHARACTER, and one that feels quite different in personality than his more bravado-filled roles. But I also think he isn't any more successful than the script at elucidating who this man is in a clear manner, that it's hard for me to get very excited about him as an awards candidate. (Though I guess as long as he doesn't bump off one of the better Best Actor candidates -- Chalamet or Day-Lewis -- I couldn't get particularly outraged about his inclusion in this year either.)

As for a movie that IS genuinely bad...I'm not being hyperbolic: The Greatest Showman is the single most godawful film I have put myself through this year. Almost from the opening moments, I was horrified -- the score is totally anachronistic (and so is the choreography), Hugh Jackman (despite his reputation as a musical showman with a Tony Award) remains a pretty poor singer, and the whole film has a thoroughly antiseptic, overly-CGIed, hideously edited together look to it that I found completely unpleasant. It's the kind of musical that makes me wonder if people who hate musicals are actually right, the kind of movie that OF COURSE has an obnoxious critic character to peddle the theme that critics are awful because they just can't feel the joy that showmen like P.T. Barnum bring to people, the kind of movie where Zac Efron and Zendaya have an in public interracial romance and no one even bothers to mention that slavery still exists at this point in American history. An ugly, witless, joyless, tuneless, laughable catastrophe, and a pox on the Hollywood Foreign Press for nominating such a grisly thing.
anonymous1980
Laureate
Posts: 6377
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
Location: Manila
Contact:

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2017

Post by anonymous1980 »

BRIGHT
Cast: Will Smith, Joel Edgerton, Noomi Rapace, Lucy Fry, Edgar Ramirez, Ike Barinholtz, Brad William Henke, Enrique Murciano.
Dir: David Ayer.

This takes place in a world where magical creatures like fairies, elves, orcs and dwarves live side by side with humans. The first orc police officer is partnered up with the character played by Will Smith and they uncover a plot involving a magic Wand. This is basically a generic cop action thriller flick with generic fantasy and magic elements shoved in. I saw this on Netflix so I didn't have to dole out any extra cash for it. Admittedly, this premise has tons of potential but it seems that director David Ayer and writer Max Landis both think that that's clever enough. They never turn this into anything particularly smart, compelling, creative or even fun and there's no sense of wonder. Sure, they thrown in a ham-fisted allegory about racism which is to be expected and is cliche at this point already. Joel Edgerton manages to rise above it, actually giving the film the glimmers of what it might have been had its makers actually did something cool instead of thinking that they did something cool. Yeah, this is not good.

Oscar Prospects: God, I hope this doesn't make the Makeup nominations.

Grade: D.
Sabin
Laureate Emeritus
Posts: 10747
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2017

Post by Sabin »

Mister Tee wrote
Stephen Colbert said a week or two back that, from henceforth, all Marvel movies should begin with a character explaining everything you need to know upfront to follow the story. I could have used that here: I had no idea what horrible deed Patrick Stewart had done, or what had infected Hugh Jackman, or even which movie I needed to watch to find these things out.
SPOILERS

They're not in the previous movies. They're only in this one.

You're right. We're not talking about a great film. But it does a few things that fans of the movie or comic book might like. It presents the X-Men movies as a mythology from a comic book series, as a fantasy. All you need to know about this film is a cursory understanding of what an X-Men movie is. A school, mutants, bald guy teacher, etc. You start this movie and you know something is different because the first line spoken is "Fuck."

There are some brief clues as to what Xavier did that we pick up along the way. Some of them might be too inside baseball. They refer Xavier's seizures and "The Westchester Incident." The School for Gifted Youngsters is in Westchester. I think there are a couple more hints along the way, but what they film says is that Xavier's big seizure killed his X-Men. I think they shot footage to make this clearer but for whatever reason didn't include that in the film.

As for Logan's disease, we're supposed to wonder what's going on with him. But they eventually say outright that he's old, he's not healing like he used to, and the metal in his bones is killing him.
"How's the despair?"
User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 13668
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2017

Post by OscarGuy »

The family moments are meant to exemplify why people like Logan and the other mutants can never have that kind of life. They bring with them death and destruction, which negatively impacts all that is good around them. The only family they have are other mutants who know and understand what they have to go through. In this case, Logan is faced continually by the demons of his past and must fight to protect the only family he knows. Escaping into the wilderness to a place where his kind are not hunted and where they can be no harm to others is the only way he can protect his family. Xavier is like a father to him and Laura is, essentially his daughter, not by birth, but by blood. While they would all love to have that kind of warm fuzzy family moments, they are constantly being reminded that it is impossible. Like every great road movie, it's about finding and understanding yourself and learning how to let go of the chains that are holding you back.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2017

Post by Mister Tee »

So...Logan.

Stephen Colbert said a week or two back that, from henceforth, all Marvel movies should begin with a character explaining everything you need to know upfront to follow the story. I could have used that here: I had no idea what horrible deed Patrick Stewart had done, or what had infected Hugh Jackman, or even which movie I needed to watch to find these things out. Do people actually carry around information over years -- covering a seemingly infinite series of films -- to be called up when needed? It's bizarre. Back in the day, the serialized adventure used to be part of the b-roll that preceded the main feature film. Now it's become the main event itself, and people devote far more mental energy to it than I'm willing to expend.

The film itself is engaging enough, principally as a chase. When Jackman and Co. were making their escape from the initial compound, I found myself reminded of Mad Max: Fury Road, and I could imagine the same people who touted that being similarly hyperbolic in support of this. A problem I had, though (one BJ noted), was the action too often devolved into explicit violence. When claws are so frequently involved, that may be hard to avoid, but I, too, had an especial problem with seeing a young girl dispense all this carnage. I also wasn't crazy about watching a completely benign family subjected to brutal death (apparently all so Patrick Stewart could have a nice meal and a few hours' sleep), and then seeing our main characters seemingly forget about them as soon as they were back on the road. For a movie that seemed to want to wrap itself in warm-fuzzy ideas of family, there was a great deal of empty brutality.

When I was a kid, I used to read comic books quite voraciously. I remember one or two particular Superman issues where a continuing character ended up dying. At the age of 12, I thought these particular stories were "great" -- the chord they rang in me I confused with artistic depth. I'd suggest that the people calling Logan "great" are making the same error (though at an age when it's not so forgivable). That a comic book character faces mortality doesn't make the story surrounding him great (or, god help us, mean the actors involved should be awards contenders). Take the film for what it is: an interesting enough piece of pulp, among the better super-hero efforts to which you'll be subjected this year. Pretending it's anything more is debasing cultural standards.
anonymous1980
Laureate
Posts: 6377
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
Location: Manila
Contact:

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2017

Post by anonymous1980 »

STAR WARS: THE LAST JEDI
Cast: Mark Hamill, Carrie Fisher, Daisy Ridley, Adam Driver, John Boyega, Oscar Isaac, Domhnall Gleeson, Andy Serkis, Laura Dern, Benicio Del Toro, Kelly Marie Tran, Gwendoline Christie, Lupita Nyong'o, Frank Oz.
Dir: Rian Johnson.

Okay, I like Star Wars. I have to say I am a casual fan than a super-devotee. I like it just fine. Going into this, I was thinking, "Okay, here we go, another. Let's see......okay......" Then by the end of the second act, I go, "HOLY SHIT! Did Rian Johnson just do that?!? I can't believe he did that!" My jaw dropped. I can't believe they pulled it off. They made a 40 year old franchise fresh by allowing writer-director Rian Johnson make the Star Wars film that he wanted to make. It's clear that he did the film he wanted to do, essentially throwing out any predictability this franchise has future films. The film is funny, it's fresh, it's genuinely exciting because you really don't know where it's gonna go and it has everything you want in a Star Wars movie. It's the best since The Empire Strikes Back and I don't say that lightly.

Oscar Prospects: The usual techs.

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

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2017

Post by anonymous1980 »

BATTLE OF THE SEXES
Cast: Emma Stone, Steve Carell, Andrea Riseborough, Sarah Silverman, Bill Pullman, Elisabeth Shue, Alan Cumming, Austin Stowell.
Dirs: Valerie Faris, Jonathan Dayton.

This is the story behind the famous "Battle of the Sexes" tennis match between Billie Jean King and Bobby Riggs detailing the events leading to that. I'm kind of wary of biopics like this film since they have the tendency to be mediocre Oscar bait. But this one's actually pretty darn good. I would have to say that this is probably my favorite film from the directing team of Valerie Faris and Jonathan Dayton. Emma Stone is utterly charming and actually superb as the tennis great Billie Jean King and Steve Carell matches her as Bobby Riggs. The film does a good job of keeping you in suspense despite the fact that you kind of already know the outcome. It also doesn't hammer the obvious messages too hard and just keeps it organic. It's overall a solid picture.

Oscar Prospects: Emma Stone and Steve Carell would be great nominees. I also liked the Cinematography and the Score.

Grade: B+
Bog
Assistant
Posts: 878
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:39 am
Location: United States

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2017

Post by Bog »

The Original BJ wrote:You almost want people to clarify that when they mean comedy, they really mean comedy that's broader than a barn, and includes stuff like golden showers.
I think this is the nail on the head....Hangover culture at its finest. The people who laugh harder at the distinctions of a Fargo or Kind Hearts & Coronets as comedies than they do during any single second of the run time...or never quite knew when to laugh when watching either version of The Office or even Office Space. Thusly each and every is an immensely overrated trifle.
Mister Tee
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8637
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2017

Post by Mister Tee »

The Original BJ wrote: But I question why so many critics seem excited to push her into the awards conversation. Although I share the resistance to rote nominations for tradition of quality prestige (like Scott Thomas/Darkest Hour), it strikes me that some view the corrective as going really far in the other direction, in trying to get stuff with ZERO aspirations to art on the ballot instead.
In line with this, some guy named Sam Coffey recently tweeted this out: "This Tiffany Haddish backlash is weird proof that people love Oscar bait more than they want to admit" -- which Nathaniel at Film Experience said was a "sad but true observation". This could mean that they think anyone not all in for a Haddish nomination must be lusting for Victoria & Abdul and Darkest Hour to dominate nominations. But I think it's something worse; I believe some of these people consider Three Billboards, The Phantom Thread and The Shape of Water -- or anything we used to think of as simply "good movies" -- as equally "Oscar bait. Which represents a huge shift in orientation.

I've wondered for some time if pushes like this for Haddish -- or Mad Max: Fury Road, or Andy Serkis, or Downey in Tropic Thunder -- were things foreign to me but more easily digested by younger pundits/critics who have never known a time when superheroes and broad/often scatological comedies didn't dominate the mass audience movie scene. But I know, you, BJ, are substantially younger than I, but hold to largely the same view, despite having been marinated in these movies your whole life. So, it's a matter of taste, but one on which I fear my side is losing ground year-by-year.
The Original BJ
Emeritus
Posts: 4312
Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2017

Post by The Original BJ »

I finally caught up with Girls Trip, and my reaction was similar to what I experienced when I saw The Blind Side -- this is a brand of filmmaking that I just don't see very much. And it's almost pointless to beat up on it, simply because I'm so clearly not the target audience for this movie in any way, shape or form.

It's obvious why Tiffany Haddish became an audience favorite -- she's got some clear scene-stealing moments (the grapefruit, storming out during the big fight). But I question why so many critics seem excited to push her into the awards conversation. Although I share the resistance to rote nominations for tradition of quality prestige (like Scott Thomas/Darkest Hour), it strikes me that some view the corrective as going really far in the other direction, in trying to get stuff with ZERO aspirations to art on the ballot instead. And it also strikes me as a bit odd that "comedies are just as worthy as dramas" seems to be a rallying cry, when most of the Supporting Actress contenders are from comedies (Metcalf, Janney, Hunter, Chau), and one more (Spencer) is the comic relief in her film. You almost want people to clarify that when they mean comedy, they really mean comedy that's broader than a barn, and includes stuff like golden showers.
anonymous1980
Laureate
Posts: 6377
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
Location: Manila
Contact:

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2017

Post by anonymous1980 »

GOOD TIME
Cast: Robert Pattinson, Ben Safdie, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Buddy Durress, Taliah Webster, Barkhad Abdi.
Dirs: Josh Safdie, Ben Safdie.

Two brothers, one of them mentally handicapped, rob a bank. Then things go horribly wrong. Robert Pattinson gives probably his career-best performance so far as a young criminal who just gets himself deeper and deeper into trouble due to some terribly impulsive decisions. The magic of his performance is that you are with him all the way despite it all. A lesser actor would've made you annoyed and frustrated by him. Any memories of the sparkly vampire is gone. The film is thrilling, sometimes wickedly funny yet it's unexpectedly poignant in the end. It's definitely one of those small films that everyone should check out.

Oscar Prospects: Pattinson wouldn't be an embarrassing Best Actor nominee.

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

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2017

Post by anonymous1980 »

MUDBOUND
Cast: Carey Mulligan, Jason Clarke, Jason Mitchell, Garrett Hedlund, Mary J. Blige, Rob Morgan, Jonathan Banks.
Dir: Dee Rees.

Two World War II veterans, one white and one black, go back home to their respective families who share the same farm in Mississippi. While there, they become friends and confront their respective problems including PTSD, alcoholism and racism. I haven't seen any of director Dee Rees's previous films but now, I'm inclined to. This is a superb piece of work. It is honest, humane and compassionate towards its characters who are brought to life by a superb ensemble of actors. I know Mary J. Blige is getting all the buzz but I think Carey Mulligan, Jason Mitchell and Garrett Hedlund (who gives his career-best performance here, as far as I'm concerned) are the ones that stand out here. This film is quite ambitious in tackling a range of themes here and manage to do all of them justice. It is also beautifully shot. Yes, it's probably the best Netflix original film so far and one of the best films of the year.

Oscar Prospects: Deserving of Picture, Director, Supporting Actress (Mulligan), Supporting Actor (Mitchell & Hedlund), Adapted Screenplay, Cinematography, Editing, Sound Mixing and Original Song.

Grade: A-
dws1982
Emeritus
Posts: 3790
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:28 pm
Location: AL
Contact:

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2017

Post by dws1982 »

The Case For Christ
This showed up on Netflix and since it got much better-than-usual reviews for a PureFlix release, I decided to give it a shot. Overall I'm glad I did. If we're looking at movies about a man wrestling with his faith, this definitely isn't Silence, but it's not God's Not Dead either. And that's an important distinction. I think it's surprisingly smart in the way it portray's Lee Strobel's journey, and it treats his struggle as something worth taking seriously, and even if it ultimately comes down firmly on the side of faith (this is not a spoiler), it never treats his struggle as some character flaw that everyone in the film works to fix, but instead as something that he's personally wrestling with.

As expected, the more preachy and directly evangelistic it is, the less successful it tends to be. L. Scott Caldwell, a solid character actress who's always welcome in a movie or TV show, gets the worst of it unfortunately, basically just playing an evangelistic mouthpiece with no character at all. And Faye Dunaway's appearance is distracting, although her scene itself isn't that bad (a little too exposition-heavy, but that's a problem the movie has in general). But, when it focuses on the Strobel's marriage, I think it works surprisingly well. As a portrayal of two people fighting for their marriage, refusing to let themselves believe that it's not salvageable, I think it's well-done, and very well-acted by Mike Vogel (always an appealing presence) and Erika Christensen. I don't necessarily recommend it to anyone else, I don't know of anyone who would like it, but in general this did give me more of interest than I expected. (I actually half expected to be cutting it off about twenty minutes in.)
anonymous1980
Laureate
Posts: 6377
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
Location: Manila
Contact:

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2017

Post by anonymous1980 »

MURDER ON THE ORIENT EXPRESS
Cast: Kenneth Branagh, Tom Bateman, Lucy Boynton, Olivia Colman, Penelope Cruz, Willem Dafoe, Judi Dench, Johnny Depp, Josh Gad, Derek Jacobi, Leslie Odom Jr., Michelle Pfieffer, Daisy Ridley.
Dir: Kenneth Branagh.

An adaptation of Agatha Christie's novel in which Hercule Poirot travels in the titular train with a group of characters and then suddenly, a murder is committed but by who? I already know the answer, having already seen the Sidney Lumet version. I wasn't the biggest fan of the previous film so I have no attachment to it. That being said, this film doesn't really add anything at all to the story except maybe a more modern slickness in terms of visuals and flavor. There's nothing much more to add on what's essentially a whodunit type mystery. The cast is pretty strong and are undeniably fun to watch in this context. Ultimately, it's not a bad film, just a forgettably competent one.

Oscar Prospects: Production Design, Costume Design, Original Score and Original Song are possibilities.

Grade: B-

WONDER
Cast: Julia Roberts, Owen Wilson, Jacob Tremblay, Izabela Vidovic, Mandy Patinkin, Daveed Diggs, Sonia Braga, Noah Jupe, Danielle Rose Russell, Millie Davis, Nadji Jeter, Elle McKinnon, Bryce Gheisar.
Dir: Stephen Chbosky.

Based on the young adult novel, this is about Auggie Pullman who was born with facial deformities that required him lots of surgeries, making him look different and he goes to school for the first time. Upon hearing about this and watching the trailer, it seems like this would fall into the trap of sickly sentimentality and preachiness. Thankfully, it minimizes both and delivers a truly touching heartfelt drama, tempering it with humor and honesty to earn its tears. The performances are all pitch perfect. Jacob Tremblay proves that Room wasn't a fluke. The film is actually more of an ensemble piece than I thought it was with nearly every supporting character getting an arc. It's this type of movie done right.

Oscar Prospects: Its surprise box-office success might get it some notice. Makeup & Hairstyling definitely. Supporting Actress (Julia Roberts) and Adapted Screenplay are not out of the question.

Grade: B+
Post Reply

Return to “2017”