One of the best things about Nightcrawler is that it isn't, really, what it appears on the surface: yet another "isn't our media horrible" diatribe -- a subject on which there's little left to say at this point. There's a touch of that, but it's mostly limited to a few "how unseemly" winces by the-actor-who-plays-Ted-Chaough (okay, I looked him up: name is Kevin Rahm). The movie's real focus is on Lou as a character: how his warped brain has fed off the godawful messages/values he's been getting from the media and, in a grotesque feedback loop, he's now giving back to the media at a greater but (to him) logical extreme. Lou seems truly a Travis Bickle for this age -- he appears to have learned everything second-hand, up to and including including how a human being is supposed to behave. Like DeNiro's Bickle, though, he's missing a certain synapse, and as a result only ever seems like he's impersonating a human -- the conversations he has with Rene Russo or Riz Ahmed (or even the junk dealer he talks to at the start) are not normal ones; he says too much and yet always seems to be leaving out something essential: the human quality. If there's any hurdle the script struggles with, it's making the audience believe that these other characters wouldn't head for the hills after a few minutes in Lou's presence. Once you accept that, though, the character takes you on quite a ride.
The story is absorbing from the start, but I think it hits another gear the night of the home invasion. First off, the outcome of his battle with Bill Paxton caught me off-guard (I'd thought he'd planned simply to disable Paxton's car to prevent him getting to the scene first). And then Lou's actions at the home -- both lingering for so many pictures, and then concealing the most helpful information -- raised the moral stakes to a degree I hadn't anticipated. From then on, it's clear the film is about much more than what gory pictures get on TV; it's about what we've come to as a civilization, where we let a man of such sociopathic instincts become influential. And it builds to a pretty impressive climax (both narratively and cinematically). I may have to disagree with the Sabin/BJ take about the ending, partly because I was worried the film was going to take the comforting way out: have Lou nailed by the police, and thus removed from our universe. I was relieved the film had the courage of its cynicism; the darkness of the ending, too, recalled Taxi Driver.
I think Jake Gyllenhaal is terrific here -- a totally different human being from his usual, played with full conviction. In a thinner best actor year (like 2006/7), he might have a shot at sneaking onto the Oscar ballot; even this year he could show up on critics' ballots. And I agree this is Rene Russo's finest hour; what an underused actress she is (and still smoking hot in middle-age).
The film may be too small in the end to qualify as anything major, but I found it far more provocative and engaging than Dear White People; and it's certainly a jolting antidote to the tiresome Oscar bait I know I'm going to have to endure over the next few months.
The Official Review Thread of 2014
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8648
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
-
anonymous1980
- Laureate
- Posts: 6383
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
- Location: Manila
- Contact:
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2014
INTERSTELLAR
Cast: Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway, Jessica Chastain, Michael Caine, Ellen Burstyn, Bill Irwin, John Lithgow, Matt Damon, Casey Affleck, Wes Bentley, David Gyasi, Topher Grace, Mackenzie Foy, William Devane, Timothee Chalamet, David Oyelowo.
Dir: Christopher Nolan.
I wanted to see this film in 70 mm IMAX but the only IMAX theater showing it is kind of far away and a tricky (and headache-inducing) commute (and no, I don't drive). So I settled for a digital IMAX. I like Christopher Nolan films quite a bit. I like his vision and his ambition that he brings to blockbuster genre pictures. I've heard this film be compared to 2001 and Solaris. Nolan's a pretty good director but he's far from Kubrick and Tarkovsky. That said, a lot of things here remind me of those two films, only with a more delineated plot. So if your problem with those two movies is that you need a three-act structure practically free from any ambiguity and you find them too "artsy", well, Interstellar is the answer to this. That's not necessarily a bad thing. I admired and enjoyed this film quite a bit. Beautifully shot, excellent visuals, sound mixing, design, etc. The acting is splendid. I appreciate the fact that they ground this as much as possible in real, believable science. But ultimately, it's not the masterpiece that it hoped it would be.
Oscar Prospects: Don't know if this will make Picture and Director. But I think nominations for Cinematography, Film Editing, Original Score, Production Design, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing and Visual Effects are well within reach.
Grade: B.
Cast: Matthew McConaughey, Anne Hathaway, Jessica Chastain, Michael Caine, Ellen Burstyn, Bill Irwin, John Lithgow, Matt Damon, Casey Affleck, Wes Bentley, David Gyasi, Topher Grace, Mackenzie Foy, William Devane, Timothee Chalamet, David Oyelowo.
Dir: Christopher Nolan.
I wanted to see this film in 70 mm IMAX but the only IMAX theater showing it is kind of far away and a tricky (and headache-inducing) commute (and no, I don't drive). So I settled for a digital IMAX. I like Christopher Nolan films quite a bit. I like his vision and his ambition that he brings to blockbuster genre pictures. I've heard this film be compared to 2001 and Solaris. Nolan's a pretty good director but he's far from Kubrick and Tarkovsky. That said, a lot of things here remind me of those two films, only with a more delineated plot. So if your problem with those two movies is that you need a three-act structure practically free from any ambiguity and you find them too "artsy", well, Interstellar is the answer to this. That's not necessarily a bad thing. I admired and enjoyed this film quite a bit. Beautifully shot, excellent visuals, sound mixing, design, etc. The acting is splendid. I appreciate the fact that they ground this as much as possible in real, believable science. But ultimately, it's not the masterpiece that it hoped it would be.
Oscar Prospects: Don't know if this will make Picture and Director. But I think nominations for Cinematography, Film Editing, Original Score, Production Design, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing and Visual Effects are well within reach.
Grade: B.
-
The Original BJ
- Emeritus
- Posts: 4312
- Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2014
After reading Slant Magazine's four-star rave for Dear White People -- this from an outlet that isn't the most generous with its stars -- I expected something far more bracing than what I ended up seeing. My reaction is mostly in line with Mister Tee's -- there's interesting stuff in the movie, for sure, but there are also plenty of things that just aren't working too.
I think a lot of the racial/cultural issues the movie brings up are compelling, from the main thread of the narrative (white people believe racial equality has been achieved, advocate for color-blind diversity in housing, and in turn threaten the sense of community and history the predominately black dorm has cultivated over the years) to more casual details (like Lionel feeling like he doesn't fit in with either the black community or the white gay community on campus). And I liked the diverse cast of characters, and I mean diverse BOTH in the sense that the movie looks more like the racial makeup of the world, as well as the fact that the characters all have such different attitudes on the racial topics the narrative raises.
The issue, though, is the one Mister Tee points out -- there are a lot of characters to be serviced here, and I don't think the script always found a way to juggle them all effectively. And everything felt so Tiny Town, with everyone so schematically connected in a manner that so rarely felt necessary to the storytelling. I also think the movie suffers from one of my least favorite plot devices: starting at the conclusion, then flashing back to the events that led up to it. By revealing the party in the first scene, the movie doesn't allow itself anywhere to go when we reach this sequence. We know the party happened, it's obviously offensive, and the fall-out from it from a character/plot standpoint wasn't especially interesting after that. I got the sense the Big Kiss was just thrown in there because SOMETHING had to happen, even though that felt completely arbitrary based on what had come before.
And I, too, just didn't find it tremendously funny. This isn't to say I thought it was painfully humor-less or anything -- I found myself pleasantly engaged throughout, and chuckled at a lot of the observation, much of which had clever and insightful aspects to it. But, at least based on the trailer, I'd expected something far more laugh-out-loud outrageous, and much of the movie for me felt like an amusing first draft of a script that would get its jokes significantly punched up in later revisions.
I think a lot of the racial/cultural issues the movie brings up are compelling, from the main thread of the narrative (white people believe racial equality has been achieved, advocate for color-blind diversity in housing, and in turn threaten the sense of community and history the predominately black dorm has cultivated over the years) to more casual details (like Lionel feeling like he doesn't fit in with either the black community or the white gay community on campus). And I liked the diverse cast of characters, and I mean diverse BOTH in the sense that the movie looks more like the racial makeup of the world, as well as the fact that the characters all have such different attitudes on the racial topics the narrative raises.
The issue, though, is the one Mister Tee points out -- there are a lot of characters to be serviced here, and I don't think the script always found a way to juggle them all effectively. And everything felt so Tiny Town, with everyone so schematically connected in a manner that so rarely felt necessary to the storytelling. I also think the movie suffers from one of my least favorite plot devices: starting at the conclusion, then flashing back to the events that led up to it. By revealing the party in the first scene, the movie doesn't allow itself anywhere to go when we reach this sequence. We know the party happened, it's obviously offensive, and the fall-out from it from a character/plot standpoint wasn't especially interesting after that. I got the sense the Big Kiss was just thrown in there because SOMETHING had to happen, even though that felt completely arbitrary based on what had come before.
And I, too, just didn't find it tremendously funny. This isn't to say I thought it was painfully humor-less or anything -- I found myself pleasantly engaged throughout, and chuckled at a lot of the observation, much of which had clever and insightful aspects to it. But, at least based on the trailer, I'd expected something far more laugh-out-loud outrageous, and much of the movie for me felt like an amusing first draft of a script that would get its jokes significantly punched up in later revisions.
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8648
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2014
Given its provocative title, and the critical reaction calling it sharp satire, I expected Dear White People to be funnier and...well, more satirical. It's not that it's an uninteresting film, but I don't think it has near the edge of say, early Alexander Payne (Citizen Ruth, Election). In fact, it's if anything a bit too soft-edged -- the central sort-of-militant character Sam is given so many "humanizing" qualities (a sick father, a sensitive boyfriend) you almost expect a cuddly puppy to turn up. If writer/director Justin Simien was worried she'd be too unlikable, the tilt goes the other direction.
I also thought this was the rare case of a young person's screenplay that's TOO filled out. The characters have so many inter-relationships(everybody's either related, or sleeping with someone who is) and motivations within motivations created by those relationships, that it becomes difficult to figure why anyone's doing anything. (What's Lionel's reason for doing anything he does? The fact that he's gay/too black/not black enough/too nerdy? -- if it can be any of these, it's effectively nothing) I also have to say for quite a ways into the film I found it hard to sort these relationships -- not just when withholding for the sake of surprise was narratively effective, but also when it just got in the way of comprehension.
All that said: I found the film watchable, though more as sensitive realism than as satire. And it's possible that Simien will be able to get his broad canvas under better control in future projects, which will make him a director to watch. I just think this particular effort has been substantially over-praised.
I also thought this was the rare case of a young person's screenplay that's TOO filled out. The characters have so many inter-relationships(everybody's either related, or sleeping with someone who is) and motivations within motivations created by those relationships, that it becomes difficult to figure why anyone's doing anything. (What's Lionel's reason for doing anything he does? The fact that he's gay/too black/not black enough/too nerdy? -- if it can be any of these, it's effectively nothing) I also have to say for quite a ways into the film I found it hard to sort these relationships -- not just when withholding for the sake of surprise was narratively effective, but also when it just got in the way of comprehension.
All that said: I found the film watchable, though more as sensitive realism than as satire. And it's possible that Simien will be able to get his broad canvas under better control in future projects, which will make him a director to watch. I just think this particular effort has been substantially over-praised.
-
anonymous1980
- Laureate
- Posts: 6383
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
- Location: Manila
- Contact:
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2014
JOHN WICK
Cast: Keanu Reeves, Michael Nyqvist, Alfie Allen, Willem Dafoe, John Leguizamo, Ian McShane, Adrianne, Palicki, Bridget Moynahan, Dean Winters, Lance Reddick.
Dir: Chad Strahelski.
There have been a lot of "revenge" movies lately, thanks to Liam Neeson, where assassins/secret agents "with a specific set of skills" usually played by an older actor is wronged then pretty much kicks ass. This is the BEST among them. This is Keanu Reeves' best work since, well, the first Matrix, I guess as a retired assassin who is wronged by the stupid-ass son of his former employer (played by Alfie Allen who is typecast here as a fuck-up). The action is fantastic and the story and the world is strong and believable with sprinklings of dark humor for good measure. It is one of pleasant surprises of 2014. Very refreshing since it's not based on any well-known property.
Oscar Prospects: Long shot for the Sound Mixing and Sound Editing awards.
Grade: B+
Cast: Keanu Reeves, Michael Nyqvist, Alfie Allen, Willem Dafoe, John Leguizamo, Ian McShane, Adrianne, Palicki, Bridget Moynahan, Dean Winters, Lance Reddick.
Dir: Chad Strahelski.
There have been a lot of "revenge" movies lately, thanks to Liam Neeson, where assassins/secret agents "with a specific set of skills" usually played by an older actor is wronged then pretty much kicks ass. This is the BEST among them. This is Keanu Reeves' best work since, well, the first Matrix, I guess as a retired assassin who is wronged by the stupid-ass son of his former employer (played by Alfie Allen who is typecast here as a fuck-up). The action is fantastic and the story and the world is strong and believable with sprinklings of dark humor for good measure. It is one of pleasant surprises of 2014. Very refreshing since it's not based on any well-known property.
Oscar Prospects: Long shot for the Sound Mixing and Sound Editing awards.
Grade: B+
-
The Original BJ
- Emeritus
- Posts: 4312
- Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2014
I enjoyed Nightcrawler in much the same way I enjoyed Collateral -- it's a very sleekly made, LA-set thriller with some nifty suspense sequences and a lot of welcome humor. I don't view it as an Oscar-type movie, but I found it mostly a kick, and I think anyone interested in seeing something well within the mainstream but that still has some bite to it will find much to enjoy here.
This is definitely Gyllenhaal's best work since Brokeback Mountain -- there's something almost coyote-like about his appearance, scraggly and scrawny, feeding voraciously off of the misfortunes of others for his own benefit. He's also very funny, both in off-hand ways (revealing his total lack of morality in certain situations) as well as pointed ones (his date at the Mexican restaurant with Russo, the first time I think we see how the combination of this guy and this job are going to lead to some big trouble for anyone who stands in his path.) And I agree with Sabin -- this is just about the best work Rene Russo has ever done. When Gyllenhaal sizes her up on their date, you know he's describing her troubled career path to a T, and the casual but revealing way she responds suggests she knows he's right too. She's both pathetic and resilient, genuine when she can be but tough when she needs to be, and I think her scenes with Gyllenhaal give the movie a nice bit of emotional heft to counterpoint the sarcastic grimness of much of the rest of the story.
Sabin, I see what you're saying about the ending -- I felt like after Gyllenhaal's encounter with the detective, we'd get a little more plot that would deal with the fall-out of the big climactic set piece. I almost wanted to see just how far Gyllenhaal's soullessness went, if he'd be willing to go to even more actively amoral ends to escape the clutches of the law; it felt like the narrative maybe shouldn't have resolved as easily for Gyllenhaal's character as it did.
I could see some below the line nominations for the movie, especially (as with Collateral) Film Editing, for some pretty tensely cut sequences -- I'd cite both the central home invasion set piece, as well as the Chinese restaurant-turned-car-chase climax as pretty impressive pieces of craft. It's also excitingly photographed -- the movie really brings out the fact that Los Angeles is actually a very visually striking city, and the contrast between the bland, mundane daylight scenes (shot on film) and the pops of bright light in the nighttime scenes (shot on digital) feels it like provides the right energy for a movie about the seediness of characters who come alive once the sun has gone down.
Overall, a very enjoyable piece of entertainment, with a lot of black humor and cynicism about a culture in which the grim nature of employment prospects for so many leads them to take desperate measures to ensure their own survival.
This is definitely Gyllenhaal's best work since Brokeback Mountain -- there's something almost coyote-like about his appearance, scraggly and scrawny, feeding voraciously off of the misfortunes of others for his own benefit. He's also very funny, both in off-hand ways (revealing his total lack of morality in certain situations) as well as pointed ones (his date at the Mexican restaurant with Russo, the first time I think we see how the combination of this guy and this job are going to lead to some big trouble for anyone who stands in his path.) And I agree with Sabin -- this is just about the best work Rene Russo has ever done. When Gyllenhaal sizes her up on their date, you know he's describing her troubled career path to a T, and the casual but revealing way she responds suggests she knows he's right too. She's both pathetic and resilient, genuine when she can be but tough when she needs to be, and I think her scenes with Gyllenhaal give the movie a nice bit of emotional heft to counterpoint the sarcastic grimness of much of the rest of the story.
Sabin, I see what you're saying about the ending -- I felt like after Gyllenhaal's encounter with the detective, we'd get a little more plot that would deal with the fall-out of the big climactic set piece. I almost wanted to see just how far Gyllenhaal's soullessness went, if he'd be willing to go to even more actively amoral ends to escape the clutches of the law; it felt like the narrative maybe shouldn't have resolved as easily for Gyllenhaal's character as it did.
I could see some below the line nominations for the movie, especially (as with Collateral) Film Editing, for some pretty tensely cut sequences -- I'd cite both the central home invasion set piece, as well as the Chinese restaurant-turned-car-chase climax as pretty impressive pieces of craft. It's also excitingly photographed -- the movie really brings out the fact that Los Angeles is actually a very visually striking city, and the contrast between the bland, mundane daylight scenes (shot on film) and the pops of bright light in the nighttime scenes (shot on digital) feels it like provides the right energy for a movie about the seediness of characters who come alive once the sun has gone down.
Overall, a very enjoyable piece of entertainment, with a lot of black humor and cynicism about a culture in which the grim nature of employment prospects for so many leads them to take desperate measures to ensure their own survival.
-
anonymous1980
- Laureate
- Posts: 6383
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
- Location: Manila
- Contact:
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2014
FRANK
Cast: Michael Fassbender, Domhall Gleeson, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Scoot McNairy, Francois Civil, Carla Azar.
Dir: Lenny Abrahamson.
An aspiring musician joins an eccentric band featuring a lead vocalist who wears a big giant paper-mache head...all the time, without ever taking it off. Based on that premise, you can tell it's a very quirky film. It really tows the line between annoyingly quirky and endearingly quirky all throughout its running time. It's held together by the fantastic performances, particularly that of Michael Fassbender who has to act without his face throughout most of the film yet still manages to create a wholly convincing, compelling, funny, sad character with just his voice and body movements.
Oscar Prospects: Fassbender is an extreme longshot for Best Actor. Its best chance is in Original Song ("I Love You All").
Grade: B+
Cast: Michael Fassbender, Domhall Gleeson, Maggie Gyllenhaal, Scoot McNairy, Francois Civil, Carla Azar.
Dir: Lenny Abrahamson.
An aspiring musician joins an eccentric band featuring a lead vocalist who wears a big giant paper-mache head...all the time, without ever taking it off. Based on that premise, you can tell it's a very quirky film. It really tows the line between annoyingly quirky and endearingly quirky all throughout its running time. It's held together by the fantastic performances, particularly that of Michael Fassbender who has to act without his face throughout most of the film yet still manages to create a wholly convincing, compelling, funny, sad character with just his voice and body movements.
Oscar Prospects: Fassbender is an extreme longshot for Best Actor. Its best chance is in Original Song ("I Love You All").
Grade: B+
-
anonymous1980
- Laureate
- Posts: 6383
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
- Location: Manila
- Contact:
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2014
FURY
Cast: Brad Pitt, Shia LaBeouf, Logan Lerman, Michael Pena, Jon Bernthal, Jason Isaacs.
Dir: David Ayer.
This film contains five characters who are basically walking character tropes from war movies: The Leader Who Has Seen It All, The Religious Guy, The Token Minority, The Crazy Guy and The New Green Kid. The film basically plays out like a solid, World War II movie. No more, no less. It is superbly acted and well-crafted but doesn't really add anything new. Even the characters, though well-played by its cast, only follow the arc that you would expect from a film like this. There are intense moments and really good moments but not quite enough to make this any more than a very good, solid war picture.
Oscar Prospects: Could get in Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Film Editing and Cinematography. Logan Lerman probably has an outside shot at Supporting Actor.
Grade: B.
Cast: Brad Pitt, Shia LaBeouf, Logan Lerman, Michael Pena, Jon Bernthal, Jason Isaacs.
Dir: David Ayer.
This film contains five characters who are basically walking character tropes from war movies: The Leader Who Has Seen It All, The Religious Guy, The Token Minority, The Crazy Guy and The New Green Kid. The film basically plays out like a solid, World War II movie. No more, no less. It is superbly acted and well-crafted but doesn't really add anything new. Even the characters, though well-played by its cast, only follow the arc that you would expect from a film like this. There are intense moments and really good moments but not quite enough to make this any more than a very good, solid war picture.
Oscar Prospects: Could get in Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Film Editing and Cinematography. Logan Lerman probably has an outside shot at Supporting Actor.
Grade: B.
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2014
Completely random note a la George Costanza confused by Bob Herbert and Bobby Hebert, the skipper of my beloved (read: pathetic) Arsenal is named Mikel Arteta.
-
anonymous1980
- Laureate
- Posts: 6383
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
- Location: Manila
- Contact:
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2014
ALEXANDER AND THE TERRIBLE, HORRIBLE, NO GOOD, VERY BAD DAY
Cast: Steve Carell, Jennifer Garner, Ed Oxenbould, Dylan Minette, Kerris Dorsey, Jennifer Coolidge, Megan Mullally, Bella Thorne, Donald Glover, Burn Gorman, Dick Van Dyke.
Dir: Miguel Arteta.
This is surprisingly NOT a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad movie. It's actually quite entertaining, contains quite a few good laughs and for a PG-rated Disney family comedy actually pushes the PG-button. However, it's not a GREAT movie either. I can definitely see the potential for a wacky, kids' version of After Hours (which is what i heard this was described) but I think the screenplay needed to be wackier and more absurdist than it ended up being. As it is, it's still pleasant and quite enjoyable thanks to the excellent cast who actually sell the material. This could have been far, far worse than it ended up being but it's not.
Oscar Prospects: None unless the end credit song is an original then I guess it could get in Original Song.
Grade: B-
Cast: Steve Carell, Jennifer Garner, Ed Oxenbould, Dylan Minette, Kerris Dorsey, Jennifer Coolidge, Megan Mullally, Bella Thorne, Donald Glover, Burn Gorman, Dick Van Dyke.
Dir: Miguel Arteta.
This is surprisingly NOT a terrible, horrible, no good, very bad movie. It's actually quite entertaining, contains quite a few good laughs and for a PG-rated Disney family comedy actually pushes the PG-button. However, it's not a GREAT movie either. I can definitely see the potential for a wacky, kids' version of After Hours (which is what i heard this was described) but I think the screenplay needed to be wackier and more absurdist than it ended up being. As it is, it's still pleasant and quite enjoyable thanks to the excellent cast who actually sell the material. This could have been far, far worse than it ended up being but it's not.
Oscar Prospects: None unless the end credit song is an original then I guess it could get in Original Song.
Grade: B-
-
anonymous1980
- Laureate
- Posts: 6383
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
- Location: Manila
- Contact:
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2014
THE BOOK OF LIFE
Cast: Diego Luna, Channing Tatum, Zoe Saldana, Christina Applegate, Kate del Castillo, Ron Perlman, Ice Cube, Hector Elizondo (voices).
Dir: Jorge R. Gutierrez.
Guillermo del Toro helped produce this Mexican-themed animated feature and his fingerprints are all over it! The film, focusing on Mexico's Day of the Dead about a love triangle that goes beyond the grave is not a bad film. It's not a great film either. I hate damning it faint praise since it is gorgeous to look at and the animation is imaginative, very stylized in the most wonderful way plus the story had some potential. It has all the earmarks to make it great but it never quite achieves it. It is just very good. It's worth checking out but I'm not jumping up and down.
Oscar Prospects: Best Animated Feature is possible. So is Original Score and Original Song.
Grade: B.
WHIPLASH
Cast: Miles Teller, JK Simmons, Paul Reiser, Melissa Benoist, Austin Stowell, Nate Lang.
Dir: Damien Chazelle.
Whoah. This is an intense, exhilarating (just like the blurb in the posters say) film. An ambitious young jazz drummer gets tormented both physically, psychologically and emotionally by a brutal teacher who pushes him beyond his limits in order to realize his full potential and achieve greatness. What follows is not an emotional, feel-good inspiring tale (well, not-so-much) but a brutally honest examination of what it means to achieve one's ambitions. The buzz around JK Simmons' performance is well-earned, IMO (Mr. Holland from hell or the music teacher answer to R. Lee Ermey in Full Metal Jacket, take your pick) but something has to be said for Miles Tellers' impressive performance. He further planted his flag as one his generation's finest actors. Oh and great editing too. Damien Chazelle is definitely a talent to watch.
Oscar Prospects: I think JK Simmons is a threat for the WIN in Supporting Actor. The film could also land nominations for Picture, Actor, Original Screenplay, Editing and Sound Mixing.
Grade: A.
Cast: Diego Luna, Channing Tatum, Zoe Saldana, Christina Applegate, Kate del Castillo, Ron Perlman, Ice Cube, Hector Elizondo (voices).
Dir: Jorge R. Gutierrez.
Guillermo del Toro helped produce this Mexican-themed animated feature and his fingerprints are all over it! The film, focusing on Mexico's Day of the Dead about a love triangle that goes beyond the grave is not a bad film. It's not a great film either. I hate damning it faint praise since it is gorgeous to look at and the animation is imaginative, very stylized in the most wonderful way plus the story had some potential. It has all the earmarks to make it great but it never quite achieves it. It is just very good. It's worth checking out but I'm not jumping up and down.
Oscar Prospects: Best Animated Feature is possible. So is Original Score and Original Song.
Grade: B.
WHIPLASH
Cast: Miles Teller, JK Simmons, Paul Reiser, Melissa Benoist, Austin Stowell, Nate Lang.
Dir: Damien Chazelle.
Whoah. This is an intense, exhilarating (just like the blurb in the posters say) film. An ambitious young jazz drummer gets tormented both physically, psychologically and emotionally by a brutal teacher who pushes him beyond his limits in order to realize his full potential and achieve greatness. What follows is not an emotional, feel-good inspiring tale (well, not-so-much) but a brutally honest examination of what it means to achieve one's ambitions. The buzz around JK Simmons' performance is well-earned, IMO (Mr. Holland from hell or the music teacher answer to R. Lee Ermey in Full Metal Jacket, take your pick) but something has to be said for Miles Tellers' impressive performance. He further planted his flag as one his generation's finest actors. Oh and great editing too. Damien Chazelle is definitely a talent to watch.
Oscar Prospects: I think JK Simmons is a threat for the WIN in Supporting Actor. The film could also land nominations for Picture, Actor, Original Screenplay, Editing and Sound Mixing.
Grade: A.
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2014
If Nightcrawler struck a slightly stronger landing, I wouldn't have much difficulty saying I loved it. As it is, it's a pretty exceptional piece of entertainment with leaps in logic that I found completely fine to roll with (there's no way this job operates like this). Louis Bloom (Gyllenhaal, not just career best but probably the best performance I've seen this year) is a man who is both the victim of a system that is not designed to bring in new employees and also an ill-socialized individual who has absorbed everything he thinks he needs to live his life from the internet and therefore comes across as a desperate creep, and one of the reasons why Nightcrawler is such a funny film is that he is totally equipped to adjust to the learning curve of this job and all the factoids he's absorbed about negotiation, leadership, and business strategy make him a nightmare to be around because now he has a modicum of control. One of the things Dan Gilroy wants to do with Nightcrawler is paint a portrait of amoral capitalism. We may not like that Bloom can be successful in this job but them's the breaks. So ultimately we're left with a statement about the person as he pertains to the system, but because Bloom is such a strong character whom Gilroy and Gyllenhaal establish immediately with no wasted time it feels slightly unsatisfying not to leave us with something a little more devastating.
Still, terrifically entertaining film that likely won't get the box office or awards that it deserves. Perfect editing. A mostly brilliant score by James Newton Howard. One of the most evocatively shot films of Robert Elswitt's career, and that is saying something. The cast is across the board great. Riz Ahmed has a very difficult job in playing a pretty dim person that we can laugh at but also completely understand why he is a willing accomplice, which fits into Gilroy's larger point about modern workplace disenfranchisement. You can all-but see this guy trying to explain to people around him why this is a real opportunity. Throwaway role that feels like much more. Rene Russo is a difficult combination of ball-buster, world-weary, defeated, and surviving, and in some ways she is whatever the script (and Bloom) need her to be, but she's never been better. And so easily this is the best thing that Gyllenhaal has ever done.
Still, terrifically entertaining film that likely won't get the box office or awards that it deserves. Perfect editing. A mostly brilliant score by James Newton Howard. One of the most evocatively shot films of Robert Elswitt's career, and that is saying something. The cast is across the board great. Riz Ahmed has a very difficult job in playing a pretty dim person that we can laugh at but also completely understand why he is a willing accomplice, which fits into Gilroy's larger point about modern workplace disenfranchisement. You can all-but see this guy trying to explain to people around him why this is a real opportunity. Throwaway role that feels like much more. Rene Russo is a difficult combination of ball-buster, world-weary, defeated, and surviving, and in some ways she is whatever the script (and Bloom) need her to be, but she's never been better. And so easily this is the best thing that Gyllenhaal has ever done.
"How's the despair?"
-
anonymous1980
- Laureate
- Posts: 6383
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
- Location: Manila
- Contact:
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2014
GONE GIRL
Cast: Ben Affleck, Rosamund Pike, Neil Patrick Harris, Carrie Coons, Tyler Perry, Kim Dickens, Patrick Fugit, David Clennon, Lisa Banes.
Dir: David Fincher.
This film is absolutely insane and totally fucked up and I mean that in the best possible way. I haven't read the best-selling novel it's based on and I managed to avoid most spoilers. Even though I kind of sort of guessed the second act twist, I still enjoyed myself and the film still manages to surprise me. It's pulpy trash, sure but David Fincher's filmmaking absolutely raises it up and turns it into a Hitchcockian-by-way-of-de Palma-type thriller. It also manages to be also a really solid black comedy satirizing sensationalism in the media. It's a film that is sure to inspire controversy for years to come specifically on its depiction of marriage and relationships overall. Ben Affleck was great (surely playing off his media persona as well) but Rosamund Pike was truly astounding. The hype around her performance is well-earned. I absolutely loved it. Can't wait to see it again.
Oscar Prospects: It should get in Picture, maybe Director, surely Actress, maybe Adapted Screenplay, Cinematography, Film Editing and Original Score.
Grade: A.
Cast: Ben Affleck, Rosamund Pike, Neil Patrick Harris, Carrie Coons, Tyler Perry, Kim Dickens, Patrick Fugit, David Clennon, Lisa Banes.
Dir: David Fincher.
This film is absolutely insane and totally fucked up and I mean that in the best possible way. I haven't read the best-selling novel it's based on and I managed to avoid most spoilers. Even though I kind of sort of guessed the second act twist, I still enjoyed myself and the film still manages to surprise me. It's pulpy trash, sure but David Fincher's filmmaking absolutely raises it up and turns it into a Hitchcockian-by-way-of-de Palma-type thriller. It also manages to be also a really solid black comedy satirizing sensationalism in the media. It's a film that is sure to inspire controversy for years to come specifically on its depiction of marriage and relationships overall. Ben Affleck was great (surely playing off his media persona as well) but Rosamund Pike was truly astounding. The hype around her performance is well-earned. I absolutely loved it. Can't wait to see it again.
Oscar Prospects: It should get in Picture, maybe Director, surely Actress, maybe Adapted Screenplay, Cinematography, Film Editing and Original Score.
Grade: A.
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2014
Laika is developing a pattern of exceptional animated films with plotting issues. Just like with ParaNorman, they're not terribly interested in narratives. They like origins and slam-bang resolutions that are rooted in strong moral lessons. In the case of the BoxTrolls, I would argue that there's more enthusiasm for the world, for the humor (I love the henchmen who ponder the nature of good and evil as it starts to dawn on them that they might be the bad guys), and especially for Mr. Snatcher. Voiced by Ben Kingsley, Mr. Snatcher is a terrific character who remains recognizably human even as he quests after something ridiculous. White hats signify status in this town and all Mr. Snatcher wants is a white hat so he can be of high class and dine with the elite in "The Tasting Room" and eat fine cheeses, but the twist of it is that he's deathly allergic to cheese and breaks out in awful, mind-warping hives when he eats them. But he still quests after it. The Boxtrolls themselves are like little Stitches in the bodies of tiny old men, and everyone thinks they're a danger so they're rounded up by Mr. Snatcher who is promised a white hat upon the execution of all the Boxtrolls. I'm sure allusions could be drawn to the Holocaust or something like that in a persecuted minority made subject of collective fears, but I don't think it quite works in those terms and to be fair I don't think the folks at Laika care about that allegory that much. They're just using these story tropes, to do other things and that's more than fine. It works much better as a comedy of class structure and manners. The film is ostensibly the journey of Eggs (all the Boxtrolls are named by the boxes they wear), a boy who lives among them, rescued from birth and now thinking he's a Boxtroll, and when he gives him big speech to them to not be afraid and fight back, it doesn't feel nearly as inspired or thought out as what the film says re: Mr. Snatcher at the end. Which again feeds into my thinking on why it's not really a triumph of allegory.
The imagery is gorgeous. Their character designs and framing make it a wonder on a frame by frame basis. They really know how to construct a sequence in a dramatic, engaging way even as the plotting occasionally lags, which it does. But it's a charmer. It also features an endlessly entertaining credits sequence. Wonderful animation, an Eric Idle song, and then...an inspired sequence that stems from the henchmen's existential crises that I won't ruin. Worth seeing.
The imagery is gorgeous. Their character designs and framing make it a wonder on a frame by frame basis. They really know how to construct a sequence in a dramatic, engaging way even as the plotting occasionally lags, which it does. But it's a charmer. It also features an endlessly entertaining credits sequence. Wonderful animation, an Eric Idle song, and then...an inspired sequence that stems from the henchmen's existential crises that I won't ruin. Worth seeing.
"How's the despair?"
-
anonymous1980
- Laureate
- Posts: 6383
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
- Location: Manila
- Contact:
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2014
THE EQUALIZER
Cast: Denzel Washington, Marton Csokas, Chloe-Grace Moretz, David Harbour, Haley Bennett, Bill Pullman, Melissa Leo.
Dir: Antoine Fuqua.
I remember watching the TV series as a small kid in the '80s (though I don't remember any particular episode). This film BARELY resembles it. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Though I'm guessing super-fans of the TV show are bound to be disappointed. The basic concept is the same: Former super secret agent does vigilante justice for people. That's when the similarities end. It seems as though Denzel saw how much Liam Neeson was making with all those movies where he kicks the shit out of bad guys and wanted one for himself. On that level, it is quite enjoyable but in the end it's too long and gets a bit ridiculous. Still, it's well-crafted (Fuqua channeling Tony Scott here) and entertaining.
Oscar Prospects: None.
Grade: B-
Cast: Denzel Washington, Marton Csokas, Chloe-Grace Moretz, David Harbour, Haley Bennett, Bill Pullman, Melissa Leo.
Dir: Antoine Fuqua.
I remember watching the TV series as a small kid in the '80s (though I don't remember any particular episode). This film BARELY resembles it. That's not necessarily a bad thing. Though I'm guessing super-fans of the TV show are bound to be disappointed. The basic concept is the same: Former super secret agent does vigilante justice for people. That's when the similarities end. It seems as though Denzel saw how much Liam Neeson was making with all those movies where he kicks the shit out of bad guys and wanted one for himself. On that level, it is quite enjoyable but in the end it's too long and gets a bit ridiculous. Still, it's well-crafted (Fuqua channeling Tony Scott here) and entertaining.
Oscar Prospects: None.
Grade: B-