The Official Review Thread of 2011

[Sabin]

Two leftovers that I in no way really needed to say...

The Adventures of Tintin (Steven Spielberg)

More so than War Horse, Spielberg's other winter offering represents something special. With near-infinite angles at his disposal, the marriage of Spielberg and Motion Capture yields a masterwork of spatial relationships. This film moves in beautiful ways. And yet, I wish there was something moving Tintin's quest besides the fact that it's a Tuesday. I don't know who Tintin is, I have no emotional investment in him, and that's ultimately Spielberg's greatest sin. He assumes we know all there is to know about this unicorn-coiffed ragamuffin. The [beautiful] animated opening doesn't so much tell me all there is to know as about Tintin as it does approximate the lack of emotion in the rest of the film. It's a glorious thing to look at, even if Motion Capture can't quite yet replicate eyes and mouths (I do like the noses though), but it's adherence to what I assume is proper Tintin devil-may-care adventurism leaves me utterly divorced and watching from a distance. A great look. I vastly prefer it to War Horse.


Captain America: The First Avenger (Joe Johnston)

You know when you watch a film shot digitally and you'll see a scene that just looks...digital? Let me say it a different way. You'll see a scene more likely at night and it'll just look fake -- which is to say, it looks like actors running through a stage, and it looks like something is glitchy with the camera? Like Public Enemies? That's because Public Enemies, like Captain America, was shot on the Genesis, a shitty, shitty Panavision camera that filmmakers still use because they want to use Panavision lenses. You can't use them on the Red. That's probably going to change soon, but it's a product of monopoly, basically. The problem is that those awesome Panavision lenses don't matter for shit if the image looks as bad as it does. The reason you see what's called "Motion Blur" (for the layman, it's also called "Why Does That Look So Shitty/Digital?") is because in areas of low-lighting, you have to open the shutter up all the way or you won't get an image. When you do that on a digital camera, it creates Motion Blur because the camera is just letting everything inside in an uncontrolled fashion. One of the reasons that Michael Mann shot Public Enemies the way that he did was that he wanted to see the muzzle blasts of the shotguns. I can only assume that because this is Joe Johnston's first film to shoot digitally, he just didn't know what he was asking for w/r/t cinematography. The film looks like ass. The post-conversion 3D isn't bad though.

As far as the storytelling goes, well, he bungles a lot of it. The first bit of it with "Skinny Steve" is pretty good. "Skinny Steve" is a pretty miraculous effect. Apparently, the reason the film looks like such a mess w/r/t CGI backdrops is that no fewer than THIRTEEN effect houses tackled the effects of this film considering how much effort was put into "Skinny Steve". As I said, not bad stuff. Chris Evans is a little bland in the role. He doesn't bring us into Steve's plight or reformation, skinny or buff, and is a little too mannequinish, but it's enjoyable. And then comes his transformation scene, and his buff reveal -- completely devoid of magic. What is it with these hacks like Brett Ratner (Johnson admittedly is a step above) who lose their sense of intimacy, of wonder, of the little moments in superhero films? Captain America becomes a frenetic, impersonal video game. Unlike Tintin (which is very much a video game), it's one with very little to marvel at.

I see what Johnston is going for and his prior helming of The Rocketeer makes him a good call, but it all goes wrong with Evans. This isn't a lovable performance like Chris Hemsworth in the otherwise execrable Thor, where you sense the joy, the charism, the honor. Evans isn't a Super Soldier. You don't see the joy to stick it to the bullies. He's just there on the screen. Aside from Stanley Tucci who has some nice pluck as a expatriate German scientist, nobody else fairs any better. Red Skull is especially dull. Nothing in this film feels like it matters, and worst of all...it's not fun! This is a WW2 movie with laser guns! That should be a little fun, goddamnit!

[anonymous1980]

MONEYBALL
Cast: Brad Pitt, Jonah Hill, Phillip Seymour Hoffman, Robin Wright, Chris Pratt, Stephen Bishop, Kerris Dorsey.
Dir: Bennett Miller.

Now if there are two things I'm TOTALLY and COMPLETELY not interested in at all, it's sports and math (sports more than math). This film has plenty of both but is so well-made, well-written, well-directed and well-acted that I was totally and completely swept up and intrigued by it. Based on a true story about how ex-baseball player turned manager Billy Beane took his losing baseball team and using a unique method using stats gave the team a 20-game winning streak. The film is about underdogs and the importance of outside-the-box thinking and new ideas. You don't need to be a sports fan to be able to relate that that.

Grade: B+

[anonymous1980]

THE HELP
Cast: Emma Stone, Viola Davis, Octavia Spencer, Bryce Dallas Howard, Jessica Chastain, Allison Janney, Ahna O'Reilly, Sissy Spacek, Chris Lowell, Mike Vogel, Cicely Tyson, Mary Steenburgen.
Dir: Tate Taylor.

I was dreading watching this film. Though it's nowhere near as offensively bad as I thought it would be, it's still a bland cookie-cutter film that tackles the troubling, disturbing and rather complex subject of racism in a safe, simplistic, obvious way. The film's tone and performances are all over the place. Viola Davis is terrific and makes the film watchable but her performance belongs to a different, better film. Bryce Dallas Howard, on the other hand, is such a shrill over-the-top broad caricature that I feel it belongs in a John Waters movie. Jessica Chastain manages to make an impression and create an actual character with her limited screen time but frankly, I don't get the appeal of Octavia Spencer. Cinematography, costumes and sets are strictly perfunctory. Overall, the film gets an A for good intentions but a D in filmmaking.

Grade: C

[anonymous1980]

MY WEEK WITH MARILYN
Cast: Michelle Williams, Kenneth Branagh, Eddie Redmayne, Dominic Cooper, Emma Watson, Judi Dench, Toby Jones, Dougray Scott, Julia Ormond, Philip Jackson, Derek Jacobi, Zoe Wanamaker, Simon Russell Beale, Michael Kitchen.
Dir: Simon Curtis.

This film is pretty much what I or anyone would expect it to be. Thoroughly and completely unremarkable as a whole but the story's interesting enough and the performances of the cast make worthwhile to sit through. Michelle Williams was wonderful as Monroe. She manages to portray an actual character rather than just a shallow impersonation. She and Kenneth Branagh got Oscar nominations but I do feel that special mention should be made of Judi Dench as Dame Sybil Thorndike, she manages to make an impression even in her limited role.

Grade: C+

[anonymous1980]

WAR HORSE
Cast: Jeremy Irvine, Emily Watson, Peter Mullan, David Thewlis, Tom Hiddleston, Niels Arestrup, Benedict Cumberbatch, Celine Buckens, Patrick Kennedy, David Kross, Eddie Marsan.
Dir: Steven Spielberg.

This is the type of film director Steven Spielberg can pretty much do in his sleep. It is extremely old-fashioned style of filmmaking that's so predictable and by the numbers, it borders on parody but goshdarnit, it is beautiful to look at and entertaining to boot. The film strongly reminds me of a John Ford picture though nowhere near as great. Though it's not a bad film by any means, I felt this is sort of a regression for Spielberg of sorts whose filmography of the past decade is eclectic, intriguing and interesting (even his perceived failures).

Grade: B-

EXTREMELY LOUD & INCREDIBLY CLOSE
Cast: Thomas Horn, Tom Hanks, Sandra Bullock, Max von Sydow, Viola Davis, John Goodman, Jeffrey Wright, Zoe Caldwell.
Dir: Stephen Daldry.

The good news: This film is somewhat of an improvement from director Stephen Daldry's two previous works The Hours and The Reader but the bad news: it's still not very good. I lowered my expectations for this one so low that I actually didn't find it as nearly as offensively bad as many people have said but the film definitely wears out its welcome after a while. Thomas Horn is very good as the lead character. I thought there was nothing wrong with his performance but it's the character who I found a bit grating and this is coming from someone who has touches of whatever quirky spectrum that this character has. It would have been fine if it focused on how a quirky kid comes to terms with loss but the 9/11 element gives it a bit of an aura of self-importance which I found a bit off-putting.

Grade: C

[ITALIANO]

Take Shelter isn't a masterpiece, and it would never appear on my personal Best Picture list, if I ever did one, but it SHOULD appear on any nine-best list which also includes things like War Horse or Extremely Loud & Incredibly Close - for the simple reason that it's a better movie; less expensive, certainly, and less commercially successful - but better. It seems that there ARE good American movies around - too bad that the Academy, which after so many years still suffers from its Hello Dolly! syndrome, doesn't seem to notice.
As I said, not a masterpiece: too long, and at times looking like an extended version of a Twilight Zone episode, it works better (very well actually) as a character study, and, through this character, as a study of the society he lives in. In this sense, the movie is actually quite perceptive - as is the acting of its two leads. Michael Shannon is really impressive, and he seems to be the kind of fearless, uncompromising actor whom American cinema once used to have great roles for, but unfortunately today not anymore (admittedly, he may not be too easy to cast). Anyway, the subtle way he portrays this man's slow and, which I found especially intriguing, very conscious descent into paranoia, and without resorting to easy "big" scenes, could and probably should have been rewarded with an Oscar nomination.
And then there's Jessica Chastain. Memorable as she had been in The Tree of Life, that was a Terrence Malick movie, so one could wonder if she was really good or, rather, very well used by a great director. Now I know that she's really good: she makes this potentially cliched role of supportive wife alive and never banal - and almost "fresh". In the future, with the right characters, in the right movies, she could do even better things - and win, probably soon, the Best Actress Oscar. Today she has no hope, but then the Academy, rather than nominating her for this movie or for The Tree of Life, has chosen her least interesting, most mechanical performance of this year.

[anonymous1980]

THE DESCENDANTS
Cast: George Clooney, Shaleine Woodley, Amara Miller, Beau Bridges, Judy Greer, Matthew Lillard, Robert Forster, Nick Krause.
Dir: Alexander Payne.

Alexander Payne, for me at least, is a mixed bag of a filmmaker. I thought his early work, Citizen Ruth and Election are a lot stronger as a whole, from his latter works, About Schmidt and Sideways. This is like the latter two, an imperfect film, far from a masterpiece but the strong ensemble of actors especially George Clooney in the central role rises above the flaws and give this film a whole lot of depth and emotional heft without being too saccharine or cliched. It's overall a very, very good film.

Grade: B+

HUGO
Cast: Asa Butterfield, Ben Kingsley, Chloe Grace Moretz, Sacha Baron Cohen, Emily Mortimer, Helen McCrory, Ray Winstone, Jude Law, Michael Stulbargh, Frances de la Tour, Richard Griffiths.
Dir: Martin Scorsese

I love film. I'm passionate about film. Director Martin Scorsese through this magnificent film managed to take that love, that passion and put it magically on the screen through a coming-of-age story of sorts of an orphan boy in the train station. The film is unsurprisingly visually dazzling but more than that, it's also a deeply personal work that obviously comes from the heart and it shows. As someone who likes Martin Scorsese, this is definitely in his top five best films. It's one of the best films of the year and any film which captures why the art of cinema is so wonderful is great in my book.

Grade: A

[Johnny Guitar]

Did I make cultural generalizations? I don't think so.

I was only joking about the debate that broke out in this thread.

And yes, it looks like Milan thoroughly outplayed Arsenal in this match. It would be easier to take if Arsenal had actually played well, but their form has been so inconsistent this season. One never knows if we're seeing a revival of Wenger's best style or an elaboration upon his teams' worst aspects. All right, I'm done talking about soccer now.

[ITALIANO]

(By the way, Marco - I recall that you have greater affection for Atalanta, but since you live near Milan I just want to say that I hope Arsenal runs rampant over your local team soon ... though I certainly don't expect that will be the case.)

Since when do you root for an ENGLISH team?

Last year, by the way, Atalanta was at the centre of a big corruption scandal (well, we can't deny that it's a very Italian team!) so I shouldn't be so proud anymore...!

Indeed, I assume that any & every Italian club is corrupt. (I must make cultural generalizations in order to keep my post on-topic to the discussion.) I started following Arsenal some years back - in a not unusual American fashion, I overlooked the MLS for a more exciting and better-quality league. England was the natural choice for reasons of language & culture, and Arsenal were a team with players & style that I liked.

This Milan - Arsenal game is not looking so good for Arsenal. They're playing horribly ... it's an awful season for the club.

Did I make cultural generalizations? I don't think so.

And actually yes, it's possible that almost ALL Italian clubs are corrupt...

Milan traditionally has problems with English teams in the Champions League, but yes, I think that this time it should win... We'll know soon.

[Johnny Guitar]

(By the way, Marco - I recall that you have greater affection for Atalanta, but since you live near Milan I just want to say that I hope Arsenal runs rampant over your local team soon ... though I certainly don't expect that will be the case.)

Since when do you root for an ENGLISH team?

Last year, by the way, Atalanta was at the centre of a big corruption scandal (well, we can't deny that it's a very Italian team!) so I shouldn't be so proud anymore...!

Indeed, I assume that any & every Italian club is corrupt. (I must make cultural generalizations in order to keep my post on-topic to the discussion.) I started following Arsenal some years back - in a not unusual American fashion, I overlooked the MLS for a more exciting and better-quality league. England was the natural choice for reasons of language & culture, and Arsenal were a team with players & style that I liked.

This Milan - Arsenal game is not looking so good for Arsenal. They're playing horribly ... it's an awful season for the club.

[ITALIANO]

(By the way, Marco - I recall that you have greater affection for Atalanta, but since you live near Milan I just want to say that I hope Arsenal runs rampant over your local team soon ... though I certainly don't expect that will be the case.)

Since when do you root for an ENGLISH team?

Last year, by the way, Atalanta was at the centre of a big corruption scandal (well, we can't deny that it's a very Italian team!) so I shouldn't be so proud anymore...!

[Johnny Guitar]

Reading over the last page of this thread, I had no idea what exactly was being debated anymore.

Here are a few brief thoughts on 2011(ish) films I saw recently ...

Sleeping Beauty (Julia Leigh) - friends whose tastes I admire have made some strong defenses for this movie. But I admit that on my one viewing it didn't hook me - its choices seemed calculated to adhere to a particular style of upper-middlebrow slow festival cinema, but without the surprises, nuances, ferocity, and/or complexity that characterize the best practitioners of this (mostly) low-affect, long-take, elliptical style (e.g. Tarr, Kiarostami, even a slightly more mainstream example like Jonathan Glazer's excellent Birth, etc.).

Detective Dee and the Mystery of the Phantom Flame (Tsui Hark) - much as I love TH's work, I'm hesitant to join with the chorus who see this as a return to majestic form for the producer/director. Compared with The Green Snake (another "visionary" mythical-historical film with cheesy sfx) it looks anemic. Not bad, just sub-par for Tsui Hark.

Insidious (James Wan) - not to be taken seriously, but in terms of mise-en-scene and lighting, a triumph of horror film construction. Really terrific. I'm not easily frightened by horror movies, but this one was effective. The longer it goes on, the kitschier it becomes, but it bears the faintest resemblance to the way that David Lynch directs dreadful moments - irrational, yet stunningly effective. And it's PG-13.

Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy (Tomas Alfredsson) - fairly good, and surprisingly subtle in its storytelling methods. Which I suppose is a gift from its genre - the spy/espionage movie might allow for a little more interpretative leeway, and interpretive audience participation, than most films.

The Descendants (Alexander Payne) - my expectations were low (very low). I don't think it's that good, but I watched it thinking it would be quite bad - and yet it mostly avoided all the things that I most feared. The Hawai'i exoticism is kept low-key (and the narration maintains a certain amount of awareness of white privilege), and all the annoying "quirky" moments that the trailers highlighted felt more integrated in the whole - so e.g. the older daughter's friend ("Sup, brah?") is somewhat less of a caricature, somewhat closer to a character.

The Hunter (Rafi Pitts) - here, in comparison to J. Leigh's Sleeping Beauty, is a film in the much-discussed "slow cinema" style that I think works better, though it may not quite be a masterpiece. But the sense of impending socioeconomic pressure imbues this film with a sad inevitability.

Of Gods and Men (Xavier Beauvois) - I liked this one less than I thought I would. It starts off on a mediocre level, I think, because everything about its political message quickly reduces to an easy and predictable liberal treatment of "terrorism." Very easy to see where things were going for the first half, especially, because Beauvois had to hit certain requisite points that I think would be too obvious to anyway who watches a lot of cinema. (Yet - here's a theme with my roundup - there are plenty of people I respect who really loved this movie. So maybe I'm wrong.) In short, I disliked the way the film made a point of presenting the villagers & monks as very copacetic - i.e., the community is quite idyllic & utopian in its multiculturalism, and the "threat" of terrorism is robbed of any claims to political grievance, it's initially figured only as a kind of irrational violence. It seems like a fairly gutless and conservative way of presenting a political problem, largely devoid of attention to colonial legacies or global commerce. But then the film does get somewhat stronger, and richer, as it goes on - to its credit. Yet I can't shake the feeling that overall the way the movie's whole conceptualization is limited.

(By the way, Marco - I recall that you have greater affection for Atalanta, but since you live near Milan I just want to say that I hope Arsenal runs rampant over your local team soon ... though I certainly don't expect that will be the case.)

[ITALIANO]

There are aspects of the American society that I wish would exist in Italy, of course.

So, after all these years, the truth comes out..what are they?

I will say that I have taught with teachers who are former actors (such as yours truly), professional baseball players, national champion winning football players, Navy SEALS and amateur boxers...just saying. The idea that a mixed martial artist would end up teaching physics is no surprise to me!

I know, and this is why I pointed out than in America it's different. I guess that, for example, the idea that Hulk Hogan might become, one day, an expert of German philosophy is perfectly acceptable in the US - and it could happen, not just theoretically. In Europe it would be considered absurd.

And I never denied that there are some good sides about American society. In Italy, for example, and more generally in at least the Southern part of Europe, unless you have the right connections, or know the right people, it's tough to change your social status even if you deserve it - possible, of course, but tough, while I think that in the US it's easier. Or also - though I think that the wrestler/teacher example is a bit extreme - I like the fact that one can easily change his field of work, or so it seems. Here it's less common.

[FilmFan720]

There are aspects of the American society that I wish would exist in Italy, of course.

So, after all these years, the truth comes out..what are they?

I will say that I have taught with teachers who are former actors (such as yours truly), professional baseball players, national champion winning football players, Navy SEALS and amateur boxers...just saying. The idea that a mixed martial artist would end up teaching physics is no surprise to me!

[ITALIANO]

So someone who was a competitive sports player in Europe would never turn to another career after his sports career ended, even abruptly?

Oh, he would turn to another career, of course. He just (in general, of course) wouldn't become a physics teacher, Oscar Guy. Obviously not. I smile even just thinking about this.