The Official Review Thread of 2015

[ITALIANO]

I think I've heard a mosquito...

And I think I've heard a blowhard spewing some pretentious malarkey.
But let's not make a fuss about that.

What one can't understand always seems pretentious...

[taki15]

I think I've heard a mosquito...

And I think I've heard a blowhard spewing some pretentious malarkey.
But let's not make a fuss about that.

[ITALIANO]

I think I've heard a mosquito...

[taki15]

Ah ok. So it's pure neo-realism and George Miller is the new Roberto Rossellini. Good to know.

Wow! That's a strawman if I ever saw one.

[ITALIANO]

Ah ok. So it's pure neo-realism and George Miller is the new Roberto Rossellini. Good to know. There aren't special effects, no use of computer graphics, etc... (which, by the way, wuuldn't necessarily be a bad thing. But honestly defending this movie as "realistic" is a bit... extreme, let's say so).

By now we know that I'm not very intelligent, Oscar Guy. I admit it. So thank you for explaining me the plot of the movie - seriously. I have to say, in all honesty, and very humbly, that despite my limited intellectual skills after some time I had still "vaguely" understood the storyline, but thank you for your much-needed help.

Now, if only someone explained me the SUBtext of Mad Max Fury Road, and not just the text...

[OscarGuy]

"Unrealistic" isn't a word you should use with Mad Max: Fury Road. Every action sequence and stunt displayed in the movie (with the lone exception of the scenes within the massive storm early in the film) were crafted WITHOUT visual effects. Those stunts were all carried out specifically and actually on camera. You can hurl whatever accusations you like at the film, but unrealistic is NOT the word that should be used when describing the action and stunts depicted in the film.

Oh. And I hope you didn't love Weekend by Jean-Luc Godard, because most of that film is a nonsensical and random trip through the country. The film exists almost entirely on a single premise that doesn't seem to have a purpose other than to display the bizarre in endless sequences of random events.

At least Mad Max has a plot, which is not predicated on any understanding of past films (it has zero actual ties to those films other than being set in the post-apocalyptic universe of the original films). The plot is not tied into or directly related to any of those prior films. I've seen them all and I can unequivocally tell you that you won't pick up anything new from those films that you can't in Mad Max.

As for the plot, it's a fairly simple plot about a egomaniacal dictator controlling the means of survival for a small community trapped in a vast wasteland where the only source of water is controlled by those in power. He's a misogynistic, crude, cruel leader who keeps the most pristine women as his sexual slaves and uses the young as his private army and slaves. When one of his lieutenants decides to take a water truck for trade to another community, she diverts to set off all these chases. The cargo she carries, the valuable sexual slave objects of the dictator, liberating them from a horrid and unrelenting life of oppression towards an idyllic, fairy tale of a kingdom across the desert. When they discover that such a place does not exist, they launch an offensive to return to the community they fled and take over to ensure their own survival as well as those who live there.

I saw the film once, when it was out in cinemas several months ago. I wrote my review a long time ago as well and I can still remember vividly the details of the plot that were not only given away in the sparse dialogue in the picture, but through set pieces, visual details and other elements. It was perfectly easy to understand if you use your eyes instead of your disdain to watch the film. Then again, I guess everyone who's complained about wanting less ham-fisted dialogue to explain plot details doesn't mind it after all if they are challenged by this simple film filled with immense details who are either unable to understand its plot or who want to blithely dismiss it as a simple action film.

You can dislike the film and its overall plot all you want, but if you say you can't understand anything, then I challenge that perhaps you aren't as observant as you believe you are. This goes for everyone, not just ITALIANO.

[ITALIANO]

For a good half-an-hour I felt lost watching Mad Max Fury Road. I couldn't understand anything. To me, it was more complicated than, say, a Tarkowski movie - partly, certainly, because I had never watched a Mad Max movie before, and had never even read about them - I didn't know characters and context. My fault, maybe - but shouldn't a movie have its own life - and meaning - even if it's part of a saga? Anyway, after a while I realized that it didn't matter much - action is Mad Max Fury Road's only raison-d'etre. And it definitely delivers it - flamboyant, excessive, unrealistic, but technically impressive, nobody can deny it. Before it gets repetitive, one might even find it entertaining - like a rollercoaster ride. But that's all.

I feel almost embarassed writing about this movie, because it is so ostentatiously lacking in content that I don't know what I should write about. Had I been younger, I would have taken time to read (and comment on) the reviews which call it a masterpiece. I don't have that energy anymore - but, clearly, only so-called critics with no knowledge of not only art history but also film history can really consider it a meaningful, award-worthy effort, rather than an expertly made - though ultimately exhausting - video-game of a movie. But then maybe it's video-ganes which these critics grew up with - not necessarily the actual video-games, but a video-game mentality, a view of life which is emotional on the surface and safe deep-inside (this, of course, prevents them from the risks of true, profound emotions). Enjoying this movie I can even understand - one CAN enjoy summer blockbusters, it's not a crime and after all emotions ARE subjective. But mistaking one's enjoyment for something objective - or, as some do, for Art - is so wrong, and from so many points of view. Children can do that; adults should have a different distance from this kind of things.

Still, I don't have anything against this movie getting several nominations in the technical categories - I AM objective enough to see that it's well made from that point of view. But considering it a Best Picture and Best Director front-runner is something else.

[Mister Tee]

Concussion is plaster-saint filmmaking. Will Smith's work is honorable enough -- he uses none of his usual audience-ingratiating moves, and there's nothing much to criticize about what he does. But the role is without much nuance; he's just the Good Righteous Man who comes up against the evil borg, and undergoes a certain amount of martyrdom (though not enough to lift the film out of bland-ish Lifetime movie territory).

In this year's best actor category, once you get beyond Fassbender (for merit), DiCaprio (for years of service) and Damon (for being loosey-goosey in unexpected ways), the candidates for the remaining spots seem the hoariest sort of Oscar bait: Depp, Cranston, Redmayne, Smith -- none seem to excite anyone in terms of material or execution, but are in the discussion because they're the sort of performances we think of as generic Oscar contenders. In that context, it doesn't really matter to me who ends up getting the nod -- and, though I'm not that disposed toward his work, I'd actually root for Steve Carell to get a slot over any of them.

[anonymous1980]

TRUMBO
Cast: Bryan Cranston, Helen Mirren, Diane Lane, John Goodman, Michael Stuhlbarg, Louis CK, Alan Tudyk, Elle Fanning, David James Elliott, Adewale Akinnuoye-Agbaje, Roger Bart, Dean O'Gorman, Stephen Root.
Dir: Jay Roach.

This film is about blacklisted screenwriter Dalton Trumbo who suffered under the persecution and investigation of Communists during the Cold War era. On paper, this is a film that I am supposed to love: It has a fantastic cast, the subject matter is of great interest to me (heck, I'm a writer myself) and of course I agree very much with its politics and its message. But unfortunately, despite its obvious efforts, it never rises above middlebrow mediocrity and TV-cable film quality. It's much too self-serious (the film comes alive only during the scenes involving John Goodman) and pounds its message and all its narrative beats as hard as Trumbo pounds on his typewriter. I think a great film can be made about Dalton Trumbo. This is not it.

Oscar Prospects: God, I hope not. But if they nominate Bryan Cranston, I hope they use the clip where he describes the Oscar as a "worthless golden statue". Haha.

Grade: C.

[anonymous1980]

ANOMALISA
Cast: David Thewlis, Jennifer Jason Leigh, Tom Noonan (voices).
Dirs: Charlie Kaufman & Duke Johnson.

A customer service expert feels disconnected and bored with society and most people until he meets a woman whose voice he falls in love with and makes a connection. Trust Charlie Kaufman to make an adult stop-motion animated film. At the very least, you have to say that he's at least interesting. This film is more than interesting. It's a funny, moving and oddly thought provoking little film about what it means to be connected and to be human which is really strange since the film is a stop-motion animated film populated by puppets. I can never hear "Girls Just Wanna Have Fun" the same way again. It's truly one of the best of 2015.

Oscar Prospects: Should get a nomination for Best Animated Feature, Original Score, Original Song and Screenplay.

Grade: A-

[Big Magilla]

Oh, and for a movie that, as BJ points out, seems obsessed with the Oscars as verifier of quality, it's inexcusable for them to have Kirk Douglas present the Oscar to Roman Holiday with the lead-in "And the Oscar goes to..." -- especially with other (real) clips showing the accurate/non-anachronistic "And the winner is..."

Yes, double especially when Oscars.org has a four minute clip of Douglas presenting the 1953 writing awards beginning with the award to Roman Holiday in which he clearly says "and the winner is Ian McLellan Hunter" and some unidentified dude comes from the back of the auditorium to accept in his behalf.

[Mister Tee]

Sabin put way more effort into discussing Trumbo than I could possibly motivate myself to do. It's what I used to consider a typical HBO movie -- relatively painless to watch, but shallow beyond belief. There are one or two scenes where the script flirts with interesting notions (like the argument with Louis CK, where Louis says Trumbo reviving his own career isn't tantamount to saving America from the blacklist), but mostly it goes with "Trumbo and his fellow blacklistees are the only moral people in town", with a series of cardboard figures for Cranston to swat down. It's not a farce, but many of the scenes play like one (which is all too typical of Jay Roach films). I have to admit I laughed at John Goodman terrorizing the Motion Picture Alliance guy, and Cranston's "It's the only way i could get him to leave" line about Preminger...but I may have just been grateful for a break from the canonization.

Oh, and for a movie that, as BJ points out, seems obsessed with the Oscars as verifier of quality, it's inexcusable for them to have Kirk Douglas present the Oscar to Roman Holiday with the lead-in "And the Oscar goes to..." -- especially with other (real) clips showing the accurate/non-anachronistic "And the winner is..."

It's an indictment of this year's SAG Nominating Committee that they could bypass, at minimum, Steve Jobs and Brooklyn to choose this as one of the year's best acting ensembles -- never mind the leads; this film is full of cheesy performances by minor characters. I actually didn't think Cranston was bad, and wouldn't be surprised to see him on the Oscar list: he's got a number of Big Scenes, and, honestly, he'd be no worse a choice than Depp or (maybe; still unseen) Redmayne. I agree with Sabin: I was surprised Mirren's part wasn't bigger. But she still might make it into a confused category, just for being a big hissable villain.

[anonymous1980]

BROOKLYN
Cast: Saoirse Ronan, Domnhall Gleeson, Emory Cohen, Jim Broadbent, Julie Walters, Jessica Pare, Eve Macklin.
Dir: John Crowley.

A young Irish woman immigrates to America for a better life and finds love with a young Italian man. Oh, my. This is such a lovely, lovely film. It's surprisingly funny in parts, it's moving and of course romantic. It's really surprising how much I loved this film considering that the plot is far from original. But thanks to the magical combination of great acting, directing and writing (a script by Nick Hornby, no less), it becomes a beautiful piece of old-fashioned romance done exceedingly well. I've always known Saoirse Ronan to be one of today's best young actresses all the way back to her breakthrough role in Atonement but she absolutely impresses in a completely new level here. I recommend it highly.

Oscar Prospects: Ronan is a lock. Should also get in for Adapted Screenplay, Costume Design, Production Design and even Picture.

Grade: A-

[anonymous1980]

MERU
Cast: Conrad Anker, Jimmy Chin, Renan Ozturk.
Dirs: Jimmy Chin & Elizabeth Chai Vasarhelyi.

This is a documentary about the quest of a group of mountain climbers to summit a particularly difficult mountain to climb called the Meru Peak. This is a fine documentary. The film manages to get me interested in the subject matter even though I know next to nothing about mountaineering. Although it doesn't take much since the subject matter is fascinating anyway. There are some breathtaking and thrilling shots here. Some shots I would say, "Wow, how did they get that?" And you can't help but root for these guys. But it never rises above beyond just being a fine documentary even though there is potential in there to absolutely be something great. As it is, it's just merely very good.

Oscar Prospects: Documentary Feature and Original Song are both possible.

Grade: B.

[anonymous1980]

PHOENIX
Cast: Nina Hoss, Ronald Zehrfeld, Nina Kunzendorf.
Dir: Christian Petzold.

A concentration camp survivor returns with a horribly disfigured face and rendered unrecognizable after reconstruction. She reconnects with her husband who may or may not have betrayed her to the Nazis and is now asking if she could "pretend" to be his dead wife in order to get her money. I saw the film Barbara a few years ago and over that time, I've come to appreciate that film more and more so I was really looking forward to seeing another collaboration between Nina Hoss and director Christian Petzold and it definitely did not disappoint. This is a film that will really defy your expectations and make you think and question about every move the character makes. It will definitely give you a lot to chew on long after you see it. Lots of films have been made about World War II and somehow this manages to find a fresh take on it.

Oscar Prospects: Not eligible. But a Screenplay nomination is deserved.

Grade: A-