The Official Review Thread of 2010

[anonymous1980]

ANIMAL KINGDOM
Cast: James Frecheville, Ben Mendelsohn, Joel Edgerton, Guy Pearce, Luke Ford, Jacki Weaver, Sullivan Stapleton.
Dir: David Michod.

This is a very solid (though somewhat imperfect) Australian crime drama and a highly respectable debut film from writer-director David Michod. Jacki Weaver totally and completely deserves her Oscar nomination for Best Supporting Actress and indeed, she really pulls off the twists and turns and nuances of her character masterfully. However, the entire cast is also pretty great.

Grade: B.

[Sabin]

I lived in Los Angeles throughout the exhibition and that shit was everywhere! You could not walk a fucking block without seeing a Marilyn Monroe Spock tagging everything.

Watching Exit Through the Gift Shop again (still loved it), I remember thinking the video footage of Banksy himself at the museum lifting pictures seems awfully precious. It wouldn't surprise me to learn that Thierry is in fact Banksy, or played Banksy in the film. I think the film is far beyond the casual bullshittiness of The Usual Suspects. This is a con set up years in advance that seems to memorialize and utterly trash an art-form before anybody else really gets the chance to. It's an adorable conspiracy that has no business winning Best Documentary...but I sure do like it more than any film nominated for Best Picture.

[Mister Tee]

Hadn't some people commented on Exit Through the Gift Shop? I've gone back many months here, and run across only dws' brief summary. (If people posted under Last Seen Movie, forget it -- I can never find anything there)

Anyway...Exit Through the Gift Shop is a bit like The Usual Suspects -- by the end you know there's bullshit involved, but you're not quite sure where it kicked in. I was startled to find (via Google) that there apparently was an LA Weekly cover story and exhibition; I assumed that was fictitious. But I'm still assuming Thierry himself is an actor-played fiction, so the whole thing amounts to some sort of long con on Banksy's part. Of course, I could be wrong. In any case, this is all interwined with a (seemingly) accurate history of street art, where factual elements (everything to do with Fairey) mix with things that ring completely false. (For example, Thierry apparently never owned the stores referenced at the start) It's both absorbing history and an intriguing puzzle.

The film is thus truly one of a kind: a project whose very existence underlines its thesis, about the arbitrariness of success in the art world. (And what a perfect title, though one only comprehensible in retrospect) I doubt this'll be to the Academy's taste in the end -- the limited number of people who vote for docs probably prefer them more serious. But I enjoyed this alot, as a real change of pace.



Edited By Mister Tee on 1296946412

[anonymous1980]

TANGLED
Cast: Mandy Moore, Zachary Levi, Donna Murphy, Ron Perlman, M.C. Gainey, Brad Garrett, Jeffrey Tambor, Paul F. Tompkins (voices).
Dirs: Nathan Greno & Byron Howard.

I'd be lying if I said this is as great as The Little Mermaid or Beauty and the Beast but it's still a pretty darn good film. The animators did an excellent job of translating the Disney style into a 3D CGI environment. It still feels as if it belongs to all the classic Disney princess tales despite its different format. Alan Menken's score isn't his best it's still pretty good ("I See The Light" is great though).

Oscar Prospects: I'm going to say this deserves a Best Animated Feature nomination over How to Train Your Dragon.

Grade: B+

[ITALIANO]

and apparently more so four years later when she was nominated over Doris Day who would have been considered anything but a filler for Love Me or Leave Me.

But it was still the fifth spot.

[Big Magilla]

While Eleanor Parker may well be considered a filler in 1951, she was more than that the previous year and apparently more so four years later when she was nominated over Doris Day who would have been considered anything but a filler for Love Me or Leave Me.

But I like my analogy even if I do say so myself. :O

You have Hepburn/Bening - previously nominated veteran whose performances were generally always praised

Leigh/Portman - previously nominated star with checkered screen career

Wyman/Williams - now taken seriously actress who started out in throwaway roles way down on the cast list

Parker/Kidman - once highly regarded actress now seen by some as going through the motions

Winters/Lawrence - the only first time nominee in the bunch

[ITALIANO]

I wouldn't say Michelle Williams got the Eleanor Parker nod - I would say Nicole Kidman did, assuming we're talking 1951. Williams got the Jane Wyman nod, Jennifer Lawrence the Shelley Winters nod, Annette Bening the Katharine Hepburn nod and Natalie Portman the Vivien Leigh nod. ???

Well, by "Eleanor Parker nod" I meant the fifth spot, the filler - which is what Parker probably was at least on two of the three times she was nominated.

I also didn't find the movie tedious - I was actually quite inerested in the two characters' dynamics.

[Big Magilla]

And at last an American movie where its leading characters don't do glamourous, super-well-paid jobs nor are (its fashionable opposite today) white trash, but just normal people having normal jobs - and you actually see them at work!


Yes, the actors. Ryan Gosling - I have no more doubts now - is one of the best working maybe not only in America today. I have seen only two of the Best Actor nominees till now, and he already should be there in Eisenberg's place - at least. Very good performance, really. Michelle Williams is almost on the same level - which in this case means, also very good. I have seen all the five Best Actress nominees now, and while as we know hers is the "Eleanor Parker nod", in my book it's certainly between her and Portman (in the end I'd pick Portman but for reasons that don't have to do only with their performanes).

I still have problems with the blue motel room and the shaky hand-held camera movements throughout the film, but yes, the real jobs that are neither the glamorous, fashionable ones or their fashionable opposite - the unskilled, low-paying ones, help to make this look and feel like we're watching real people living through real situations.

I don't agree with all the Cassavetes comparisons. Cassavetes' films were mostly improvised exercises in tedium. There is very little tedium here.

And, yes, the actors. Gosling has always been interesting to watch, but so has Eisenberg and I wouldn't begrudge him his nomination, but I would certainly nominate Gosling and Mark Wahlberg in The Fighter over Jeff Bridges' lazy performance in True Grit.

I wouldn't say Michelle Williams got the Eleanor Parker nod - I would say Nicole Kidman did, assuming we're talking 1951. Williams got the Jane Wyman nod, Jennifer Lawrence the Shelley Winters nod, Annette Bening the Katharine Hepburn nod and Natalie Portman the Vivien Leigh nod. ???

[Reza]

I can't betray myself. I can't attack movies like The Blind Side and The Social Network for being basically fake and then not praising a movie like Blue Valentine which is so (I will use this adjective often in this post) honest. And even if it weren't a very good movie - which I think it is, but I can see the point of those who think it isn't - I'd still praise it for attempting something that American cinema, nowadays, sadly seems to have given up doing. Which is, again: being honest.

Cassavetes it isn't - it's not as complex as Cassavetes's movies used to be, but then those belong to a different era and, though I have no idea about this, Cassavetes was probably a bit older then than this director, Derek Cianfrance, is now - but it's true that Cianfrance shows a similar talent for intelligent, selective improvisation (the scene on the bridge is just great). And I'll even say that this definitely isn't the first movie to cross-cut between a couple's early moments of love and the same couple's more painful present. We've been there already - true.

Still, both characters are so real, the chemistry between them - and not just in the scenes set in the past, but even in those set in the present, and fighting with chemistry isn't easy to do - so evident, every detail so... well, just so right, that I can easily ignore the (few, but undeniable) flaws. And at last an American movie where its leading characters don't do glamourous, super-well-paid jobs nor are (its fashionable opposite today) white trash, but just normal people having normal jobs - and you actually see them at work!

Do we know everything about these characters? Maybe not, but why should we? They are not as carefully explained to us like Sandra Bullock and Jesse Eisenberg - for once we, lazy viewers, must do some of that work by ourselves - we must THINK - the kind of activity that admittedly American cinema lately seems to prevent us from doing. We must fill the gaps, even. I'm grateful for that - grateful for not having an arc pre-ordained for me by the filmmakers. Plus, let's face it - even the two characters don't know much about themselves, and I think that one of this movie's main qualities is the way it portrays this extremely subtle emotion: confusion. Rare in movies but so frequent, so painfully frequent, in real life, especially when you aren't young anymore but not old yet, and your life has taken a path that you aren't sure you want to follow but you are afraid to leave. This is all very well portrayed in the movie. The two actors, by the way, are believable even from a physical point of view in the transition between the splendid years of youth and those years when you are still young, still beautiful, but the shadow of old age is already dangerously present in your eyes, in your face.

Yes, the actors. Ryan Gosling - I have no more doubts now - is one of the best working maybe not only in America today. I have seen only two of the Best Actor nominees till now, and he already should be there in Eisenberg's place - at least. Very good performance, really. Michelle Williams is almost on the same level - which in this case means, also very good. I have seen all the five Best Actress nominees now, and while as we know hers is the "Eleanor Parker nod", in my book it's certainly between her and Portman (in the end I'd pick Portman but for reasons that don't have to do only with their performanes).

Theirs is the kind of raw, uncompromising approach to acting that can make a movie (including, probably, this one) seem better than it is. You sit there, you watch them interact so beautifully, and it's already more than you get from most movies in this period.

Ingmar Bergman revisited?

Yes it's good that there is such American cinema out there but frankly I felt I had been there and seen it before.........many times. Just didn't care for the characters at all or their dilemma. Gosling, although good here, needs to seriously chill out and jump into something other than an indie.

[ITALIANO]

I can't betray myself. I can't attack movies like The Blind Side and The Social Network for being basically fake and then not praising a movie like Blue Valentine which is so (I will use this adjective often in this post) honest. And even if it weren't a very good movie - which I think it is, but I can see the point of those who think it isn't - I'd still praise it for attempting something that American cinema, nowadays, sadly seems to have given up doing. Which is, again: being honest.

Cassavetes it isn't - it's not as complex as Cassavetes's movies used to be, but then those belong to a different era and, though I have no idea about this, Cassavetes was probably a bit older then than this director, Derek Cianfrance, is now - but it's true that Cianfrance shows a similar talent for intelligent, selective improvisation (the scene on the bridge is just great). And I'll even say that this definitely isn't the first movie to cross-cut between a couple's early moments of love and the same couple's more painful present. We've been there already - true.

Still, both characters are so real, the chemistry between them - and not just in the scenes set in the past, but even in those set in the present, and fighting with chemistry isn't easy to do - so evident, every detail so... well, just so right, that I can easily ignore the (few, but undeniable) flaws. And at last an American movie where its leading characters don't do glamourous, super-well-paid jobs nor are (its fashionable opposite today) white trash, but just normal people having normal jobs - and you actually see them at work!

Do we know everything about these characters? Maybe not, but why should we? They are not as carefully explained to us as Sandra Bullock and Jesse Eisenberg were - for once we, lazy viewers, must do some of that work by ourselves - we must THINK - the kind of activity that admittedly American cinema lately seems to prevent us from doing. We must fill the gaps, even. I'm grateful for that - grateful for not having an arc pre-ordained for me by the filmmakers. Plus, let's face it - even the two characters don't know much about themselves, and I think that one of this movie's main qualities is the way it portrays this extremely subtle emotion: confusion. Rare in movies but so frequent, so painfully frequent, in real life, especially when you aren't young anymore but not old yet, and your life has taken a path that you aren't sure you want to follow but you are afraid to leave. This is all very well portrayed in the movie. The two actors, by the way, are believable even from a physical point of view in the transition between the splendid years of youth and those years when you are still young, still beautiful, but the shadow of old age is already dangerously present in your eyes, in your face.

Yes, the actors. Ryan Gosling - I have no more doubts now - is one of the best working maybe not only in America today. I have seen only two of the Best Actor nominees till now, and he already should be there in Eisenberg's place - at least. Very good performance, really. Michelle Williams is almost on the same level - which in this case means, also very good. I have seen all the five Best Actress nominees now, and while as we know hers is the "Eleanor Parker nod", in my book it's certainly between her and Portman (in the end I'd pick Portman but for reasons that don't have to do only with their performances).

Theirs is the kind of raw, uncompromising approach to acting that can make a movie (including, probably, this one) seem better than it is. You sit there, you watch them interact so beautifully, and it's already more than you get from most movies in this period.



Edited By ITALIANO on 1296742737

[Mister Tee]

On the Oscar/home-viewing circuit:

Animal Kingdom is an interesting enough first feature. I had a sense it wasn't as good a film as could have been made out of the framework material -- some of the characters could have used more clarity; the crazier-than-the-rest brother is a bit of a cliche; what happens to the girlfriend seems to come from nowhere and rings fully false. I also found the music needlessly portentous at times...it seemed to by trying to provide drama rather than underscore it.

On the other hand...there were intriguing plot elements, and an ending that, while it feels inevitable, caught me very much by surprise. The film as a whole gets better as it goes along; I even wondered if, were I to watch it again, knowing where it was headed, I might enjoy the initial sections more.

For a while, one wonders why Jacki Weaver got the nomination -- she's solid and present throughout, but, except for her Why I Never Saw My Daughter speech, doesn't have a standout moment (I did love one part of that speech -- "She was drunk. I was drunk, too...but I was RIGHT") Then come the final 15 minutes, where she takes complete command. I think she was really well cast in this. Her facial/eye features suggest someone a bit loco, even during the earlier segments, so when she busts loose as the most venomous of all, it feels like it was waiting to happen all through the film. I'm quite fine with her nomination -- though I can't say I'd have selected her over Olivia Williams or Dianne Wiest.

Also: Salt.

What a ridiculous movie. But it started out with a halfway likable premise. I actually thought the first 20 minutes or so -- the arrival of the defector, the initial chase sequences -- were quite action-movie-enjoyable. But about the time Angelina dropped off the overpass onto a passing truck, sense was left behind, and the film got sillier and sillier as it went on. (I doubt it even has any story logic, though I couldn't be bothered parsing the plot to make sure) Nice to know that, after all these years, this is still the sort of crud the sound branch supports.

[Big Magilla]

Catching up on missed 2010 films on DVD. Surprisingly, three of them now occupy three spots in my revised ten best list at nos. 2, 3 and 6 while two performers and two directors replace Nicole Kidman, Dianne Wiest, Danny Boyle and Ben Affleck in my Oscar Shouldabeens.

Conviction (Tony Goldwyn) 6/10

I saw this in the theatre but decided to take another look based on Hilary Swank's SAG nomination. I still find its by-the-numbers narrative a bit anemic, but the actors, particular Swank, Sam Rockwell and Minnie Driver, are good, but not great.

I still think Rockwell should have gotten a career nomination for his performance, which is far from his best, but the guy is overdue.

Never Let Me Go (Mark Romanek) 8.5/10

I avoided this for the longest time, expecting another disaster like The Lovely Bones. I couldn't have been more wrong, this a treasure of a film about life and death at an early age. All three stars - Carey Mulligan, Andrew Garfield and Keira Knightley are terrific. Mulligan replaces Kidman in my Best Actress line-up and Garfield is almost good enough to replace himself in The Social Network. His anguished scream near the end when the truth sinks in is one of the year's single most affecting scenes, and that smile at Mulligan in his last scene is devastating in its simplicity.

It's now my second favorite film of the year behind The Social Network. Romanek replaces Boyle on my list of the year's top five directors, and if I were to to give an award for cinematography, it might well be my first pick.

Let Me In (Matt Reeves) 8.5 out of 10

I didn't care for the Swedish original, mainly because the version I saw was the DVD version with the discredited sloppy translation which has since been replaced. But this version is more coherent, more sweetly observed and just a wee bit less sad. The young actors, Kodi Smit-McPhee and Chloe Grace Moretz are both terrific and Richard Jenkins and Elias Koteas are quite effective in the main supporting roles. I found it the most satisfying horror film since The Excorcist.

It's now my third favorite film of the year and Reeves replaces Affleck on my list of te year's best directors.

Secretariat (Randall Wallace) 6/10

Gorgeous to look at, but lacking in suspense as we know that Secretariat was the fastest horse that ever lived, that he won the triple crown in 1973, the first horse to do so in 25 years. The performances of Diane Lane as his owner and John Malkovich as his trainer compensate for a lot, but there isn't much depth to the thing, probably to protect the privacy of the still living woman Lane plays.

Nowhere Boy (Sam Taylor-Wood) 8/10

The late teen years of John Lennon, nicely played by newcomer Aaron Johnson is excellently done with an emphasis on his home life and the conflict between the mother who abandoned him (Anne-Marie Duff) and the aunt who raised him (Kristin Scott Thomas). The two actresses are splendid with Duff having won the majority of awards in Britain last year, but for my money Scott Thomas in the quieter, more difficult role is even better. She replaces Dianne Wiest on my list of the year's five best supporting actresses.

It's now my eighth favorite film of the year.



Edited By Big Magilla on 1302718175

[Damien]

Somewhere (Sofia Coppola)

Years ago, there was a line uttered a lot in film circles: "Does a movie about boredom have to be boring?" (I think it was perpetuated by people who didn't like Antonioni.) Coppola's movie begs the question, "Does a movie about aimlessness have to be aimless." There's very little plot here (by contrast, in that regard, it makes Lost In Translation seem like Crash), it's a mood piece and a bit of a (rather superficial) character study. An emotionally adrift, second-tier film star who lives at Chateau Marmont (apparently he lives in a hotel where he needs are all taken care of to indicate his own lack of responsibility) spends some time with his middle school-age daughter and has some thoughts about his life. The bare-bones narrative is not a problem, the shortcoming is that Coppola conveys the emptiness of his life by long, dull, repetitive sequences -- an endless POV sequence of Stephen Dorff watching two house call pole dancers; a tedious and long figure skating exhibition by Elle Fanning; people playing Wii while we watch bored. Banality abounds. Inertia as a stylistic choice. There's a singular lack of depth to a film with a not-uninteresting premise. On the plus side, Elle Fanning -- unlike her spooky sister -- is a charming and natural actress. Stephen Dorff (I'm trying to place him from some 90s movies -- I know I've seen him before, but can't recall which ones) has a nice, relaxed presence. And there's an amusing parody of the Hollywood Foreign Press Association. Boring the movie may be, but it's not an excruciating bore like Blue Valentine.
4/10



Edited By Damien on 1296460306

[Sabin]

Let Me In (Matt Reeves)

I'm still unsure which one I like more. Let Me In is the more focused film but Let the Right One In plays more on the mythos of vampiric invitation and the poignancy of individual lingering moments (although some moments, one specifically fiery one, are much better). What Let Me In does so successfully is in the specifics. Although it would like to think of itself as taking place during Reagan's America and the struggle of one child torn between a born again mother and an absent father, it is timeless in its evocation of standing ground, discovery, and companionship. More than that though, Let Me In is one of the best films about teenage persecution I've seen in some time, and the solace found within two lonely souls. It suffers a little in the final half because we've seen it and can't help but compare the two and in some cases there is no comparison (both feature a far too melodramatic parting of the two leads), but it's a strong film.

I shouldn't be astonished that Let Me In bombed but I'm very much looking forward to the Twilight crowd picking it up. This is a legitimately moving teen romance. Kodi Smit-McPhee is very much a step-up. Some child actors draw attention to their awkwardness but he is as natural as any I've seen. You cannot catch this kid acting for a goddamn moment! This is a different league than Haley Joel Osment's quite effective PTSD-case or Hailee Steinfeld's preternaturally stalwart lass. He's just...real. Between her work here and in Kick-Ass, Chloe Moretz clearly has range and a very long career ahead of her, but I missed some of the creepy agelessness of her predecessor. She is a child not an immortal. I think this is a misstep. There are moments where she is incredibly and properly aloof and then there are moments of outright girlishness which should be coded more as rediscovery and not immaturity. I never quite bought her, but she's quite good at times.

[Sabin]

I am so morbidly curious to see How Do You Know. I don't have much use for As Good As It Gets or Spanglish, but Terms of Endearment is an effectively shameless film and Broadcast News is goddamn glorious. I like James L. Brooks' sensibility if not his tendency to tailor his films towards audience testing reactions.