The Academy of Motion Picture Arts and Sciences will give the award for 2014 Best Picture, among others, tonight. I've reviewed each of the nominees below. I'd like to say a brief word about biopics, since four of the eight nominees this year fall into that category. It's tough (for me, at least) to evaluate biopics on their own merit. There's something about tacking a "Based on a true story" tag onto a movie that gives it all manner of luxuries that purely fictional films do not have. The weight of telling an interesting story is often lighter for biopics, and so we frequently forgive them for deviating from the beaten path to shoehorn in a tangentially related anecdote, for example. I believe that biopics ought to be held to the same standard that fictional works are - if a scene doesn't develop character or story, it shouldn't be included. This is why I have opted not to spend much time discussing historical accuracy in my discussion of these films. The accuracy does not, for me, necessarily add or detract from the quality of the movie. How the events that are portrayed contribute to the narrative arc is of great interest to me. This year was clearly strong for biopics. Three of the four represented here absolutely deserve to be mentioned among the best films of the year. However, there was only one that I felt truly elevated its source material to create something innovative and tell a great story.
The Theory of Everything - Eddie Redmayne was fantastic as Stephen Hawking. Unfortunately, nothing else about the film lived up to his performance. The Theory of Everything is a Pearl Harbor type of movie - using a well-known person or event as the backdrop for a love triangle, rather than letting the romantic aspects of the story pepper a fuller treatment of what the film is ostensibly about. Hawking's work, which is he barely tends to in the movie, is reduced to a good-natured, ongoing argument with his wife about the existence of God, something he actually isn't that concerned with in real life. Anthony McCarten's script doesn't trust viewers to handle the science; instead, graduate physics students loudly explain basic concepts to each other over beer in scenes that make the tired "pencil through a folded paper to explain time distortion" discussion in Interstellar look like something from, well, a Hawking lecture. There is one point, at the very end, where we get a glimpse of the film that could have been. While giving his closing monologue, Hawking sees a student drop a pencil and imagines himself getting up, walking down the steps, and picking it up and handing it back. It's a brave moment in an otherwise unambitious film, and it's way too little, way too late. Otherwise, we get whimsical music played over melancholy scenes, unnecessary montages that don't advance the plot, and the most amicable "we should get divorced" moment ever produced. Wasted potential and a wasted performance from Redmayne. 2/5
The Imitation Game - The Best Picture field wouldn't be complete without a World War II biopic, and while it's a bit unfair to brush The Imitation Game with such broad strokes, director Morten Tyldum is guilty of hamming for the Oscar voters a bit. Nevertheless, Benedict Cumberbatch elevates the already compelling story of Alan Turing with a masterful performance, and there's plenty to like. Liberties were taken the story, as in any biopic (see above), but some of them stretch the suspension of disbelief. It's a bit difficult to accept that the code monkeys would also be the ones to dictate policy in regard to how the military takes action on the codes they intercept, for example. Aside from that, I found that the framing device of the interrogation as well as the interspersed scenes of backstory added more punch to the tragedy of his death, something that could have been an afterthought. 4/5
American Sniper - It's almost impossible to comment on this film without divorcing it from its over-politicization by both sides of the ideological spectrum, particularly because director Clint Eastwood has never shied away from making polarizing statements, both within and without his films. I found American Sniper to be mostly bereft of anything legitimately outrage-worthy, something that surprised me given the amount of press it received. There is one notable exception*, and it is my main gripe with the film. Within the first ten minutes of the film, the titular sniper Chris Kyle receives a lecture from his father about the three kinds of people in the world (There are only three?!): the wolves, the sheep, and the sheepdogs, who protect the sheep from the wolves. Once the action of the movie catches up with its prologue, it is practically written in black-and-white: the Iraqi insurgents (described multiple times by Kyle and others as "savages") are the wolves, and the American troops are the sheepdogs protecting the sheep from them. At no point in the story does Kyle question this worldview. It's not a philosophical or even political error. There is little doubt that the real-life Kyle thought this way, nor is there doubt that there are many soldiers that feel the same way. It is, however, an error in storytelling. For Eastwood, that moment at the dinner table solidified the young boy's thinking and way of life, which he steadfastly stuck to for the duration of the story. A good character will develop as the story goes on. That's not to say that Kyle did not change at all. He clearly did, and Eastwood's treatment of PTSD makes American Sniper the definitive work of cinema on the topic. However, he failed to deviate from the baseline that he set up in his own opening act. He violated the Chekhov's Gun rule of character development, and for reasons I'm still struggling to articulate, that really bothers me. American Sniper could have been a modern war classic, but instead it's just a pretty good movie. 4/5
*A few other exceptions occur to me as well, like the straight line drawn from 9/11 to the War in Iraq, but I count them as minor in comparison and also as a consequence of telling a story through the eyes of any character. For Kyle (and others), maybe that straight line was real at the time.
Whiplash - Whiplash strikes me as a non-nominee nominee, a picture that was recognized for its brilliant performances but not expected to bring home the trophy by any stretch of the imagination. The always brilliant J.K. Simmons is matched by Miles Teller, who should be finding more work based on this performance. The story feels like an exaggeration, and perhaps it is from Terence Fletcher's (Simmons) point of view. A jazz band conductor at the prestigious (and fictional) Shaffer Conservatory, he believes in inspiring his most promising students with tough love, fueled by an apocryphal story of how Charlie Parker was pushed into becoming a great musician when Jo Jones "nearly decapitated" him with a cymbal after a poor performance. The real story is way more benign than that, but Fletcher is not a man of nuance. He gives speeches about "good job" being the two worst words in the English language, baits his students into making mistakes and punishes them for it, and generally terrorizes Andrew Neimann (Miles Teller) into quitting. The ambiguity of the ending (Mild spoilers: Does Neimann appreciate Fletcher after all? Does Fletcher still believe his actions are justified?) adds a layer of depth to an already outstanding character study. The narrative is tight, the musical aspect is well done, if sloppy in a few minor instances, and the questions linger long after the credits roll. In this case, that's a good thing. As a semi-serious band student in high school who had a director with Fletcher-like tendencies (it should be noted that they were very mild in comparison), I found Whiplash endlessly fascinating on a number of levels. A piece as narrow in scope as this will never make an all-time best list, but is essential nonetheless. This is the kind of film that benefits from the expanded Best Picture category. 4.5/5
Selma - It would have been very easy to make a Martin Luther King biopic that glossed over the ugly parts of his movement. By that, I do not mean the racism, violence, and ignorance. Those are essential parts of the story and are not lacking in Selma. Instead, I'm referring to the in-fighting in the King camp, the struggles he faced as his own people died, and his rocky relationship with Coretta. Many works of art have been made and will be made that turn the Civil Rights struggle into a philosophically black-and-white struggle between good and evil, without pausing to consider the demons that the good guys had to overcome along the way. Selma is a nuanced look at King and the situation in Selma, and more than any of the other biopics nominated this year, screenwriter Paul Webb does an extraordinary job of setting the historical stage, using real-life events as inciting incidents for the characters to react to, rather than as backdrop that must be addressed for accuracy's sake. Unfortunately, I found much of the supporting cast to be a bit one-dimensional, likely a result of trying to cram so much story into so little time. A longer running time with more character development focused on the other members of the SCLC, or perhaps Jimmie Lee Jackson, James Reeb, or Viola Liuzzo (who is barely featured at the end) would have gone a long way. As it is, though, Selma is rich, complex, and needed. 4.5/5
The Grand Budapest Hotel - I'll go ahead and say it: I'm a Wes Anderson fanboy. The Grand Budapest Hotel is Anderson at his best, though I'll not commit to labeling it my favorite of his films. It's quirky, even for Anderson, but the screwball nature of it all works to its great benefit. The framing device of a story within a story within a story allows viewers to invest in its zaniness - certainly it gets better with every retelling. The tongue-in-cheek style makes, for example, the Society of the Crossed Keys, which is an otherwise absurd device, into a humorous and accessible anecdote. It's almost impossible to describe the plot of this film, so I won't attempt it, but I will say that it is equal parts brilliant, heart-warming, joyful, and yes, twee. Fans of Anderson's work will not need to be convinced to see it, nor will they be disappointed. Those who are put off by his style will not find respite in his most recent entry into the canon, but in my opinion, they are missing out. 4.5/5
Boyhood - An Oscar movie that's released in the summer goes through several life cycles before the February ceremony, and Boyhood appears to be in a backlash stage, where people criticize it for being praised for its gimmick. That gimmick, if you're unaware, is that it follows a boy and his family from about first grade through his entry into college, only that it was filmed in real time. Scenes from Mason Evans' (Ellar Coltrane) middle school years were filmed around 2008 or so, and his earlier years were captured before that. Every year for a few weeks, the cast and crew met in Texas, filmed some scenes, and came back roughly a year later for more. As he ages in the final product, there are no montages or signals that time has moved on, other than the music, technology present in the characters' living rooms or at school, and of course the aging of the actors. One minute, Mason is 8 or so, and the next he is maybe 10, his mother has gained a little bit of weight, and the family has a new car - and maybe a new father figure as well. The effect is an authenticity that is no gimmick. Richard Linklater has captured the life of a generation like no other fictional film has. Boyhood is almost three hours long, and it's hard to blame Linklater for not wanting to part with scenes that are in some cases 12 years old, but it does not suffer for the length. In fact, each character develops such a rich history over the course of the story that it feels like the extended denouement isn't even enough. The emotional depth is astounding. I found myself wanting to know more about characters that could be described as tertiary at best - that's how deep the world of Mason Evans is. I've never cared so little that a story didn't have a defined beginning, middle, and end. I think that's because it feels like it's still being written. Linklater and the actors have spoken extensively in interviews about feeling a profound sense of loss after wrapping the picture, and it's easy to understand why. The story isn't over. I hope somebody writes a book about the production of this film. It certainly deserves one. 5/5
Birdman - In Birdman, Michael Keaton plays a hollywood actor who starred in a series of superhero (called Birdman) movies and has now written and is directing and acting in a Broadway show. I emphasize the Michael Keaton part, because the meta-narrative behind the whole thing is a huge part of the film. Keaton, who of course played Batman, is playing some version of himself. So too is Edward Norton, who is hard-to-get-along-with but immensely talented and popular and becomes Keaton's co-star after an unfortunate accident right before the show goes to previews. Birdman has its own gimmick. It's shot to look like one continuous take, with two important interruptions. The gimmick works. While Keaton isn't in every scene, his persona is always on the periphery. The on-the-surface story is tight and compelling, and a particular scene where he fights with an uppity critic has reportedly received plenty of in-theater applause, but there's so much more below the surface. The symbolism present in every scene is off the charts, and there's this little matter of whether or not he's crazy or even suicidal. It's a subtle convention that introduces itself in a big way within the first two minutes, and little hints are sprinkled throughout. The underlying narrative walks the line of heavy-handedness, but for my money always stays just on the right side. Alejandro González Iñarritu has at times been guilty of campiness in some of his previous projects, but Birdman is just about perfect. He has essentially made an accessible Charlie Kaufman film that is enriched by multiple viewings. An instant classic. 5/5
Sunday, February 22, 2015
Saturday, March 1, 2014
Academy Award Best Picture Nominees from 2013
Note: This is a new site that's been in the works for quite some time. The idea is big - maybe a bit too big - but we like where it's headed. Please enjoy this review of the movies nominated for Best Picture in 2013.
2013 was a quite strong year in the Best Picture category. I felt that 7 or perhaps 8 (I'm still a bit on the fence) were well deserved nominations. I've listed them below in order from worst to first, with a couple of paragraphs dedicated to each. Thanks for reading.
Nebraska - I like road trip movies, but I wasn't ecstatic about spending time with Will Forte, who I find to be intolerable. The best thing I can say about his performance in Nebraska is that it wasn't terrible. It didn't help that his character was poorly drawn. He was essentially the straight man for the Midwestern caricatures that dominated the landscape. Nothing about him changed until the end, when the script called for a redemptive moment. That moment, by the way, felt totally unearned and tacked on.
If it sounds like I hated the film, I sort of did. Part of that was due to my expectations going in. I'm a fan of Alexander Payne, and given the premise, I was hoping for something more along the lines of Sideways, which brilliantly walked the line between dark comedy and drama. Nebraska was no Sideways. Having said that, there's no way one can write more than a couple of sentences about this flick without mentioning Bruce Dern, who melted into the role of a grumpy old man who may or may not (but probably does) have dementia. It's too bad that his performance was wasted. Nebraska was a beautiful film with a creative concept that could have been executed well, if only the screenwriter had bothered to fill in the landscape with more than one believable character. 2.5/5
American Hustle - There's a story (perhaps urban legend) circulating about American Hustle that goes something like this: Christian Bale, ever the consummate professional (when he isn't yelling at the lighting guy), approached David O. Russell about some plot inconsistencies he noticed during filming and was rebuffed, with the director saying something along the lines of, "I don't care about the plot. I care about the characters."
I care about characters, too. A lot. But story is important. The story in American Hustle isn't bad - it's an above average psychological whodunnit that rewards multiple viewings. That story, fortunately, is elevated by the performances of a cast that ended up being an embarrassment of riches. Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Jeremy Renner (whom I normally dislike, but not here), Bradley Cooper, Louis CK (!), and especially Jennifer Lawrence all made this film extremely watchable, and a movie that I will most likely own. But it's thin in places (the eyeroll-worthy mafia scene comes immediately to mind), and I sort of wonder why it was nominated for Best Picture. It's the characters and the actors, obviously, but a Best Picture should be more than that. 4/5
Captain Phillips - Paul Greengrass is one of the finest action movie directors of our time. I love everything he's done. When he adapts a story from recent history, it's guaranteed to be thrill ride that doesn't let up until the satisfying ending. Captain Phillips does not disappoint in this regard. It's such an accomplishment to get that reaction from viewers when they already know how the story is going to end. There's no mystery as to what Captain Phillips' fate will be - this story is still fresh in our collective consciousness, as it was just in the news a couple of years ago. The thrill is found in getting there.
Part of the genius is that Greengrass trains us how to respond. The pirates attempt a hijacking and fail, so that when the second attempt is successful, we know just what went wrong and why. It's a devastating moment, made all the worse by Tom Hanks' nuanced portrayal of the captain. There were times when it got a little too blockbuster-ish - some of the supporting characters are literally "the no name guy who butted heads with the captain but respects him enough to help him in times of crisis" and "the loyal second mate." Despite that, it's a tight story with a satisfying payoff. 4/5
The Wolf of Wall Street - Based on disgraced Wall Street executive Jordan Belfort's poorly written memoir, The Wolf of Wall Street is a Martin Scorsese project through and through. The famed director pulls no punches, reaching into his bag of tricks to breathe some semblance of meaning into this tale of empty debauchery. Long takes over Belfort's shoulder remind viewers of Henry Hill in Goodfellas; when Belfort talks on the pay phone, there's some Travis Bickle (Taxi Driver) to him. References to Sam Rothstein in Casino are too numerous to count. Belfort is meant to be the latest in a long line of enigmatic Scorsese protagonists - but it doesn't quite work. Belfort is nothing more than some jerk who got rich ripping people off. He's the new Gordon Gekko, sans Daddy issues. Even his on-screen persona is fake - his signature quirk is a page out of his mentor's handbook.
I don't mean to insinuate that the story isn't compelling - DiCaprio is amazing in the title role, and there are more than a handful of memorable, perhaps iconic, scenes. Jonah Hill should get special mention as Belfort's right-hand man, and Kyle Chandler is a sensible (if a bit understated) villain. And yes, Scorsese did recycle some of his signature shots, but they're just as mesmerizing this time around. It's a fun 180 minutes, but it's also 180 minutes with a guy that I felt wasn't quite worthy of all that time. That the real Jordan Belfort showed up in a cameo at the end sealed it for me - either he doesn't get that the joke's on him, or (more likely) he doesn't care, because he has money (still!) and you don't. Sure, I need more of that in my life. 4/5
Philomena - I wasn't ready for this film. I knew the very basics going in - an older lady looks for her long-lost son with the help of a jaded old man and ends up turning him into a softie. It sounds trite, like a dozen other movies released every year, none of which have the good fortune to have Judi Dench attached, which probably (in my mind) explains this particular vehicle's critical acclaim.
It was so much better than that. Philomena (both the film and the titular character) has layers. There's a steadfastness about her, but she's not as simple as she lets on. Her traveling companion, Martin Sixsmith, thinks he's better than her, and by most standards, he is. "I now know what a lifetime of Reader's Digest, The Daily Mail, and romantic novels will do to a human brain," he confides to his editor when he finally gets a moment away. That naivete, as it turns out, is a well-tuned defense mechanism. She knows it's unlikely that her son, adopted against her will at 3, has thought about her much in the interim, so she pretends not to pick up on clues left behind for her, until she breaks. Dench's performance here makes the emotional lows and highs of the search that much more impactful. In a moment of brilliance, Martin interrupts Philomena's story about why her child was taken away with possibly the best two word audience surrogate quote ever: "F---ing Catholics." You might think Phil would argue with him, given her nature, but she stands silent. When she finds the truth about her son, it feels like a victory earned, and not just a convenient plot contrivance. So, too, is her redemptive turn at the end.
Another part of the formula that made this seemingly routine story feel fresh was the way Sixsmith's foil wasn't overdone. Sure, he was bitter and cynical, and that gave Philomena a trump card of sorts in their discussions, but they never felt forced. His demeanor was never cold, and in fact it was because he wanted to be Philomena's advocate that he allowed his natural negativity to rise to the surface. There were some problems - that the extended stay in America ended up being her idea seemed like a too-easy solution to manufactured conflict, for one, but overall, it was the nuance that set this film apart. 4.5/5
Gravity - Gravity is a beautiful picture, which is to be expected when Alfonso Cuaron is involved. Cuaron, famous for his amazing long takes that punctuated an already great film in Children of Men, ups his game here. The view from outer space is SPOILER ALERT gorgeous, and Gravity perhaps gives us a taste of just how magnificent the view is. At the very least, it's light years ahead of any other attempt at capturing said view.
The story, unfortunately, is a bit on the thin side. It would be unfair to compare Cuaron's work to Avatar, another film lauded for its visuals, because James Cameron's script was borderline insulting. Gravity is adequately tense for the standard thriller, and Bullock is convincing enough to carry the narrative by herself. REAL SPOILER ALERT THIS TIME Her survival was certainly a triumph, but it wasn't anything we haven't seen from a dozen other flicks. I suppose I might be guilty of expecting the story to rise to the impossible heights set by the cinematography. So be it. 4.5/5
Her - Her takes place in a weird, discomfiting version of the future, where people not only fall in love with their operating systems, but it's not really seen as all that strange. Then again, try going back in time 10 years and telling people that not only will "Twitter" and "tweet" be commonplace words used by adolescent and professional alike, but that we will be content to communicate with each other 140 characters at a time. Sure, a phone that becomes self-aware is a bit far-fetched, but an extremely personalized version of Siri? That seems extremely likely.
Theodore, expertly played by Joaquin Phoenix, is as at home in this world as an awkward introvert can be. He has no qualms telling his phone, out loud in a crowded elevator, to "play melancholy music." The thought of uttering that phrase in that context makes my skin crawl, but this a brave new world we're talking about, where the men wear high-waisted pants with no belts and no shame. The story is still pretty unbelievable, even considering the advance of technology as discussed above, and it would probably be inaccessible if Spike Jonez wasn't willing to hold our hands a bit along the way. I mean that in the best possible manner. When Theodore begins dating his OS (no, really), he first tells a small child, who laughs at him. Eventually, he tells his neighbor/friend, played by Amy Adams in her second best role in an Oscar nominee this year, and she pauses, before saying, "I think anybody who falls in love is a freak. It's a crazy thing to do. It's kind of like a form of socially acceptable insanity."
And there is Jonez' thesis. Why is it socially acceptable to be crazy in love in public, but not to talk to your phone? I'm oversimplifying, but the movie really does a great job of putting a spotlight on human emotion and how we can be easily manipulated (and in turn, manipulate others). For me, it was an unexpected human story that dragged a bit because of the nature of the premise. (One way to create conflict in a "man loves machine" story? Have the machine suggest a surrogate for herself. Awkward...and probably unnecessary.) I don't think Her is the best of this crop, but it's certainly the most unique. It has to be seen to be believed. 4.5/5
Dallas Buyers Club - Is there anybody that's elevated his game more than Matthew McConaughey has in the last 12 or so months? His too-short appearance in The Wolf of Wall Street is a standout moment in its own right, but barely deserves a mention alongside his work in True Detective (As of this writing, there are two episodes left in Season 1) and here in Dallas Buyers Club. It would have been very easy for McConaughey to slip into his typical Texan role that he puts on for the various advertisements he stars in around the Lone Star State, especially in a film that opens on a rodeo scene. However, his transcendent performance punctuates what would have already been a great film.
A movie focused on homosexuality and set in 1985 Dallas is probably going to be a bit preachy. There's no questioning which side of the fence Dallas Buyers Club is on, but it gets there not through long-winded monologues or weepy, half-hearted midnight confession sessions, but through regular old human empathy. After being diagnosed with HIV, Ron Woodroof's struggle is against the health care system that isn't interested in helping him stay alive, so having a common enemy with the gay community brings them together. The story of how he fights the system is plenty interesting, but it's the secondary characters of Eve and Rayon that really grabbed me. Their stories were expertly intertwined with Woodroof's, and Jared Leto was simply amazing. 5/5
12 Years a Slave – 12 Years a Slave is based on the memoir of Solomon Northup, a free man living in New York who was kidnapped and sent to the South to be sold. He was a slave for 12 years, as the title suggests, and director Steve McQueen wanted audiences to feel every moment. The camera lingers on gruesome scenes long past the point of discomfort. In a year where it seemed that every Best Picture nominee had multiple “don’t watch this movie with your parents” moments, 12 Years runs away with the title of “Hardest to Sit Through.”
It would be easy and reductive to characterize the film as yet another in a long series of generic “racism is bad” Oscar Bait pictures, as some already have. To do so misses the point entirely. Too often the villains in this genre are caricatures that are easily dismissed as the unfortunate realities of a bygone era. Here, the white slavers justify their actions – often to the slaves themselves! – using arguments we are all too familiar with today. One character appeals to economics (“My sentimentality extends the length of coin”); another asserts that he has the right to do what he wants with his property. Two of the slavers quote Scripture, claiming God is on their side of the argument. What’s forgotten, and not pointed out to any of the slave profiteers until almost two hours have elapsed, is that they’re dealing with human beings. The point is hammered home by the way Solomon slowly surrenders bits of his identity to avoid being detected.
Above all, 12 Years a Slave is humanizing. McQueen cuts right to the heart of the issue of slavery, and in doing so, his theme becomes universal, while still remaining true to the source material. Too often, Important Movies leave too much distance between history and audience, effectively bailing them out from having to do the hard work of reflection. Not so with 12 Years a Slave. What an outstanding achievement. 5/5
2013 was a quite strong year in the Best Picture category. I felt that 7 or perhaps 8 (I'm still a bit on the fence) were well deserved nominations. I've listed them below in order from worst to first, with a couple of paragraphs dedicated to each. Thanks for reading.
Nebraska - I like road trip movies, but I wasn't ecstatic about spending time with Will Forte, who I find to be intolerable. The best thing I can say about his performance in Nebraska is that it wasn't terrible. It didn't help that his character was poorly drawn. He was essentially the straight man for the Midwestern caricatures that dominated the landscape. Nothing about him changed until the end, when the script called for a redemptive moment. That moment, by the way, felt totally unearned and tacked on.
If it sounds like I hated the film, I sort of did. Part of that was due to my expectations going in. I'm a fan of Alexander Payne, and given the premise, I was hoping for something more along the lines of Sideways, which brilliantly walked the line between dark comedy and drama. Nebraska was no Sideways. Having said that, there's no way one can write more than a couple of sentences about this flick without mentioning Bruce Dern, who melted into the role of a grumpy old man who may or may not (but probably does) have dementia. It's too bad that his performance was wasted. Nebraska was a beautiful film with a creative concept that could have been executed well, if only the screenwriter had bothered to fill in the landscape with more than one believable character. 2.5/5
American Hustle - There's a story (perhaps urban legend) circulating about American Hustle that goes something like this: Christian Bale, ever the consummate professional (when he isn't yelling at the lighting guy), approached David O. Russell about some plot inconsistencies he noticed during filming and was rebuffed, with the director saying something along the lines of, "I don't care about the plot. I care about the characters."
I care about characters, too. A lot. But story is important. The story in American Hustle isn't bad - it's an above average psychological whodunnit that rewards multiple viewings. That story, fortunately, is elevated by the performances of a cast that ended up being an embarrassment of riches. Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Jeremy Renner (whom I normally dislike, but not here), Bradley Cooper, Louis CK (!), and especially Jennifer Lawrence all made this film extremely watchable, and a movie that I will most likely own. But it's thin in places (the eyeroll-worthy mafia scene comes immediately to mind), and I sort of wonder why it was nominated for Best Picture. It's the characters and the actors, obviously, but a Best Picture should be more than that. 4/5
Captain Phillips - Paul Greengrass is one of the finest action movie directors of our time. I love everything he's done. When he adapts a story from recent history, it's guaranteed to be thrill ride that doesn't let up until the satisfying ending. Captain Phillips does not disappoint in this regard. It's such an accomplishment to get that reaction from viewers when they already know how the story is going to end. There's no mystery as to what Captain Phillips' fate will be - this story is still fresh in our collective consciousness, as it was just in the news a couple of years ago. The thrill is found in getting there.
Part of the genius is that Greengrass trains us how to respond. The pirates attempt a hijacking and fail, so that when the second attempt is successful, we know just what went wrong and why. It's a devastating moment, made all the worse by Tom Hanks' nuanced portrayal of the captain. There were times when it got a little too blockbuster-ish - some of the supporting characters are literally "the no name guy who butted heads with the captain but respects him enough to help him in times of crisis" and "the loyal second mate." Despite that, it's a tight story with a satisfying payoff. 4/5
The Wolf of Wall Street - Based on disgraced Wall Street executive Jordan Belfort's poorly written memoir, The Wolf of Wall Street is a Martin Scorsese project through and through. The famed director pulls no punches, reaching into his bag of tricks to breathe some semblance of meaning into this tale of empty debauchery. Long takes over Belfort's shoulder remind viewers of Henry Hill in Goodfellas; when Belfort talks on the pay phone, there's some Travis Bickle (Taxi Driver) to him. References to Sam Rothstein in Casino are too numerous to count. Belfort is meant to be the latest in a long line of enigmatic Scorsese protagonists - but it doesn't quite work. Belfort is nothing more than some jerk who got rich ripping people off. He's the new Gordon Gekko, sans Daddy issues. Even his on-screen persona is fake - his signature quirk is a page out of his mentor's handbook.
I don't mean to insinuate that the story isn't compelling - DiCaprio is amazing in the title role, and there are more than a handful of memorable, perhaps iconic, scenes. Jonah Hill should get special mention as Belfort's right-hand man, and Kyle Chandler is a sensible (if a bit understated) villain. And yes, Scorsese did recycle some of his signature shots, but they're just as mesmerizing this time around. It's a fun 180 minutes, but it's also 180 minutes with a guy that I felt wasn't quite worthy of all that time. That the real Jordan Belfort showed up in a cameo at the end sealed it for me - either he doesn't get that the joke's on him, or (more likely) he doesn't care, because he has money (still!) and you don't. Sure, I need more of that in my life. 4/5
Philomena - I wasn't ready for this film. I knew the very basics going in - an older lady looks for her long-lost son with the help of a jaded old man and ends up turning him into a softie. It sounds trite, like a dozen other movies released every year, none of which have the good fortune to have Judi Dench attached, which probably (in my mind) explains this particular vehicle's critical acclaim.
It was so much better than that. Philomena (both the film and the titular character) has layers. There's a steadfastness about her, but she's not as simple as she lets on. Her traveling companion, Martin Sixsmith, thinks he's better than her, and by most standards, he is. "I now know what a lifetime of Reader's Digest, The Daily Mail, and romantic novels will do to a human brain," he confides to his editor when he finally gets a moment away. That naivete, as it turns out, is a well-tuned defense mechanism. She knows it's unlikely that her son, adopted against her will at 3, has thought about her much in the interim, so she pretends not to pick up on clues left behind for her, until she breaks. Dench's performance here makes the emotional lows and highs of the search that much more impactful. In a moment of brilliance, Martin interrupts Philomena's story about why her child was taken away with possibly the best two word audience surrogate quote ever: "F---ing Catholics." You might think Phil would argue with him, given her nature, but she stands silent. When she finds the truth about her son, it feels like a victory earned, and not just a convenient plot contrivance. So, too, is her redemptive turn at the end.
Another part of the formula that made this seemingly routine story feel fresh was the way Sixsmith's foil wasn't overdone. Sure, he was bitter and cynical, and that gave Philomena a trump card of sorts in their discussions, but they never felt forced. His demeanor was never cold, and in fact it was because he wanted to be Philomena's advocate that he allowed his natural negativity to rise to the surface. There were some problems - that the extended stay in America ended up being her idea seemed like a too-easy solution to manufactured conflict, for one, but overall, it was the nuance that set this film apart. 4.5/5
Gravity - Gravity is a beautiful picture, which is to be expected when Alfonso Cuaron is involved. Cuaron, famous for his amazing long takes that punctuated an already great film in Children of Men, ups his game here. The view from outer space is SPOILER ALERT gorgeous, and Gravity perhaps gives us a taste of just how magnificent the view is. At the very least, it's light years ahead of any other attempt at capturing said view.
The story, unfortunately, is a bit on the thin side. It would be unfair to compare Cuaron's work to Avatar, another film lauded for its visuals, because James Cameron's script was borderline insulting. Gravity is adequately tense for the standard thriller, and Bullock is convincing enough to carry the narrative by herself. REAL SPOILER ALERT THIS TIME Her survival was certainly a triumph, but it wasn't anything we haven't seen from a dozen other flicks. I suppose I might be guilty of expecting the story to rise to the impossible heights set by the cinematography. So be it. 4.5/5
Her - Her takes place in a weird, discomfiting version of the future, where people not only fall in love with their operating systems, but it's not really seen as all that strange. Then again, try going back in time 10 years and telling people that not only will "Twitter" and "tweet" be commonplace words used by adolescent and professional alike, but that we will be content to communicate with each other 140 characters at a time. Sure, a phone that becomes self-aware is a bit far-fetched, but an extremely personalized version of Siri? That seems extremely likely.
Theodore, expertly played by Joaquin Phoenix, is as at home in this world as an awkward introvert can be. He has no qualms telling his phone, out loud in a crowded elevator, to "play melancholy music." The thought of uttering that phrase in that context makes my skin crawl, but this a brave new world we're talking about, where the men wear high-waisted pants with no belts and no shame. The story is still pretty unbelievable, even considering the advance of technology as discussed above, and it would probably be inaccessible if Spike Jonez wasn't willing to hold our hands a bit along the way. I mean that in the best possible manner. When Theodore begins dating his OS (no, really), he first tells a small child, who laughs at him. Eventually, he tells his neighbor/friend, played by Amy Adams in her second best role in an Oscar nominee this year, and she pauses, before saying, "I think anybody who falls in love is a freak. It's a crazy thing to do. It's kind of like a form of socially acceptable insanity."
And there is Jonez' thesis. Why is it socially acceptable to be crazy in love in public, but not to talk to your phone? I'm oversimplifying, but the movie really does a great job of putting a spotlight on human emotion and how we can be easily manipulated (and in turn, manipulate others). For me, it was an unexpected human story that dragged a bit because of the nature of the premise. (One way to create conflict in a "man loves machine" story? Have the machine suggest a surrogate for herself. Awkward...and probably unnecessary.) I don't think Her is the best of this crop, but it's certainly the most unique. It has to be seen to be believed. 4.5/5
Dallas Buyers Club - Is there anybody that's elevated his game more than Matthew McConaughey has in the last 12 or so months? His too-short appearance in The Wolf of Wall Street is a standout moment in its own right, but barely deserves a mention alongside his work in True Detective (As of this writing, there are two episodes left in Season 1) and here in Dallas Buyers Club. It would have been very easy for McConaughey to slip into his typical Texan role that he puts on for the various advertisements he stars in around the Lone Star State, especially in a film that opens on a rodeo scene. However, his transcendent performance punctuates what would have already been a great film.
A movie focused on homosexuality and set in 1985 Dallas is probably going to be a bit preachy. There's no questioning which side of the fence Dallas Buyers Club is on, but it gets there not through long-winded monologues or weepy, half-hearted midnight confession sessions, but through regular old human empathy. After being diagnosed with HIV, Ron Woodroof's struggle is against the health care system that isn't interested in helping him stay alive, so having a common enemy with the gay community brings them together. The story of how he fights the system is plenty interesting, but it's the secondary characters of Eve and Rayon that really grabbed me. Their stories were expertly intertwined with Woodroof's, and Jared Leto was simply amazing. 5/5
12 Years a Slave – 12 Years a Slave is based on the memoir of Solomon Northup, a free man living in New York who was kidnapped and sent to the South to be sold. He was a slave for 12 years, as the title suggests, and director Steve McQueen wanted audiences to feel every moment. The camera lingers on gruesome scenes long past the point of discomfort. In a year where it seemed that every Best Picture nominee had multiple “don’t watch this movie with your parents” moments, 12 Years runs away with the title of “Hardest to Sit Through.”
It would be easy and reductive to characterize the film as yet another in a long series of generic “racism is bad” Oscar Bait pictures, as some already have. To do so misses the point entirely. Too often the villains in this genre are caricatures that are easily dismissed as the unfortunate realities of a bygone era. Here, the white slavers justify their actions – often to the slaves themselves! – using arguments we are all too familiar with today. One character appeals to economics (“My sentimentality extends the length of coin”); another asserts that he has the right to do what he wants with his property. Two of the slavers quote Scripture, claiming God is on their side of the argument. What’s forgotten, and not pointed out to any of the slave profiteers until almost two hours have elapsed, is that they’re dealing with human beings. The point is hammered home by the way Solomon slowly surrenders bits of his identity to avoid being detected.
Above all, 12 Years a Slave is humanizing. McQueen cuts right to the heart of the issue of slavery, and in doing so, his theme becomes universal, while still remaining true to the source material. Too often, Important Movies leave too much distance between history and audience, effectively bailing them out from having to do the hard work of reflection. Not so with 12 Years a Slave. What an outstanding achievement. 5/5
Friday, July 6, 2012
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)