| |
| Author |
Message |
|
| gromit |
 Posted: Mon Feb 15, 2016 8:42 am |
 |
|
Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 9016
Location: Shanghai
|
I enjoyed Straight Outta Compton
It recreates a time and place and has some very good scenes.
It also helped that I wasn't terribly familiar with the artists and events.
It's not exactly subtle, but those weren't subtle times.
And he second half gets a little formulaic.
The cast is quite good.
I still have little to no interest in the music besides as a cultural artifact.
It's also pretty misogynistic -- women are just barely dressed accessories. I wonder what females think of the film. |
_________________
Killing your enemies, if it's done badly, increases their number. |
|
| Back to top |
  
|
| inlareviewer |
| Posted: Mon Feb 22, 2016 11:02 pm |
|
|
Joined: 05 Jul 2004
Posts: 1949
Location: Lawrence, KS
|
A recent indisposition afforded the time to catch up on screeners/streamers in advance of next Sunday's whoop-up. In alphabetical order:
45 Years has just been 10-Second-Film reviewed by us on that forum, and we stand by that assessment, only to add that Mr. Courtenay is every bit as potent in his way as Ms. Rampling is in hers, and that director Andrew Haigh just keeps getting more and more economical of effect and invisible of technique. A tiny slowburn emotional landmine of a film.
Beasts of No Nation isn't quite as groundbreaking or as harrowing as its proponents would have, not least because, for all the quasi-documentary power of its trip into Hell, it doesn't really counter the carnage and loss of innocence with a societal underpinning that would make it more than an admittedly gripping exercise in internecine West African warfare, or explore the internal workings of its young antihero to the degree that would lend the intended chilling irony to the final, would-be hopeful coda. That said, as a kind of militaristic Fagin-meets-Bill Sykes, Idris Elba burns up the screen, and his failure to snag a nod from that, um, film society is a robbery on a par with the omission of Room's Jacob Tremblay from the nominee roster. For that matter, so is the absence of Beasts, for though we may be praising it with faint damns, it's unquestionably a work of considerable impact and accomplishment, difficult yet necessary.
The Big Short does some things very adroitly and wittily in its post-Pirandello take on the economic meltdown of 2008, largely due to a consistently inventive screenplay, and there's some extremely effective playing from Steve Carrell, Christian Bale and others, with the panoply of supporting players and cameos including an unrecognizable Melissa Leo. However, as much fun as it often is, it's also inevitably all over the place stylistically -- director Adam McKay is more comfortable at wacky geek humor than a unified sense of tone -- and the late-inning shift to a more sober view of this all-too-possible-to-be-repeated global catastrophe ought to be more unnerving than it seemed to us. Still, any movie that explains sub-prime mortgages by turning the camera over to Margot Robbie in a bubble bath is doing something right, and if its artistry is variable, the intentions are never less than admirable, and often more.
The Danish Girl, on the other hand, made us wonder whether Tom Hooper's acclaim for The King's Speech was a fluke. By focusing this fictionalized account of real-life transgender pioneer Einar Wegener on the visuals of not just art but architecture and fashion of the 20s and 30s, Hooper once again paints a gorgeous picture, but the elusive, diaphanous gist of the story is almost as ephemeral as a water color by Christine Jorgenson's podiatrist. Eddie Redmayne has been excoriated in these and other parts as being overrated, but we didn't find him so here -- the performance is a technical marvel of sometimes overt, sometimes evanescent variants of sexual being, and his fine-boned face often registers more genuine anguish and conflict than the hopelessly pedestrian screenplay affords him. Still, the technique is always visible, and am not sure that's the most useful thing in this sort of biopic. More submerged, and inadvertently showing up what might have been, is Alicia Vikander, whose devoted spouse Gerda (unfortunately shorn of the bisexuality that was part and parcel of her real-life make-up) presents an often affecting study of the complexities of love, albeit in a movie that rarely lives up to the possibilities inherent in its never-more-trenchant subject matter and which hardly made us feel what it needed to do to be a success at storytelling.
Speaking of all over the place stylistically, Joy is, barring Jennifer Lawrence's endearing deadpan-with-twinkle title performance as Miracle Mop maven Joy Mangano, one of David O. Russell's shakiest efforts in years. There are flashes of the old Flirting With Disaster and Three Kings approach; two lovely turns from Diane Ladd and a woefully underused Virginia Madsen; some tickling uses of real-life soap stars such as Susan Lucci and Anthony Benard, etc.; and a great deal of self-congratulatory playing from Robert De Niro, Bradley Cooper, Isabella Rossellini, and so on, in a storyline that uneasily melds domestic dramedy with cultural satire, and leaves both aspects not exactly fulfilled dramatically. It's not terrible, it has its moments, and, again, JLaw does yeoman work; but ultimately it does seem a missed opportunity, ultimately too conventional and uneven to genuinely surprise, thrill or uplift.
The Martian is a surefire popcorn-cruncher of a film, inescapably marred by over-length, lapses in logic and sine too-earnest/arch supporting turns, helped immeasurably by Matt Damon's effortlessly charming, easy-to-root-for hero and helmer Ridley Scott (in our opinion, along with Todd Haynes the directorial omission in Oscarland this year), whose long-since-established expertise at matters interplanetary is here at its zenith. While the ending was foreseeable -- any other conclusion and the audience would likely have ripped the screen down in IMAX shreds -- it was also fairly gratifying, and, as old-school-gone-postmillennial excursions go, it made us happy to have seen it.
Nothing conventional could be applied in description of Steve Jobs, in which Danny Boyle, Aaron Sorkin and a selfless Michael Fassbender telescope the late Apple visionary into three conveniently spaced segments, each dealing with a particularly noteworthy software launch. Screenwriter Sorkin's much-vaunted knack for rat-a-tat dialogue is in full-frontal form, even if at times it does slightly tax suspension of disbelief -- in a Sorkin script, people speak with the kind of droll wit and nonstop bravura that life seldom affords even the brightest of people -- and the gradated look of the piece through the eras is remarkably well-handled. So is the cast, with Mr. Fassbender managing through sheer will power to turn himself into a real-life figure he couldn't resemble less. The great Michael Stuhlbarg is particularly effective as Jobs' number one programmer, Seth Rogan has some great moments as Apple's co-founder, and, as the platonic work wife who kept Jobs from implosion, Kate Winslet neatly walks off with the film in a wholly inhabited, transformative performance.
And then, there's Trumbo, which is another missed opportunity, in that it nails the key issues in Dalton Trumbo's`descent due to HUAAC and rise due to B-movies without telling, or rather, showing us anything remotely new. So the Trumbo family had to scramble to survive Dad first in prison, then in ghost-writing limbo. So John Wayne and Louis B. Mayer were reactionary jerks. So people who named names were given more respect than those who didn't at the time. Maybe we're just too knowing of Hollywood or D.C. history, but none of this was news to us, and director Jay Roach isn't exactly Stephen Frears or Robert Altman. Bryan Cranston gets the physical and vocal details down, but he never once made us forget he was Bryan Cranston playing a role, as opposed to, say, Helen Mirren, who digs way deep into the smiling poison-pill that was Hedda Hopper, or, again, Michael Stuhlbarg, who eschews imitation as Edward G. Robinson and is incredibly moving while doing so. Visually, it's a beautiful document, era details nicely handled, and it's certainly a story worth retelling -- but Lifetime TV hangs heavily over both script and execution.
Edited for misspelling |
Last edited by inlareviewer on Thu Feb 25, 2016 3:38 pm; edited 3 times in total
_________________
"And take extra care with strangers/Even flowers have their dangers/And though scary is exciting/Nice is different than good." --Stephen Sondheim |
|
| Back to top |
|
| gromit |
| Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2016 3:43 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 9016
Location: Shanghai
|
I had the same reaction to Joy and Trumbo. There were good elements in place, but overall they mostly fizzled. Joy lacked cohesion, Trumbo lacked a spark. Not knowing who Bryan Cranston is, I didn't have your specific problem, but the character still seemed kind of a cipher or underdeveloped. Actually a week or so after viewing I realized Cranston was the pancreatic cancer spokesperson on MSG.
I also had a similar response to the good Big Short and very good Jobs.
I sort of hated all the dialogue and the entire tone of The Martian, everyone is a renegade macho type full of quips, just like all highly trained astronauts (/roll of eyes). I usually like Damon and the recent sci-fi renaissance has produced a lot of interesting films. But The Martian annoyed me. And don't even get me started on Damon's excretions ...
Didn't see the others, and probably won't, except maybe might give Beasts a go. |
Last edited by gromit on Tue Feb 23, 2016 10:59 am; edited 1 time in total
_________________
Killing your enemies, if it's done badly, increases their number. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| bartist |
| Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2016 10:21 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 27 Apr 2010
Posts: 6965
Location: Black Hills
|
| Gromit, have you not heard of Breaking Bad? That's Cranston in the lead role. I know we avoid the "must see" phrase here, but I would urge you to at least give season one a look. And then you'll understand why Cranston might be chosen a cancer spokesman. Not sure what MSG stands for, in this context. |
_________________
He was wise beyond his years, but only by a few days. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| gromit |
| Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2016 10:56 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 9016
Location: Shanghai
|
MSG = Madison Square Garden (aka the Mecca of Basketball).
Cranston is a spokesperson for pancreatic cancer research on the MSG Network. It's all owned by James Dolan who also owns IFC Films. One MSG employee died of pancreatic cancer, so they set up The Lustgarden Foundation in his memory and they say that 100% of donations go to pancreatic cancer research (MSG pays the administrative expenses). Previously they had Jimmy Carter as a spokesperson for the foundation -- he said that a number of his family members died from pancreatic cancer -- and I forget who was the spokesperson before that.
I've heard of Breaking Bad, but didn't know Cranston was in it.
I don't really watch tv series.
They have the dvd's here, but I don't indulge (except for the Simpsons, which I can buy a whole season on one disc). Well, a few years back I did buy and watch the first 2 seasons of Deadwood and The Sopranos. I also have the complete Get Smart, Twilight Zone, & All in the Family. Plus about 6 seasons of Alfred Hitchcock Presents, and Season 3 of the Mary Tyler Moore Show (the only year that turned up). I also have Underdog and Mr. Magoo as well. Probably a couple more if I think about.
I contemplated buying Naked City, the 50's noir series, but it's the complete box set and something like 40 discs. I'd be up for buying the first season or two. |
Last edited by gromit on Wed Feb 24, 2016 2:20 am; edited 1 time in total
_________________
Killing your enemies, if it's done badly, increases their number. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| billyweeds |
| Posted: Tue Feb 23, 2016 12:30 pm |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
Love seeing all these reviews, even though they don't always adhere to my POV. I adored Joy partly for its admittedly all-over-the-place style, as well as the wonderful JLaw perf and the equally great one by Edgar Ramirez. Disliked The Big Short for the reasons inlareviewer cited as well as the fact that I couldn't fucking understand one thing about it. Liked Trumbo quite a bit despite agreeing with the general criticism; voted for Cranston above DiCaprio on the SAG ballot, but the waste of Diane Lane was criminal.
Room should win Best Picture but doesn't stand a chance. But none of my faves are on the ballot anyway. This was kind of a lame year for the movies. IMO. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| inlareviewer |
| Posted: Wed Feb 24, 2016 1:27 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 05 Jul 2004
Posts: 1949
Location: Lawrence, KS
|
billyweeds wrote: Love seeing all these reviews, even though they don't always adhere to my POV. I adored Joy partly for its admittedly all-over-the-place style, as well as the wonderful JLaw perf and the equally great one by Edgar Ramirez. Disliked The Big Short for the reasons inlareviewer cited as well as the fact that I couldn't fucking understand one thing about it. Liked Trumbo quite a bit despite agreeing with the general criticism; voted for Cranston above DiCaprio on the SAG ballot, but the waste of Diane Lane was criminal.
Room should win Best Picture but doesn't stand a chance. But none of my faves are on the ballot anyway. This was kind of a lame year for the movies. IMO.
willybeeds, I didn't detest Joy, but didn't adore it, and forgot about Mr. Ramirez (almost wish they'd just focused on her and him, maybe the most interesting relationship in the fillum). As for Big Short, I didn't hate it, at all, but, man, it's all over the place, and as for Trumbo, just wish it had been more up to its potential, though can only agree about the waste of La Lane, who gave it her considerable more but was at the mercy of a skim-the-surface script. And obviously I second the sentiment for Room, still my #1 movie of last year. Ah, well. |
_________________
"And take extra care with strangers/Even flowers have their dangers/And though scary is exciting/Nice is different than good." --Stephen Sondheim |
|
| Back to top |
|
| billyweeds |
| Posted: Wed Feb 24, 2016 1:04 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
| The favorite for the Foreign Language Oscar is Son of Saul. It puts you in the middle of a German concentration camp like a 2016 version of the ancient TV show You Are There. It's astounding and splendid, but makes Schindler's List and Shoah look like Mary Poppins. You must be ready. It's that hard to watch. But it's worth it. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| Ghulam |
| Posted: Wed Feb 24, 2016 2:14 pm |
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 4742
Location: Upstate NY
|
.
The British "45 Years" and the Hungarian "Son of Soul" are arguably two of the finest movies of 2015.
The former is the story of an elderly couple preparing to celebrate the 45th anniversary of their marriage when the upsurge of a topic long suppressed shakes up their idyllic lives. Oscar nominated Charlotte Rampling is fantastic. Best role for Tom Courtenay since "The Dresser".
"Son of Saul", a favorite to win an Oscar on Sunday, is set in an Auschwitz Nazi extermination center and puts us right in the middle of the horrific proceedings more than any other movie has done so far. The story of a Hungarian Jew enslaved to carry out the gassing of his own people is harrowing. The core of the story is allegorical or surreal but it is the setting which haunts us long after we leave the theater.
. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| billyweeds |
| Posted: Wed Feb 24, 2016 2:48 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
| Son of Saul seems to be the movie du jour. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| inlareviewer |
| Posted: Thu Feb 25, 2016 3:37 pm |
|
|
|
Joined: 05 Jul 2004
Posts: 1949
Location: Lawrence, KS
|
| Can only agree about 45 Years, which easily bumped several contenders on the last year's list, and am seeing Son of Saul tonight. |
_________________
"And take extra care with strangers/Even flowers have their dangers/And though scary is exciting/Nice is different than good." --Stephen Sondheim |
|
| Back to top |
|
| Befade |
| Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2016 12:51 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 3784
Location: AZ
|
| Billy.....Glad to hear someone else thought The Big Short was short on communicating what it was all about. I do like Steve Carell, though. |
_________________
Lost in my own private I dunno. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| gromit |
| Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2016 3:53 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 9016
Location: Shanghai
|
| Basically banks were willing to issue high-risk mortgages because they were able to resell them as Grade A financial products through chicanery (and collusion with the rating agencies). They also made money churning out crap mortgages that were of no risk to themselves, because a ready market existed to sell them into. Some folks got wind of the housing bubble/mortgage scam going down and concocted a way to bet that these mortgage-derived securities would fail. |
Last edited by gromit on Sat Feb 27, 2016 8:08 am; edited 1 time in total
_________________
Killing your enemies, if it's done badly, increases their number. |
|
| Back to top |
|
| billyweeds |
| Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2016 7:16 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 20 May 2004
Posts: 20618
Location: New York City
|
gromit wrote: Basically banks were willing to issue high-risk mortgages because they were able to resell them as Grade A financial products through chicanery (and collusion with the rating agencies). They also made money issuing mortgages that were of no risk to themselves, because a ready market existed to sell them into. Some folks got wind of the housing bubble/mortgage scam going down and concocted a way to bet that these mortgage-derived securities would fail.
Thanks for this explanation of The Big Short. Too bad the movie didn't do as clear a job. I more or less loathed it. But, yes, Carell (and to a lesser extent Pitt) were good. I really detested Bale's performance. But WTFDIK? He's getting the lion's share of praise. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
| gromit |
| Posted: Sat Feb 27, 2016 7:58 am |
|
|
|
Joined: 31 Aug 2004
Posts: 9016
Location: Shanghai
|
I mostly liked The Big Short, though felt the scenes with guys acting edgy and aggressive in meeting rooms were kind of awkward, and goofy. Thought Bale and Carrell were both very good.
Impressive they managed to dramatize a bunch of business deals.
I wasn't a big fan of the style, but it wasn't too distracting.
Otherwise I'm amazed that Steve Jobs didn't get a screenwriting nomination. |
_________________
Killing your enemies, if it's done badly, increases their number. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
All times are GMT - 5 Hours
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
