My favorites from this year in movies.
What I liked, not necessarily the "best" or what I would recommend. Caveat Spectator!
In no particular order or ranking.
Special Jury Prize
Sucker Punch
Top 10
Drive
The Tree of Life
Melancholia
A Dangerous Method
Take Shelter
Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy
The Future
Like Crazy
The Descendants
Hugo
Documentary
Senna
Tabloid
Project Nim
Male performance
Michael Fassbender (Shame, A Dangerous Method, et al)
Woody Harellson (Rampart)
Tom Hardy (Tinker, Warrior)
Female performance
Felicity Jones (Like Crazy)
Charlize Theron (Young Adult)
Andrea Riseborough (Brighton Rock, W.E.)
Jessica Chastain (The Tree of Life, et al)
Carey Mulligan (Shame, Drive)
Emily Browning (Sucker Punch, Sleeping Beauty)
Keira Knightly (A Dangerous Method)
The rest
The Artist
Certified Copy
The Tree
Meek's Cutoff
Jane Eyre
Midnight in Paris
Contagion
Attack the Block
Win Win
Tomboy
Beginners
Harry Potter
Sleeping Beauty
Friday, December 16, 2011
Friday, February 25, 2011
Drive Angry
(2011 d. Patrick Lussier)
7 out of 10
This movie is ridiculous. Crazy stupid. But also a lot of fun.
Sort of in the same vein as the recent Pirannah 3D, but (as another review mentioned) much in common with early Sam Raimi (or late, if we're counting Drag Me to Hell).
Lussier was recently named one of Hollywood Reports hot new directors. Most on that list are indie guys, making serious dramas with weight and significance. But Lussier is making a grindhouse-esque, comedy-action romp, in 3D no less. But I think he's deserving of the buzz. This movie is expertly directed, and there is an amazingly well-edited (Lussier was also co-screenwriter and co-editor) sequence near the end.
Nicolas Cage is great, delivering purposely cheesy lines with deadpan sincerity. Quite a few memorable quotes here. Amber Heard is beautiful and pulls of some decent acting, too. Fichtner gets some great moments. The most annoying character was the main villain, a smarmy cult leader who's the targed of Cage's vengeance.
The trailer trumpeted how this was "SHOT in 3D" and that does make a huge difference. I'd still prefer if it were 2D, but overall the film looked great and the 3D gags fit perfectly with the overall tone of the movie.
Caveat - in keeping with the film's schlocky heritage, there are many, many, um..objectionable elements here. But the tone is light, and sufficiently self-aware to know when to back off and when to go completely overboard.
A big, crazy, ridiculous Saturday morning cartoon for adults.
7 out of 10
This movie is ridiculous. Crazy stupid. But also a lot of fun.
Sort of in the same vein as the recent Pirannah 3D, but (as another review mentioned) much in common with early Sam Raimi (or late, if we're counting Drag Me to Hell).
Lussier was recently named one of Hollywood Reports hot new directors. Most on that list are indie guys, making serious dramas with weight and significance. But Lussier is making a grindhouse-esque, comedy-action romp, in 3D no less. But I think he's deserving of the buzz. This movie is expertly directed, and there is an amazingly well-edited (Lussier was also co-screenwriter and co-editor) sequence near the end.
Nicolas Cage is great, delivering purposely cheesy lines with deadpan sincerity. Quite a few memorable quotes here. Amber Heard is beautiful and pulls of some decent acting, too. Fichtner gets some great moments. The most annoying character was the main villain, a smarmy cult leader who's the targed of Cage's vengeance.
The trailer trumpeted how this was "SHOT in 3D" and that does make a huge difference. I'd still prefer if it were 2D, but overall the film looked great and the 3D gags fit perfectly with the overall tone of the movie.
Caveat - in keeping with the film's schlocky heritage, there are many, many, um..objectionable elements here. But the tone is light, and sufficiently self-aware to know when to back off and when to go completely overboard.
A big, crazy, ridiculous Saturday morning cartoon for adults.
Monday, February 14, 2011
Secretariat
(2010 d. Randall Wallace)
9.5 out of 10
I never expected to love this.
I even kept putting off seeing it in the theatre, week after week, and almost passed by the dvd.
Old fashioned? Yes. Disney product? Sure.
But there's truth in this movie.
Some things aren't really cliches, they've just become devalued and used with insincerity. Cynicism and snarkiness usually reigns. I ache for a little genuine sincerity and heart. Where even the "corny" lines aren't corny because they actually mean something.
There's no sarcasm here. And I loved it.
Faith, hope, family, determination, success, perserverance, respect.
I cried. I cheered. I was inspired. I was encouraged. I was challenged.
I always believe that much of what makes a movie comes from the goal of the director. If there's something he or she really wants to say or communicate, that elevates the final product even if there are techincal or budget limitations. There were no budget limitations here, the film is beautifully shot, well acted, expertly constructed. But I think Wallace did have things he wanted to say. Some might've looked at the Disney "family film" product as a limitation, but he didn't.
There's kindness in this movie.
Genuinely uplifting - brushing aside the worthless and amplifying those things that edify.
"Remember that in a race everyone runs, but only one person gets the prize. You also must run in such a way that you will win." I Cor. 9:24
"I have fought a good fight, I have finished the race, and I have remained faithful." II Tim. 4:7
9.5 out of 10
I never expected to love this.
I even kept putting off seeing it in the theatre, week after week, and almost passed by the dvd.
Old fashioned? Yes. Disney product? Sure.
But there's truth in this movie.
Some things aren't really cliches, they've just become devalued and used with insincerity. Cynicism and snarkiness usually reigns. I ache for a little genuine sincerity and heart. Where even the "corny" lines aren't corny because they actually mean something.
There's no sarcasm here. And I loved it.
Faith, hope, family, determination, success, perserverance, respect.
I cried. I cheered. I was inspired. I was encouraged. I was challenged.
I always believe that much of what makes a movie comes from the goal of the director. If there's something he or she really wants to say or communicate, that elevates the final product even if there are techincal or budget limitations. There were no budget limitations here, the film is beautifully shot, well acted, expertly constructed. But I think Wallace did have things he wanted to say. Some might've looked at the Disney "family film" product as a limitation, but he didn't.
There's kindness in this movie.
Genuinely uplifting - brushing aside the worthless and amplifying those things that edify.
"Remember that in a race everyone runs, but only one person gets the prize. You also must run in such a way that you will win." I Cor. 9:24
"I have fought a good fight, I have finished the race, and I have remained faithful." II Tim. 4:7
Thursday, February 10, 2011
The Rite
(2011 d. Mikael Hafstrom)
5 out of 10
I'll admit it: I've never seen The Exorcist.
I'm not a particular fan of the genre. So, surprise I didn't find much to love here.
The lead (who I've never heard of, so nice break for him) is generally boring, but some of the blame has to go to the character as written. Anthony Hopkins is slumming. The most praise must be given to the relative Italian newcomer Marta Gastini. She's the one that has to play possessed the most: alternating between normalcy and deep-voiced craziness.
There is a particularly effective accident scene in the beginning, but otherwise thrills are nonexistant.
Michael Kovak doesn't believe in the devil. Wanting to escape his horrible funereal home life, he gets a scholarship to become a priest - intending to back out at the last minute with a college education and his freedom. But faced with possible loss of his scholarship, he accepts a trip to Rome to attend exorcism school. While in it's ultra-modern, multimedia classroom he has weak philosophical debates with the instructor, meets a reporter fellow student/disbeliever, and because he's a "hard case" - gets sent to the unorthodox preist, father Lucas to observe his chats with the demons. But he still doesn't believe despite seeing crazy, unexplained phenomena inches from his face. But then Lucas gets possessed (where and when is never addressed, why and how an exorcist himself could get possessed is never addressed) and Kovak must believe in order to not get killed by the raving, vein-popping, Lucas. But his sudden, instant, unexplained, unreasonable change from skeptic to believer is ridiculous, a Deus ex machina (demon ex machina?) that just happens because we're closing in on the 2-hour mark.
As the devil/Lucas is laughing hysterically because Kovak confesses his belief in the devil, Kovak comes back with the almost comedic "if I believe in the Devil, then I believe in God, too!" as holy water and crosses fly, buildings crumble, the earth shakes, and ominous Latin phrases boom out into the night.
But up to this point, Kovak had never claimed total disbelief, or confessed himself Atheist. Only that he thought "demonic possession" could always be linked to psychological causes. So if he did believe in God, wouldn't that necessitate the belief in the devil (since apparently the opposite is true)?
Also of note: exoricsm here apparently requires no special personal or spiritual skills (still not sure why "training" was required), only the ability to read Latin and shout very loudly. Since Kovak was far from the ideal student (always late, combative) if practice was required, there'd be no way he'd suddenly be able to have the skill set to stand face-to-face with a demon strong enough to possess an experienced exorcist. Just DON'T LOSE THAT LITTLE BOOK!!! Or maybe just memorize it?
5 out of 10
I'll admit it: I've never seen The Exorcist.
I'm not a particular fan of the genre. So, surprise I didn't find much to love here.
The lead (who I've never heard of, so nice break for him) is generally boring, but some of the blame has to go to the character as written. Anthony Hopkins is slumming. The most praise must be given to the relative Italian newcomer Marta Gastini. She's the one that has to play possessed the most: alternating between normalcy and deep-voiced craziness.
There is a particularly effective accident scene in the beginning, but otherwise thrills are nonexistant.
Michael Kovak doesn't believe in the devil. Wanting to escape his horrible funereal home life, he gets a scholarship to become a priest - intending to back out at the last minute with a college education and his freedom. But faced with possible loss of his scholarship, he accepts a trip to Rome to attend exorcism school. While in it's ultra-modern, multimedia classroom he has weak philosophical debates with the instructor, meets a reporter fellow student/disbeliever, and because he's a "hard case" - gets sent to the unorthodox preist, father Lucas to observe his chats with the demons. But he still doesn't believe despite seeing crazy, unexplained phenomena inches from his face. But then Lucas gets possessed (where and when is never addressed, why and how an exorcist himself could get possessed is never addressed) and Kovak must believe in order to not get killed by the raving, vein-popping, Lucas. But his sudden, instant, unexplained, unreasonable change from skeptic to believer is ridiculous, a Deus ex machina (demon ex machina?) that just happens because we're closing in on the 2-hour mark.
As the devil/Lucas is laughing hysterically because Kovak confesses his belief in the devil, Kovak comes back with the almost comedic "if I believe in the Devil, then I believe in God, too!" as holy water and crosses fly, buildings crumble, the earth shakes, and ominous Latin phrases boom out into the night.
But up to this point, Kovak had never claimed total disbelief, or confessed himself Atheist. Only that he thought "demonic possession" could always be linked to psychological causes. So if he did believe in God, wouldn't that necessitate the belief in the devil (since apparently the opposite is true)?
Also of note: exoricsm here apparently requires no special personal or spiritual skills (still not sure why "training" was required), only the ability to read Latin and shout very loudly. Since Kovak was far from the ideal student (always late, combative) if practice was required, there'd be no way he'd suddenly be able to have the skill set to stand face-to-face with a demon strong enough to possess an experienced exorcist. Just DON'T LOSE THAT LITTLE BOOK!!! Or maybe just memorize it?
Thursday, February 3, 2011
The Mechanic
(2010 d. Simon West)
6 out of 10
Ah, the romantacism of the lone hitman. Cool, efficient, with good taste, and great physical accomplishments. But with a conscience lurking somewhere underneath. What makes them such great cinematic characters?
A reasonably stylish Jason Statham vehicle. The violence was much more brutal and painful than expected (even with cgi blood). Not a single plot twist was a surprise, but some cool stunts and Foster's INTENSITY (as well as some interesting acting choices) made this enjoyable. I especially appreciated the well-edited action sequences - comprised of a lot of shots/setups but without ever losing spatial awareness or the through-line of the stunt.
6 out of 10
Ah, the romantacism of the lone hitman. Cool, efficient, with good taste, and great physical accomplishments. But with a conscience lurking somewhere underneath. What makes them such great cinematic characters?
A reasonably stylish Jason Statham vehicle. The violence was much more brutal and painful than expected (even with cgi blood). Not a single plot twist was a surprise, but some cool stunts and Foster's INTENSITY (as well as some interesting acting choices) made this enjoyable. I especially appreciated the well-edited action sequences - comprised of a lot of shots/setups but without ever losing spatial awareness or the through-line of the stunt.
Sunday, January 30, 2011
Every Day
(2010 d. Richard Levine)
6 out of 10
The trailer played before The King's Speech. Family crises. Disfunction. Infidelity. But halfway through the preview it started to take a slightly different turn. Maybe this wasn't just another cynical view of middle America. And the cast was impressive - Leiv Schreiber, Helen Hunt, Brian Dennehy, Carla Gugino.
Unfortuantely it wasn't quite the original, different film that I was hoping for. There are a lot of movie cliches that if done well can provoke new, refreshing observations or emotions. As if the familiarity of the situation let's viewers focus more on character and the subtleties of the acting. But if done poorly, it's just cliche. This movie falls somewhere in the middle.
Schreiber and Hunt are having marriage challenges. He's overworked at his job writing for a sleazy cable tv drama (Levine wrote for Nip/Tuck), as well as advances from his sexy co-worker (and of course, they'll have to work together...). She's stressed by the illness of her
depressive father, who because of her daughterly "guilt" has brought him home to live with them. Their eldest son also just came out that surprise - he's gay and wants to start pushing the boundaries of parental discipline.
I really like the acting in this movie. It's small, understated, and realistic. They all seem like a real family, and the everyday occurences (breakfast, school, etc.) are authentic. I was empathetic to their struggles, and hopeful that they would pull themselves together and make this family work. I also liked that the director really seemed to have a point - there was a reason he wanted this movie to exist. And he genuinely loved his characters.
But the tone of the movie fluctuates a little too much. From serious drama at home, to comedy at the office - from complete naturalness to somewhat overwritten snappy dialogue and comebacks. And there aren't any surprises in the plot. We always know where we are and exactly where we're going.
As a first feature it's an accomplishment. Somewhat modest, but with a great cast and a competent technical team. I just wish we could have a movie family drama without repeating the same Independent film cliches.
Every Day
6 out of 10
The trailer played before The King's Speech. Family crises. Disfunction. Infidelity. But halfway through the preview it started to take a slightly different turn. Maybe this wasn't just another cynical view of middle America. And the cast was impressive - Leiv Schreiber, Helen Hunt, Brian Dennehy, Carla Gugino.
Unfortuantely it wasn't quite the original, different film that I was hoping for. There are a lot of movie cliches that if done well can provoke new, refreshing observations or emotions. As if the familiarity of the situation let's viewers focus more on character and the subtleties of the acting. But if done poorly, it's just cliche. This movie falls somewhere in the middle.
Schreiber and Hunt are having marriage challenges. He's overworked at his job writing for a sleazy cable tv drama (Levine wrote for Nip/Tuck), as well as advances from his sexy co-worker (and of course, they'll have to work together...). She's stressed by the illness of her
depressive father, who because of her daughterly "guilt" has brought him home to live with them. Their eldest son also just came out that surprise - he's gay and wants to start pushing the boundaries of parental discipline.
I really like the acting in this movie. It's small, understated, and realistic. They all seem like a real family, and the everyday occurences (breakfast, school, etc.) are authentic. I was empathetic to their struggles, and hopeful that they would pull themselves together and make this family work. I also liked that the director really seemed to have a point - there was a reason he wanted this movie to exist. And he genuinely loved his characters.But the tone of the movie fluctuates a little too much. From serious drama at home, to comedy at the office - from complete naturalness to somewhat overwritten snappy dialogue and comebacks. And there aren't any surprises in the plot. We always know where we are and exactly where we're going.
As a first feature it's an accomplishment. Somewhat modest, but with a great cast and a competent technical team. I just wish we could have a movie family drama without repeating the same Independent film cliches.
Every Day
Thursday, January 27, 2011
DVD update #1
In order to maintain my pretentious sophistication, this blog will only contain reviews of films that I have seen in a large-format, theatrical presentation. However, as an aid to record keeping and for the one or two souls interested, I'll try to maintain a list of movies seen on dvd/tv/etc. If in the rare instance where my more detailed opinion on any particular title is desired, let me know and I will consider it.
Soul Kitchen (2009) 6 out of 10
Red Cliff (uncut International version) (2008) 7.5 out of 10 epic!
Mondo Cane (1965) 1 out of 10
La Notte (1965) 6.5 out of 10 Monica Vitti!
And Soon the Darkness (2009) 6 out of 10
Soul Kitchen (2009) 6 out of 10
Red Cliff (uncut International version) (2008) 7.5 out of 10 epic!
Mondo Cane (1965) 1 out of 10
La Notte (1965) 6.5 out of 10 Monica Vitti!
And Soon the Darkness (2009) 6 out of 10
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
