tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-79839682351825387402024-02-18T19:14:15.822-08:00Andy's Eye on FilmMovie reviews and opinions from an eye surgeon, ex-Army, movie lover!andyeye86http://www.blogger.com/profile/09863649309798299832noreply@blogger.comBlogger21125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983968235182538740.post-83752872159838025242024-02-18T19:13:00.000-08:002024-02-18T19:13:20.531-08:00Oscar's Best 2023<p>2023 was an atypical year, as far as which type of movies got nominated for best picture Oscars, as well as for my thoughts about those movies. My opinions are a little contradictory this year; features I enjoyed in one movie might be the same feature I didn't like in another. For example, I loved how silly "Poor Things" was and yet didn't like "Barbie" as much because it was too "silly". I believe this is also the first year in which three foreign language films got nominated in the Best Picture category. My top three films this year were easily placed. After that, it could have been just about any order, and I rearranged it several times. As usual, there were also several movies that I really enjoyed and felt should have gotten more attention. "The Iron Claw" was shockingly good. I was expecting a formulaic wrestling movie but got a well-crafted and deeply emotional family drama. Hats off to Zach Effron, for delivering an Oscar worthy performance. "The Boys in the Boat" did deliver a formulaic film, but the formula exists because the formula tends to work. "Air" was another very entertaining movie, with a great soundtrack, and safe for the entire family. "Society of the Snow" is an intense recounting of the Uruguayan Rugby team that crashes in the Andes. If you're looking for a little more action, I enjoyed "The Covenant", starring Jake Gyllenhaal and directed by Guy Richie. As always, I welcome all comments, if they agree with my opinions or not. Tell me what movies you liked, or didn't, and maybe what you think got overlooked......</p><p>1) <u>OPPENHEIMER</u>: For me, this is the best movie of the past 5 years, or perhaps longer. Christopher Nolan is rapidly making a run at "best living Director". He never fails to deliver visually gorgeous images, heart pounding action, smart writing, complex plots, and A-list performances. I suspect everyone knows this movie is about the development of the Atomic Bomb which was eventually dropped on Japan. Personally, I'm partial to actor driven movies, with the good writing being the second most pivotal feature I'm drawn to. Although, even great acting can't always rescue bad writing. Cillian Murphy delivers a deep, complex, powerful yet nuanced performance. His range of expression is awe inspiring. He's seemingly able to portray several conflicting emotions at once. Robert Downey Jr. is his amazing self as Lewis Strauss. I expect, and hope, both will win best acting Oscars. Emily Blunt and the rest of the supporting cast are equally amazing, in lesser but important roles. The music, the cinematography, the pace, the direction, all just add to the power and beauty of this film. There's a reason this movie got the most nominations (13) of any film this year. I particularly enjoyed the scenes in which the various scientists debate the science of various obstacle to be overcome. Each scientist is passionate about their own opinion and are eloquent in defense of it. However, as it should be in science, facts and math win out in the end. You can argue opinion, but not facts. Math doesn't lie. The scene in which the bomb is first tested is one of the most memorable scenes in recent memory. The silence during the anticipation of the countdown, followed by the KaBoom, and its chaotic aftermath, was simply breath taking. I loved just about everything about film. Of course, I'm still of the opinion that no movie needs to be 3 hours long, but "Oppenheimer" may be an exception. My only minor criticism would be about the ending. The testing scene was so powerful, I'd have liked that be the end. However, it was followed by a fairly lengthy "trial" sequence, in which efforts are made to discredit Oppenheimer. While understandably necessary, I felt those scenes were far less dramatic and lessened the impact of the explosion. That being said, I'll be rooting for Oppenheimer to win every award it was nominated for!</p><p>2) <u>POOR THINGS</u>: Talk about original! Yorgos Lanthimos has directed some of the strangest movies. "The Lobster" and "The Killing of a Scared Deer" are far too odd to easily explain. Weird doesn't even begin to describe them. I think his most popular film, "The Favourite", was his first mainstream film, it garnered 10 Oscar nominations, and was his first collaboration with Emma Stone. The plot chronicles the physical and emotional development of Bella Baxter, played by Stone. Bella has an adult body when she's reborn with an infant's brain. We share in her journey of physical, emotional and intellectual transformation. Her acting, particularly her physical performance, is hard to describe, and impossible to praise too highly. Willem Dafoe plays a physically disfigured physician, in the mold of Dr. Frankenstein, while Mark Ruffalo plays Bella's first love interest. He teaches her about the ways of the world, social norms, and carnal pleasures. All three actors are at the top of their game. Every word, action and mannerism seems genuine. Every set, backdrop, costume, sound and spoken word has been clearly and carefully considered, artfully crafted, perfectly performed and brilliantly directed, with genuine passion, even love. Ordinarily I'm put off by silly or nonsensical scenes or movies. Having a medical background, I find myself overly critical of medical scenes that aren't accurate or authentic. Just like my military background makes me more critical of inaccurate military scenarios. That being said, this entire movie is so outlandish and over the top, that all the silly, crazy and impossible situations just somehow work and further the plot. Want to take someone's brain out and pop it in to another head? Why not! This movie may be just too odd for some: so, as much as I enjoyed this masterpiece, I'm not sure I'd blanket recommend it to everyone.</p><p>3) <u>KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON</u>: I believe Martin Scorsese is currently the best living director. I'm also of the debatable opinion that Leonardo DiCaprio is the best working male actor and that Robert DeNiro once also held that distinction. This film is set in the 1920s Oklahoma, home of the oil rich indigenous people of the Osage Nation. There are conspiracies, murders, and other crimes, committed in an effort to rob the Osage of their oil rights. I loved just about every part of this movie. The direction and acting were what you'd expect from this A-list. I particularly enjoyed watching Leo play a somewhat dimwitted rube, who is easily manipulated. The cinematography and depictions of the Osage people was simply breathtaking. Scorsese fingerprints are all over this movie. So, typically there are a number of things that make me like a movie less. In this one, I liked every individual part, but still didn't love the movie as a whole. With a 3 hour 26-minute run time it was simply too long. Much of the action and beauty simply didn't move the story forward and the plot wasn't that complex to require so much time. I likened it to a long stroll through a beautiful forest. It may be gorgeous and invigorating, but after some time, it just becomes a long walk in the woods. In the end, he plot didn't support the length or hold my attention long enough. </p><p>4) <u>THE HOLDOVERS</u>: If asked to name a great character actor, Paul Giamatti would certainly be a name that would instantly pop into my mind. His ability to fully inhabit a character is unmatched. In this movie he plays Paul Hunham, a history teacher at a boy's prep school in a snowy New England. He is a cranky, pompous, lazy eyed professor, equally despised by students and staff for his rigid ways. During the Christmas breaks, when most students depart, a few are "holdovers", unable to go home. Paul is tasked with watching over them until the term resumes. During the break he develops a special relationship with a troubled student, Angus, played beautifully by newcomer Dominic Sessa. Rounding out the key players is Da'Vine Joy Randolph, Oscar nominated for best supporting actress. She plays Mary Lamb, the school's cook, and a grieving mother. There is nothing specifically wrong with this movie that I can put my finger on. There are great performances and touching scenes with Giamatti and Sessa. However, I didn't think the secondary plots added much to the film, a number or scenes seemed to meander, and not all the acting performances matched those of the leading men. Overall, a very nice film that didn't need to be 2 hours and 13 minutes long.</p><p>5) <u>AMERICAN FICTION</u>: There is a lot to like about this movie. Jeffrey Wright plays Monk, a serious but stalled novelist and literature professor. As a failing African American writer, he becomes even more discouraged by the success of another writer, gaining notoriety, having written a "Black" novel. Her book exploits negative racial stereotypes and relies on Ebonics to sell books. As a goof, using a pseudonym, Monk writes a novel, exaggerating the same stereotypes he's enraged and repulsed by. Lo and behold his book becomes a huge success. Monk, his sister, his agent and his love interest give deep and poignant performances. They are all characters I'd enjoy learning more about. All the "real" characters in his life defy the negative stereotypes he exploits in his novel. As I walked out of the theater, I remarked that I was disappointed by the character played by the typically excellent Sterling K. Brown. He plays Monk's brother, Cliff, a newly out of the closet homosexual, cocaine snorting, self-absorbed, overcompensating, plastic surgeon. I just felt the character, and his portrayal of him, didn't fit in with the more genuine, measured, and thoughtfulness of the other characters. That being said, he was nominated for best supporting actor, so what do I know?!?! Finally, I'm not a huge fan of the open ending, leaving the conclusion for the audience to decide. Sadly, the haphazard ending didn't do the beauty of the rest of the film justice. Still, this movie is clearly worth watching, with wonderful performances and more than a few laughs. I was entertained!</p><p>6) <u>ANATOMY OF A FALL</u>: My favorite of the three international films. Sandra, a successful German novelist, is living in a beautiful French mountain home, with her less successful husband, and severely visually handicapped son, Daniel. After returning home from a walk, Daniel finds the body of his father, lying dead in the snow, under a balcony of the remote chalet. There are suspicious circumstances and Sandra is eventually charged with his murder. Sandra Hueller, who plays Sandra, gives a masterful performance and deservedly earned an Oscar nomination for her work. It's no coincidence that acting performances soar when the writing is as good as it is in this film. While I'm generally not a huge fan of child actors, I did enjoy the performance of Milo Machado-Graner, who portrayed Daniel. This movie reminded me of another movie I loved, "Doubt", with Meryl Streep. Did she, or didn't she? I particularly enjoyed the courtroom scenes; unlike any I've seen before. I also found the scenes depicting a marital fight particularly powerful. I suspect the fight will feel familiar to many. I'm not proud to say that I recognized myself in several of the exchanges. I also didn't object to the open ending in this film, as the not knowing is sort of the point. As usual, this movie was just a little too long, but still very much worth seeing. </p><p>7) <u>MAESTRO</u>: No doubt Bradely Coooper is a force to be reckoned with. His body of work as an actor and director is truly impressive. Carey Mulligan, who plays his wife Felicia, is also at the top of her game and a top character actor working today. I'm a huge fan of both leads. This movie was clearly a passion project of Cooper's, and his admiration of Leonard Bernstein is evident in every frame. The movie is lovingly crafted and directed. This biopic primarily focuses on Bernstein's family relationships, particularly his marriage. He's openly bisexual, which is a fact Felicia accepted prior to marriage. I try to rate a movie on what it is, rather than what I wish it was. However, I really wished the movie would have been more about his artistry than his family life. Ultimately, I felt the movie was just too artsy for its own good; maybe trying too hard. The film just moved too slowly and didn't consistently hold my interest..... didn't pass my watch test, in that a looked at my watch several times to see how much longer.</p><p>8) <u>BARBIE</u>: I don't think I'm the demographic this movie was targeting. Although I'm a huge fan of both Ryan Gosling and Margot Robbie, this movie just didn't resonate with me. I found the entire movie a bit too campy and the kind of silly I don't particularly enjoy. Seldom do non-musicals, with dance numbers in the middle, appeal to me. While the leads were their usual spectacular selves, I thought some of the other actors were sub-par, and not consistent with "best". Sadly, I have to say I found the performances by Will Ferrell and Kate McKinnon to be particularly poor and distracting. While I understand why so many people really enjoyed this movie, it just wasn't for me.</p><p>9) <u>PAST LIVES</u>: This film chronicles the lives and relationships of two South Korean childhood friends, Hae Sung and Nora. They are shown walking home together from school and playing together on a chaperoned playground date. At around 13 years of age Nora's family moves to Canada, and eventually, as an adult, she moves to NYC. The two remain intermittently in contact, primarily through the internet. There are long intervals during which they totally lose touch, although neither has forgotten or gotten over the other. Once in their 30's Hae travels to NYC in hopes of rekindling. Nora, played by Greta Lee, gives a performance worthy of the praise she's received. However, I thought Hae, played by Teo Yoo, showed very little real emotion and even less range. He had the same lost expression throughout, regardless of circumstance. I also didn't feel like the first third of the film adequately laid the groundwork, or demonstrated, the deep connection that fuels the remainder of the movie. I didn't feel the crackle of passion and chemistry between them. The movie seemed to be about the choices we make, and how different choices may lead to vastly different paths and outcomes. It explores the "what might have been" of it all. I did particularly enjoy a conversation during which Hae tells Nora, and I'll paraphrase, "in my life you're someone who leaves, but in his (her husband) life you're someone who stays." My son, Dylan, who usually shares my sensibilities about movies, loved "Past Lives". In fact, he went so far as to claim it might have been better than "Oppenheimer". I'm in the process of removing him from my will!</p><p>10) <u>THE ZONE OF INTEREST</u>: This was a tough movie to watch, in part because of my own personal history. Rudolf Hoess, played by Christian Friedel, is commandant of the Auschwitz concentration camp. He lives with his wife Hedwig, played by Sandra Hueller, and their children, in a gorgeous home, next to the camp, separated only by a high wall. The home is lavish with modern amenities, a full refrigerator, a beautiful garden, and even a pool. They want for nothing. There are servants toiling in the home and others working in the garden, clearly cheating death while on work release from the camp. Rudolf has a very busy work schedule, in part finding more efficient ways to operate the ovens. His work portrayed as important but rather mundane. Behind the wall you intermittently hear the pop of distant gunfire, you occasionally see glimpses of the camp, you get clear views of a large chimney spewing smoke and flame. The camp is never in your face, but constantly smolders in the background. The family members go about living their lives, able to treat the atrocities being committed only a few feet away as commonplace; background noise. The only positive images in the film are those of a girl placing apples, under cover of night, where prisoners might find them in the daylight. Those scenes are filmed in a photo-negative way, as to appear otherworldly. While powerful and well-constructed, the movie simply doesn't have much depth or arc. The point that humans are capable of inhumane and monstrous acts is demonstrated over and over. There didn't seem to be much more of a point to it than that.... </p>andyeye86http://www.blogger.com/profile/09863649309798299832noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983968235182538740.post-9364016986497676882023-02-26T19:38:00.000-08:002023-02-26T19:38:21.224-08:00Oscar's Best 2022<p>In my humble opinion 2022 was not a very good year for great movies. As a result, I have spent more time than usual considering my ranking of the movies, in large part because none of them really stood out as "best" and many didn't seem Oscar-worthy at all. I know it's a commonly held opinion that the Academy nominates "art" or "independent" movies, that often go unseen, and excludes the more popular, summer blockbuster type movies. The majority of movie goers don't see and don't enjoy or appreciate the films that are more typically nominated. Crowd pleasers, like comic book movies, rom-coms, horror, action, and comedies are seldom nominated. If the Oscar was awarded to the most popular movie, we wouldn't need a nominating committee at all, but could just give the awards based on box office data. In that case we'd probably have several from "The Fast and Furious" franchise winning Best Picture. Personally, probably because I'm old, I appreciate the way the Academy nominates movies. To me, "best" should mean a lot more than popular. While I typically also see the blockbusters, and enjoy them, I don't expect them to be, or want them to be, nominated in this category by the Academy. Let those other movies win Golden Globes, or People's Choice awards. So, this year, my rank order could have gone any number of ways. My top and bottom 3 or 4 changed several times and are essentially interchangeable. Didn't love any of them nor hate any of them, so my reviews and opinions will be brief. </p><p>Actually, my favorite movie this year was "The Whale", which wasn't even nominated in this category. Other movies that I enjoyed, that weren't, and probably shouldn't have been, nominated, include "Bullet Train", "The Batman", "Hustle", "Vengeance" and "The Unbearable Weight of Massive Talent". </p><p>As always, I welcome all comments and opinions, especially if they disagree.</p><p>1) <u>TAR</u>: Reluctantly ranking this first, based largely on another amazing performance from Cate Blanchett, who I suspect will win her third Oscar, on her eighth nomination. It's the tale of a fictional classical music conductor who struggles with her personal and professional demons, in a rather compelling way. Talent, power, and sexuality aren't always what they seem to be. Admittedly, it's far too long at 2h 38min, but her performance is simply spellbinding, and I'm a sucker for good acting and actor driven films. The movie is expertly crafted by Director Todd Field who also directed two of my favorites: "Little Children" and "In the Bedroom". It was too long, inconsistently paced, and didn't stick the landing. Still, a very good movie and very much an "Oscar-type", art film.</p><p>2) <u>ALL QUIET ON THE WESTERN FRONT</u>: This World War 1 epic, based on the book by the same name, is intensely beautiful. There is no sugar coating or glorifying war in this film. It begins with schoolboys clamoring to join the military, to be patriots, eager to fight for country. Of course, once bullets fly, and bodies drop, they quickly realize that war really is hell on earth. Start to finish this movie unflinchingly shows just how dark, oppressive, cruel, and relentless war can be. The movie features stunning cinematography, gripping performances, and a compelling plot. Not quite as good as "1917" but still worth a watch, if you don't mind sub-titles.</p><p>3) <u>ELVIS</u>: A very entertaining studio movie, but still worthy of a "best" nomination. Obviously, this biopic follows the career or Elvis Presley, from humble beginnings to worldwide stardom. The film focuses largely on Elvis's complicated relationship with Col. Tom Parker, his manager. Austin Butler does an amazing job mimicking Elvis, both in sound and style. He's the front runner for "best actor"; although, I'll be rooting for Brendan Fraser's performance in "The Whale". My only criticism of his portrayal of the King, is that he often seemed like he was posing more than acting. The musical sequences were spot on and engrossing. His physical performance was dynamic and authentic. However, off stage scenes, involving dialogue, were typically brief and consisting more of static posed facial expressions rather than dynamic interactions, lacking the appeal of the musical sequences. Another distraction to me was Tom Hanks. As much as I like him as a person and as an actor, I don't think his accent, his look, or his acting choices hit the mark. Easy movie to recommend, even at 2 hours and 39 minutes.</p><p>4) <u>THE FABELMANS</u>: Typical Spielberg. A well written, well told, entertaining, reality based, story. Ultimately, that's what he is, a storyteller. Hard to argue that many have done it better. This clearly auto biographical movie follows the life of Sammy (read Steven) and chronicles the events that shape his development. Sammy begins his love affair with film, at a very young age, after his parents take him to a matinee at the local cinema. He beings making his own movies, before he even gets to high school. Moving across country, being bullied for being the rare Jewish kid in a California high school, and the family turmoil surrounding his work obsessed, by the book, father, and his artsy self-indulgent, free spirit, mother, are among the critical events that shape his future. At times the performances seem a bit staged and stiff but overall, it's an interesting story, well told. Not Spielberg's best work, but not his worst either.</p><p>5) <u>THE BANSHEES OF INISHERIN</u>: I don't have many criticisms about this movie. On the contrary, the plot was interesting and original, the performances were outstanding and Oscar worthy, the cinematography was beautiful, and the direction was professional. So, despite virtually everything about this film being technically good, I simply found it boring. Clearly there were many things to like about this film, but in the end, I just checked my watch too many times, wondering "how much longer".</p><p>6) <u>TOP GUN: MAVERICK</u>: What can I say, this was a super fun movie?!?! Much like the original "Top Gun", the relationships were compelling, and the action was gripping. I'm an unapologetic Tom Cruise fan, and there was a lot of him, and he did not disappoint. I was a little shocked that he allowed himself to be shown as so short in a few scenes, especially opposite Miles Teller. I did have issues and difficulty suspending disbelief in a number of scenes. Particularly hard to accept as plausible was the sequence in which two jets are shot down over a snowy forest. The two ejecting pilots are able to parachute down and then jog to one another in minutes. Hard to believe. Because I enjoyed, and remember, the original so much, I felt like the sequel was a little bit "more of the same". While fun to watch, how many original or different ways can you feature jets flying around? I'd have liked to see more of the younger pilots and their stories, and a little less melodrama. No doubt you will be entertained if you see this movie, making it easy to recommend, but to me it's just not an Academy Award kind of film.</p><p>7) <u>AVATAR: THE WAY OF WATER</u>: I agree with a review I read that described this movie as a 3-hour long screen saver. I saw this film in IMAX 3D, which no doubt greatly enhanced the experience, as it would most movies. In the end, the plot was predictable and not that compelling, the acting was mediocre at best and the pacing was slow and inconsistent. I couldn't help myself, wondering what they did all day in the jungle or at sea, when they weren't hunting. Where did the electronic gear come from? Do they have jobs? Do they have bathrooms or toilet paper? Are there stores in the trees? Do the adults just hang out and play with the kids all day? I know, not great reasons to dislike a movie. It was often visually beautiful, but the thin script and 3 hour run time, make it pale in comparison to the original. On the other hand, nearly 2.5 billion in ticket sales translates to people liking it!</p><p>8) <u>EVERYTHING EVERYWHERE ALL AT ONCE</u>: More people told me I had to see this movie, than any movie I can remember in recent history. Even Dan, my brother, and Dylan, my oldest child, with whom I usually agree about movies, recommended this one to me. It's garnered the most Oscar nominations of any movie in 2022 and won several significant awards from other agencies. I just don't get it. In fact, I was certain that I'd seen it in a bad mood, or was tired, or something else, explaining why I alone didn't care for it. I actually watched it a second time, something I virtually never do. There have been movies about which I dramatically changed my mind, after a second viewing (e.g., "Minority Report"), and I was convinced this would be one of those. Alas, I disliked it just as much a second time, maybe more. I found the acting to be mediocre at best. Michelle Yeoh was good, Ke Huy Quan was okay, and Stephanie Hsu was less than, although they all got nominated. How Jamie Lee Curtis got a nomination is beyond me, likely a career popularity nomination. I didn't find the action to be all that original, including somewhat mundane fight sequences, lacking visual appeal. I found the plot to be uninspired, given all the potential in a multiverse. I found the main characters reactions, while shifting within the multiverse, to be unbelievable and inconsistent. I think what bothered me most was the pure silliness, while still trying to be profound. It's listed as a comedy, but I don't recall ever laughing. Hot dog fingers, super karate pinkies and talking/walking rocks were just too much for me to bear. I was completely unable to buy-in to the story and was supremely disappointed....... both times.</p><p>9) <u>TRIANGLE OF SADNESS</u>: Male model Carl and his gorgeous model girlfriend Yaya, get a free suite on a luxury yacht. This is a story about male-female relationship norms as well as class distinctions and shifting roles in modern society. The clever writing is likely what made the Academy consider this movie "best", and why it's not last on my list. When the yacht goes to ground, the ship's crew and guests find themselves marooned on an island. All social norms are abandoned, title and status, nor physical appearance and beauty carry much value, and mayhem ensues. For me, the overwrought, predictable, and often unbelievably "silly" situations along with sub-par acting performances, make this movie average at best, hard to watch at worst.</p><p>10) <u>WOMEN TALKING</u>: It's in the name.... a lot of talking and very little doing. Females of all ages, in a modern Amish-like religious community, have been sexually abused by the men in the community, for decades. Once the perpetrators come to light, the women must decide if they should do nothing, stay and fight, or pack up and leave. They have to weigh how each decision might change their own future, the future of their children, and their relationship with God. The leading women in the community get together and discuss the merits of each option, knowing the rest of the women will follow whichever path they choose. The women are often supportive of each other, but just as often are aggressive and combative with each other. Most of the film takes place in a hay loft, in the rafters of a poorly lit barn. The acting is reasonably good, but in addition to being dark in tone and lighting, the plot is inconsistent and just not very captivating. At times it feels preachy and often becomes repetitive. The positives in this film simply don't outweigh the negatives. Possibly a movie Dan would like.</p>andyeye86http://www.blogger.com/profile/09863649309798299832noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983968235182538740.post-14622760817545613142022-03-20T19:38:00.000-07:002022-03-20T19:38:31.651-07:00Oscar's Best 2021<p>Movies, in theaters, seem to be on the comeback trail, and I couldn't be happier about it. Still, 2021 wasn't ideal, having to watch several of the Oscar movies on TV rather than in the theater. I'm also not thrilled that the trend of longer movies continued in 2021. Movies approaching 2.5 to 3 hours have practically become the norm. Maybe filmmakers are trying to lure people back to theaters by giving "your money's worth", but it's a trend I can't get behind. I enjoyed many movies this past year, but none of them jumped out as particularly superior. I struggled more than usual coming up with my rank order. I'd say the top four were close, and the remaining six could have come in just about any order. Most had many elements that I really enjoyed but also had elements that I found lacking or even distracting. I will continue my "stripped down" version of the blog to remain on record. Commentary and disagreement are encouraged.</p><p>1) <u>CODA</u>: I think I liked this movie so much because it was so simple, pure, genuine and heartfelt. While nothing about it was over the top amazing, there just didn't seem to be anything wrong with it either. It's a movie I watched with family, and we all came away touched and happy for having seen it; thoroughly entertained. Simply being entertained has always been the primary benchmark by which I judge movies. Plus, I've always had a soft spot for coming-of-age movies. The themes are often formulaic and can become melancholic or cheesy, but CODA remained truly original. Ruby is a high school student, facing all the anxieties and uncertainties that torment most teens. She's from the wrong side of the tracks, finding it difficult to balance work (fishing with her brother and father), romance, peer pressure and her secret desire to become a singer. Her life is complicated by the fact that her brother and parents are all deaf. She's spent her entire youth being an oddity to her peers and an interpreter for her parents. She's an outsider in every way imaginable. Despite her overwhelming vulnerability and mistrust "CODA" avoids becoming sad or edgy. In the end, due to excellent writing, superb acting, and thoughtful direction it was just beautiful, sweet, funny, and thoroughly enjoyable. I recommend this film be seen with family.</p><p>2) <u>LICORICE PIZZA</u>: After watching this movie I was certain it would be my favorite of 2021. There is so much to love about this movie. Perhaps I'm a bit biased as Licorice Pizza was directed by one of my favorite directors, Paul Thomas Anderson, who is responsible for some of my all-time favorite movies (e.g., Magnolia, Boogie Nights, There Will Be Blood, Phantom Thread). The movie is set in the 1970s and follows the lives and relationships of Alana and Gary, played beautifully by Alana Haim and Cooper Hoffman, son of Phillip Seymor Hoffman. It was impressive to see both of these young actors so expertly tackle the complexities of the characters they portrayed. This movie, very much like Magnolia, felt like a collection of short stories, or skits. Each "story" had a life of its own and could have become a movie of its own. All the skits are tied together by the relationship of our young protagonists. Each "story" also had a significant co-star to drive the sub-plot. For example, Sean Penn, Tom Waits and Bradley Cooper each contributed to this amazing movie. While the overall film was extraordinary on many levels, the reason I didn't rank it first, was that some of the skits fell short, leaving the movie somewhat inconsistent and intermittently less enjoyable.</p><p>3) <u>NIGHTMARE ALLEY</u>: Another terrific director in Guillermo del Toro, but WOW, what a cast. Bradley Cooper, Willem Dafoe, Cate Blanchett, Rooney Mara, and Toni Collette to name a few, star in this movie set around con men and the circus life; themes I've historically enjoyed. Nightmare Alley follows the rise and fall of Stan, a man seemingly born to be a carny. As he creeps out and up from his pitiful beginnings, he achieves increasing success, and his pride and ego grow in equal measure. Ultimately, pride and the desire for more, become his undoing. However, what makes this movie truly special, along with the wonderful acting, is the gorgeous cinematography. It really is a visually beautiful film to watch.</p><p>4) <u>KING RICHARD</u>: Similar to CODA, this movie felt like "nothing special but thoroughly entertaining". A very simple premise, Richard Williams raises and coaches Venus and Serena to tennis stardom. Living in poverty, against all odds, through sheer determination Richard overcomes all hurdles to propel his children into the then Caucasian dominated world or tennis. In the end it's a touching story about the importance of family, passion, and hard work. Will Smith gives his customarily solid performance, but the young women are also surprisingly strong actors. I'm usually down on young performers, but many of this year's films feature younger actors, who do far more then deliver.</p><p>5) <u>BELFAST</u>: Speaking of young actors, Belfast stars 9-year-old (at the time) Jude Hill, playing Buddy. The film is the semi-autobiographical story of Kenneth Branagh's youth. He grew up on a lively street in Belfast, where everyone knew everyone else. Children playing in the streets, parents chatting on the stoop. One day Protestant and Catholic are living in harmony, the next there are riots, explosions, relentless violence, barricades and mounting rage. The film follows one family's struggle to adapt to these changing times, and to do what's right to protect themselves and their loved ones. This movie is filmed in black and white yet is visually beautiful. As most films nominated for Best Picture, the acting is also superb.</p><p>6) <u>DUNE</u>: I grew up reading comics and sci-fi and I do consider myself a fan of this genre. However, as I get older, I find myself more and more critical of these movies. I'm less impressed by special effects, costumes and makeup. That being said, this movie is extraordinarily visually beautiful and, of course, features top notch acting. Timothee Chalamet has amassed quite a resume for such a young actor. I think most films nominated for Best Picture, tend to have strong writing, acting, and cinematography. In the end, what else really matters? I found the plot of Dune to be somewhat confusing and the pacing was meandering (code for too damn long). I wasn't bored, but I'm not checking to see when the Part 2 comes out.</p><p>7) <u>POWER OF THE DOG</u>: This film is set in1925 Montana. There are cows, lassos, guns and horses but I wouldn't call it a western. The story centers on wealthy rancher brothers. Benedict Cumberbatch, always amazing, is Phil and rising star Jesse Plemons is his brother George. Kirsten Dunst is Rose, who finds herself the object of George's desire. Phil is dark, bitter, and increasingly mean-spirited as his brother becomes increasingly involved with Rose. Rose has a son, stealing most scenes, played by Oscar Nominated Kodi Smith-McPhee. Ultimately, I believe, this film is about what it means to be a man. What is a man's responsibility to family, community, and to himself? There is a subtext about what sexuality has to do with male identity in 1925. While I was entertained, this movie was far too "artsy" for my liking. Sometimes "independent" movies just seem too artsy for the sake of being artsy. The narrative and "meaning" can be cleverly disguised. Often it feels like you need to read up after watching, to find out what it was really all about. To me, that's more work than I want from a movie, going against my "entertain me" preference. I do understand that this might be exactly what some people cherish and enjoy (read- my brother Dan), and why it garnered the most nominations of any film this year. I guess it's similar to the difference between a story and a poem.</p><p>8) <u>DRIVE MY CAR</u>: This is another very artsy movie, and it's three hours long, Japanese, with subtitles. As I've said before, subtitles almost automatically mean a slight downgrade. Your eye-line isn't on the action as you read, and nuances in language are missed when interpreted. This movie is still somehow captivating, in part for its novelty and in part for its sad beauty. Our protagonist is a renowned stage director and actor. His wife, his muse, dies unexpectedly and the story truly begins two years later, when he takes a job in Hiroshima. There he is assigned a young woman to serve as his driver. The story revolves around his relationship to his wife, self-discovery and his art. He if forced to confront is loneliness and the errors he made in his life and marriage. It's a very slow pace, stoic acting, and overall sad..... not a movie for everyone, to be sure, but on some level I did enjoy it.</p><p>9) <u>DON'T LOOK UP</u>: Hard to imagine I'd have a movie featuring Leonardo DiCaprio and Meryl Streep on the bottom of any list. He is clearly at the top, or near the top, of the "best actor of all-time" list. She is unequivocally at the top of that list for actresses. While Leo and Jennifer Lawrence are characteristically fabulous, the movie just isn't. The two play an astronomy professor, Dr. Mindy and his assistant/student Kate. One night they discover a giant comet that is on a collision course with earth. If impact can't be averted global extinction is a certainty. They go about trying to alert the authorities and the public; with very little success. Meryl plays the President of the USA, Jonah is Hill is her son, the Chief of Staff. Mark Rylance is an eccentric billionaire funding the efforts to derail the comet. Adam McKay is a wonderful comedic director. However, I think he relies too much on humor and silliness in this movie. It's always bothered me when a director tries to play it straight/realistic but periodically go off the rails with unbelievable silliness. There is an inconsistency in delivering the message that I find distracting. Meryl, Jonah, and Mark are simply too over the top, unbelievable and unrealistic caricatures of real people.</p><p>10) <u>WEST SIDE STORY</u>: I remember loving the 1957 original and I'm a fan of Steven Spielberg. His credits need no explanation. That being said, this is a three-hour long song and dance. While the singing and dancing is entertaining enough, with some extraordinary scenes, there just wasn't enough story to support three hours of it. To be fair, I'm not a huge fan of musicals in general, which likely colors my opinion. Rachel Zegler and the other leads were clearly well-trained professional singers/dancers. Ansel Elgort was more than acceptable. Still, the movie didn't feel very modern, innovative, or different enough from the original. The romance, the forbidden love, felt forced and overly dramatic. It also didn't really address racial tension or gang life in a believable way. Ultimately, the fact that I checked my watch several times during the show, says it all.</p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p><p><br /></p>andyeye86http://www.blogger.com/profile/09863649309798299832noreply@blogger.com1tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983968235182538740.post-81512567515462083882021-04-25T15:29:00.000-07:002021-04-25T15:29:19.138-07:00Oscar's Best 2020<p>2020, by all accounts, was a dumpster fire of a year. That may be a harsh overstatement for the movies of 2020, but overall it wasn't a very good year for movies either. Even my favorite movie of 2020 wouldn't have been in my top 3 most years. Once again I'm fairly sure my top choices won't win many Academy honors, it's just my own opinion.</p><p>This year my personal choice for the best and for the worst picture was easily made. However, my choice for 2 and 3 could have been a tie, and 4 through 7 were nearly a coin toss as well.</p><p>I have to confess that I haven't seen any of the pics this year in an actual theater. While I have a nice television there is no duplicating the feel and ambiance of a theater with an audience. I toyed with not writing this blog at all this year, but decided to do a stripped down version, just to be "on record".</p><p>As always, I welcome comments of praise and agreement, as well those of disagreement. Naturally, I'm also interested in movies you may have particularly enjoyed, and why. No other movies I've seen stand out, although I did enjoy "Tenet" and surprisingly the four hour long Zach Snyder version of "Justice League".</p><p>1) <u>Sound of Metal</u>: Without question the best film I've seen this year. Riz Ahmed was simply fantastic as Ruben, a suddenly deaf metal drummer. His ability to quietly and subtly convey emotion was impressive for such a relatively inexperienced actor. I suppose I shouldn't have been surprised given his great starring performance in HBO's "The Night Of". The film takes us through Ruben's journey from a drummer with a joyful life, full of music and love, through his rapid hearing loss, his transition to be a member of the deaf community, and his growth as a human being. The direction is terrific and the film beautifully shows his evolution, the eventual acceptance of his circumstance, and his ultimate ability to find "stillness". I was also impressed by how they were able to demonstrate the phases of his hearing issues, audibly, to the audience. One of the reasons I often find myself enjoying a film is due to which, and how many, characters I genuinely care about or am interested in. Pretty much every character in this movie has a story I'd have liked to discover more about. Lou, his wonderfully portrayed girlfriend (Olivia Cooke), Joe, the leader of the deaf "school" (Paul Raci), and several of the other "students" were rich, genuine, complex and interesting in their own right. They contributed heavily to my enjoyment and the quality of this movie. I'll be rooting for Riz to win the Oscar but I doubt he will. The academy seems to give Oscars posthumously, as lifetime achievement awards. Chadwick Boseman, who has clearly been one of the past decade's best actors, will likely win for "Ma Rainey's Black Bottom", a movie and performance I unfortunately didn't much care for.</p><p>2) <u>The Trial of the Chicago 7</u>: This movie is part documentary, part bio-pic, and part courtroom drama. Aaron Sorkin, the prolific writer of some of the best dialogue in movies and on Tv (eg The West Wing, The Newsroom, The Social Network, Moneyball, A Few Good Men) is still somewhat of a novice director and it showed. The movie details the protests around the 1968 Democratic Party Convention in Chicago, and the trial of 7 key "instigators" that followed. The characters are certainly well played and interesting. The trial is equally captivating and infuriating. It's a very entertaining film, depicting an important part of American history, but I just found it too busy. Too many characters and opposing points of view to fairly deal with them all. "Herding cats" comes to mind. That being said, it was still the second best film, to me, of 2020.</p><p>3) <u>Judas and the Black Messiah</u>: Another historical drama depicting the influences of Chairman Fred Hampton (Daniel Kaluuya) on the Black Panthers, and their infiltration, by the FBI, through the reluctant informant Bill O'Neal (LaKeith Stanfield). Both of the leads were absolutely superb and both were nominated as best Supporting Actors. How Daniel Kaluuya was nominated as a Supporting Actor instead of as a Leading Actor is beyond me. He dominates and captivates in every one of his many scenes. I'm very much looking forward to whatever his next projects are. He has limitless talent and the potential to be the next Denzel. The film reminds us of a very sad part of our American history. I think my personal politics, as a white middle aged man, made much of it quite disturbing and hard to watch. I suspect many won't appreciate the quality of the film for similar reasons. Still, it's very good and well worth seeing.</p><p>4) <u>Mank</u>: As I mentioned, the next four choices could have come in just about any order, and on any given day I may have rated them differently. I probably liked "Mank" more then the others because it deals with movies and movie making, topics I obviously care a great deal about. The movie details the process by which alcoholic screen writer, Herman Mankiewicz (Gary Oldman), comes to write "Citizen Kane" for famed director Orson Wells and RKO studios. As much as I've loved many of David Fincher's films (eg "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button", "Fight Club", "Se7en") this one is black and white, meandering, and slow. While the performances are solid and the writing good, it's probably a movie meant for hard core movie buffs. </p><p>5) <u>Nomadland</u>: I keep hearing this is the front runner to win Oscars in many categories, but I'm just not sure why. As always Frances McDormand is hypnotic, but for me, her performance wasn't her best and it just wasn't enough to elevate the whole movie. The movie is about how a middle aged woman deals with loss. Her husband, her town, her community, and her entire way of life have all essentially died. She finds herself content, in a new life, traveling through the American west as a nomad, living out of her van. She encounters several other nomads who are on journeys of their own, all adopting this unconventional lifestyle. The cinematography and the acting are all certainly great but ultimately there was very little character development or "plot". No real arc and a lack "spark".</p><p>6) <u>Minari</u>: Another well acted, interesting tale, that just moves too slowly. It tells the story of a Korean American family that leaves California to settle in Arkansas to start a new, hopefully better, life. It poignantly depicts the importance and value of self actualization, sacrifice and compromise, family, community and belonging. Once again the acting and cinematography are excellent, there was much to like, but once again it's just too slow and somewhat boring.</p><p>7) <u>The Father</u>: This may sound familiar....... it's a very well acted and interesting film that's just a little slow/boring. I'm not going out on a limb to call Anthony Hopkins an acting treasure, even an icon. He does not disappoint in this film about the sad impact Alzheimer's disease has on those who have been afflicted. The film cleverly demonstrates his own confusion and mental decline as well as the chaos it creates for those who love him. However, like several other movies in recent years, it feels more like a stage play then a movie. Only one or two sets for the entire movie, clever dialogue, but no real "movie magic". I feel like "Amour" and "Still Alice" were both far more powerful movies about how Alzheimer's can destroy a life and a family. I'd suggest watching either of those ahead of "The Father".</p><p>8) <u>Promising Young Woman</u>: I've been accused of liking too many movies; being a soft critic. I've consistently said a primary criteria for me is simply how entertained was I?!?! Did I check my watch or look at my phone during the movie, or was I swept away? It's why I'm in favor of comedies, animated and action films, as well as comic book movies being considered for the best picture award. These types of movies tend to focus more on pure entertainment, which is a wonderful thing and doesn't preclude greatness in my book. However, to be considered BEST, a film really should be more then just entertaining, it should have some weight, a message, or gravitas. If it doesn't have those things it really should at least be supremely entertaining. I'm sure many will find this particular movie more entertaining then some of the other nominated films. At it's core this is a movie about revenge. A young woman struggling with her own identity after a trauma endured during her college years. She seeks some measure of control as she tries to right the wrongs and punish those who in her eyes deserve it. While entertaining enough, there is nothing truly special about this movie. To be kind, I'd say that I didn't find the acting to be spectacular. The plot was unrealistic and over-wrought. This movie was inconsistent and ultimately forgettable as just another decent movie. I have no idea what about this particular film merits consideration as BEST anything.</p><p><br /></p>andyeye86http://www.blogger.com/profile/09863649309798299832noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983968235182538740.post-70951249080588629572020-02-05T18:08:00.001-08:002020-02-05T18:08:52.646-08:00Oscar's Best 2019Overall I'd say it's been a very good year for good movies, but I'd also say that it has not been a good year for great movies. I found myself struggling again, but far more then usual, to create my own personal rankings of the best picture nominees. I was pretty comfortable with my first choice, but the next two, or three, could have come in just about any order; the same could be said about those on the bottom. I have a feeling that the order of my list won't be shared by many. The critics front runners, and movies I've had friends and family rave about, are not necessarily those at the top of my list.<br />
<br />
I should also say, with the advent of high quality original content from the streaming services, I was unable to watch each of the films on the big screen. It's clear that these type of movies are going to get more nominations in the future, but they can be difficult, if not impossible, to find in a theater near you! I haven't missed a best picture nominee on the big screen for probably a decade, until <u>Roma</u>, which was essentially only available on Netflix. While I applaud excellence in movie making, wherever it comes from, I do lament missing the "best" on the big screen.<br />
<br />
As usual I'd like to mention a few movies that I enjoyed but were overlooked by Oscar's major categories, or were not the type of movies Oscar would typically recognize at all. So, if you're searching for something to watch/rent, consider these movies.<br />
If you have a daughter and want her to learn a little about the amazing Ruth Bader Ginsburg I strongly recommend <u>On The Basis Of Sex</u>. Last year's documentary about her was also worth watching. In my mind she's as important as anyone who has fought for equality and social justice. <u>Brittany Runs a Marathon</u> was another surprisingly enjoyable movie with a strong female protagonist.<br />
This year three movies pay tribute to musicians in very different ways. I particularly enjoyed <u>Yesterday</u>, honoring the Beatles in a rather unique way. One of the most original plots in quite a while. <u>Blinded by the Light</u> shows just how meaningful and motivational music can be. Bruce Springsteen's music and lyrics give hope to an oppressed Pakistani boy living in England. Finally, in a somewhat atypical biopic, Taron Egerton brings Elton John to life in <u>Rocketman</u>. With all the awards going to <u>Bohemian Rhapsody</u> last year I was a little surprised by how little love the Academy showed this movie. It's not nearly as good but was still enjoyable.<br />
A few heavier and darker movies that I particularly enjoyed this year were <u>Uncut Gems</u>, <u>Dark Waters</u> and <u>Richard Jewel</u>. If you like to think about and discuss religion <u>The Two Popes</u> is quite engaging and thought provoking.<br />
While I'm not typically a huge fan of comedies, this year I enjoyed <u>Long Shot</u>, <u>Booksmart</u>, <u>Good Boys</u>, and <u>Shazam</u>.<br />
<br />
I probably mention it every year, but movies are once again just too damn long. Having gotten that off my chest, for better or worse, here is my personal ranking of the best picture nominees. I actively invite debate, agreement, or dissent. While I'd love some accolades, I'm just as happy to be called out.<br />
<br />
1) <u>1917</u>: "War is hell" is made palpable. This film vividly shows the violence, sacrifice, loyalty, pain, loss, and heroism against the backdrop of World War 1 trench warfare. Two soldiers are sent on a suicide mission to get a critical message to a front line unit. If they fail, 1600 will die, including the brother of one of our "heroes". The writing is exceptional, the tenor is dramatic, the acting is spot-on from the mostly unknown leads as well as from the entire supporting cast. Sam Mendes directed one of my all time favorite movies, <u>American Beauty</u>, and once again his direction is first class. However, what makes this film extraordinary is the cinematography. Some of the amazing visuals were almost too stunning and beautiful. A few times I found myself nearly taken out of the action as I sat gaping at the beauty of a particular shot or scene, momentarily forgetting where the action was going. This is not just a technical masterpiece, it's also a mesmerizing story. Quite simply this is the most complete and most entertaining movie, from start to finish, and was therefore my favorite this year.<br />
<br />
2) <u>Joker</u>: While I suspect the key to a great movie is the script, it can argued that a strong director is actually the most pivotal ingredient, merging all the necessary components together. That being said, I'm personally most awed by great acting. Of course all the elements of movie making are important to the process, but I'm fairly consistently drawn to movies with strong performances. <u>Joker</u> is definitely one of those actor driven movies. Joaquin Phoenix, to my mind, is one of a small group of elite actors, consistently bringing honesty, vulnerability and truth to his performance. I may not have loved every movie he's made, but I always enjoy his performances, and this movie is no exception. He plays Arthur Fleck, a wanna be comedian, with severe psychiatric issues. His gritty and inspired performance is simply mesmerizing. It's impossible to take your eyes off him. I was conflicted walking out of the theater, not sure how I felt about it. But it's one of those movies that grow on you over time, creeping in to your thoughts. I was expecting more of a caper movie, with the Joker hatching some evil plot only to be thwarted by a hero in the end. However, this was no typical super hero movie. Instead the Joker's origin story is an exploration in to the anguish of mental illness and it's impact on an individual as well as on society. Todd Phillips is best known as a comedic director, but this dark and intensely personal film, with its homage to <u>Taxi Driver</u>, marks him as a far more versatile director whose future films I'm eagerly awaiting.<br />
<br />
3) <u>Jojo Rabbit</u>: When I saw this movie I thought it would be my favorite of the year. It slipped to number 2 after I saw <u>1917</u>, and ultimately to it's current location. I went back and forth between it and <u>Joker</u>. Ultimately, my brother, who's opinion I respect and who is not easily offended, explained to me why he found it "wildly offensive". Something about "oh those fun loving and misunderstood Nazi's". Clearly we had a different take. It's a movie about a lonely ten year old boy, growing up against the backdrop of World War 2, and Nazi occupation. The boy is part of Hitler youth, wearing his little brown uniform, with the swastika armband. He has an imaginary friend, Adolf Hitler, played hilariously by the film's director, Taika Waititi. His mother, played beautifully by Scarlett Johansson, is a antiwar activist, and is harboring a Jewish girl in the crawl space of their home. In time the boy comes to discover her and they form a complicated friendship. I'm not generally a fan of children actors but these two were tremendous. Given the disturbing premise and the overall terrifying darkness of the film, it was still quite unique and surprisingly hopeful, funny, and endearing. Heart warming and heart breaking at the same time.<br />
<br />
4) <u>Once Upon a Time in Hollywood</u>: It can't be argued that Quentin Tarantino is a top notch director and screen writer. His mastery of the English language is peerless, even if at times it can be a bit pretentious or self congratulatory. Put his words in the mouths of some of the greatest acting talent and how could you go wrong?!?! Leonardo DiCaprio play a past his prime television actor and Brad Pitt is his trusty friend, assistant, and stunt double. Margo Robbie is Sharon Tate as the movie loosely revolves around the "Helter Skelter" crimes of Charles Manson. All the leading and supporting actors are hypnotic. I found relative newcomers Margaret Qualley and Julia Butters to be particularly effective. This is also a visually stunning movie with a multitude of story lines; perhaps too many. To me it ended up being a series of fantastic short films; like a collection of skits or vignettes, versus a cohesive story with an understandable arc. I personally enjoyed the scenes in which DiCaprio has a long conversation with a young aspiring actress played by Julia Butters. Ultimately I found this movie to be long on style and a little short on substance, leaving me feeling like "what was the point", which isn't ideal for a 159 minute run time. That being said, I was quite entertained by what is sure to become another Tarantino classic!<br />
<br />
5) <u>Ford v Ferrari</u>: I would call this a formula movie....but in a good way. "Good Guys" having to overcome impossible odds to defeat the villain. Recalcitrant and troubled "bad boy" has to be corralled by family or friends, to give a top performance. There is a formula because it consistently works. When you add Matt Damon and Christian Bale to talented director James Mangold, it's bound to do more then just work. I'll admit I have a bit of a man-crush on Bale. He and Damon have excellent chemistry portraying deeply complex characters and give customary top level performances. Not to be overlooked are all of the many supporting cast members who also contribute significantly to the success of this movie. I don't know, or care, all that much about cars and I don't follow racing at all. Still, the movie seemed to have gotten all of the technical aspects of this film right. Overall a beautifully shot, expertly crafted, well acted, engaging, and very entertaining movie.<br />
<br />
6) <u>The Irishman</u>: Martin Scorsese may well be the best living director and it's impossible to understate the many accomplishments and talents of Robert DeNiro. This movie is commonly considered a front runner to win significant awards, including best picture. Al Pacino gives a tremendous performance as Jimmy Hoffa and DeNiro as a mob hitman. However, it was Joe Pesci who stole every scene he was in, as the sweetly terrifying mob boss. It was really great to see him and Harvey Keitel again. I did have a number of "issues" with this movie. Considering how little actually happens, and how slow the pacing is, it was a bit boring and self indulgent. I'm not sure why it needed to be 3 and a half hours long. I also had a problem with the different ages played by DeNiro. The de-aging effects just weren't all that good. I was distracted by the fact that the young man version looked and moved a bit awkwardly, which made it difficult to fully buy in to the character. While it is a fascinating story of loyalty, friendship and "honor among thieves" I found it to be more nostalgic then entertaining, trading more on reputation then achievement. I asked a few friends to quickly recall one scene that stuck out in their memory........ most came up blank. To me, when I think of any great movie, a number of specific scenes come instantly to my mind. Clearly not Scorsese's best. Perhaps it would have fared better on the big screen, but for me it was only available on Netflix.<br />
<br />
7) <u>Little Women</u>: This is a lovely little film but I'm clearly not the target audience. It's a well told and well known tale of four sisters struggling to be part of a family, while retaining their own unique identity. The performances of the sisters are all believable and the direction by Greta Gerwig points to a promising future behind the camera. The compulsive attention to detail and the gorgeous costuming do help make this ensemble period piece enjoyable. I also particularly enjoyed the brooding performance of fast rising young star Timothee Chalamet; clearly an actor to watch. On the flip side there is something about Laura Dern that I just don't care for. While she's been in a number of excellent movies, I don't typically enjoy her performances. I also found some of the action to be erratic, jumping around between characters and time lines. Ultimately this movie is good enough, but to me it was a little boring, predictable, "on the nose", lacking depth and nuance. "Family Friendly" just isn't typically my cup of tea.<br />
<br />
8) <u>Parasite</u>: This Korean movie is another critic favorite and front runner to win best picture. These past few years I seem to be on a run of rating eventual winners low on my personal list. This movie is so incredibly highly regarded I've come to question my own tastes. I do have to admit to a mild bias against sub-titled movies. Although, this year I did very much enjoy the Spanish language film <u>Pain and Glory</u>. Part of my problem is that I'm most interested in the acting. When you're reading subtitles you often miss the nuances of facial expression, because your eyes are drawn elsewhere. Add to that, you simply can't hear and discern all of the inflections in tone or expression when you don't understand the language. It all just sounds foreign. Perhaps that's why I didn't find the acting to be superior. I also found the movie to be a very slow build for the first two hours, with a somewhat silly and hard to accept premise. I've read that this bit of cinema is a masterful and nuanced depiction of class war. The haves versus the have nots. To me it felt like the have nots were basic criminal con artists. The haves weren't exactly angles but they also didn't seem to deserve what they ultimately get. As the films nears it's conclusion it changes from slow and somewhat boring to absolute mayhem. It goes from zero to a hundred in the blink of an eye, making it feel uneven, almost like two different movies. Again, there are clearly things to like about this movie. It is a fascinating glimpse in to another culture. While visually excellent I still wasn't all that entertained and am not sure what all the hype was about.<br />
<br />
9) <u>Marriage Story</u>: This would normally be a film right up my alley. Dark and actor driven. I'm a fan of both Scarlett Johansson and Adam Driver and they were both in top form. However, I have to say, I've never been a fan of writer-director Noah Baumbach, and no surprise I didn't care for Laura Dern's contributions. I found the performances of many of the supporting characters, and all of the lawyers involved, to be unbelievable at best. The scenes with the social worker on a home inspection were particularly distracting. To me, this movie felt like a stage play, scripted and rehearsed. Each actor gives long monologues while the other actor waits for their turn to perform. I had a similar feeling and review about <u>Fences</u>, a few years ago. I know a lot of people were touched by this film and the subject matter, but to me it felt manipulative, over wrought and overly dramatic. Having heard and read all the hype, I eagerly anticipated this film, expecting to love it. I did enjoy many parts of it, especially the acting of the leads, and some of the writing/dialogue, but in the end was disappointed. <br />
<br />
<br />
<br />andyeye86http://www.blogger.com/profile/09863649309798299832noreply@blogger.com6tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983968235182538740.post-899225627478392802019-02-10T18:04:00.003-08:002019-02-10T18:04:43.208-08:00Oscar's Best 2018It's been a very unusual year for movies, and for best picture Oscar nominations. There were a significant number of very good movies this year, probably more then usual. However, there was a shortage of truly amazing movies. It was also unusual in that a number of my personal favorites this year got completely ignored by the Academy. In fact, my absolute favorite movie of the year wasn't even nominated for best picture, although, it was nominated for best documentary. It was an unusual year in that it was the first time in many years that I haven't seen all the nominees in a movie theater. It was also unusual in that a "comic book" movie got recognized as a best picture nominee. What's getting to be less unusual is how long movies seem to be. Most have run times of over two hours, which in my opinion is just too long. Two hours should be the max for most films.<br />
Before I go through my ranking of best picture nominees, I'd like to mention a few movies that I enjoyed and think are worth checking out. I'll try to list primarily those that Oscar overlooked, so if a movie got a significant nomination I won't mention it here. The next time you're searching for a movie, consider these. I'd love your feedback, good or bad, if you watch any of the following movies based on my recommendation.<br />
In the "chick flick" or family friendly category: Crazy Rich Asians, The Greatest Showman, Juliet Naked, and Love Simon were very entertaining and fun to watch.<br />
In the "guilty pleasure" category: Upgrade, Annihilation, Widows (visually stunning), The Mule, and Avengers: Infinity War are worth checking out.<br />
In the "unique" category: Searching, American Animals (movie/documentary hybrid), and Tully were something a little different but still quite interesting and entertaining.<br />
In the "indie" category: The Rider, Eighth Grade, Beautiful Boy, and most especially Blindspotting were the movies I hoped Oscar would recognize. Blindspotting was near the top spot on my personal list of favorite films this year. It's the story of a man haunted by a single act that caused him to be imprisoned and changed his life forever. It explores how it might feel "to be judged by the color of your skin or remembered only for the worst thing you ever did".<br />
There were two other movies that did get recognized for Academy Awards, but not best picture, that I think deserve special mention. Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse got nominated for best animated feature, but it should have been nominated for best picture. It's the first animated movie that captured the feeling and joy of reading comic books. If you grew up reading comics, you'll enjoy this film.<br />
Free Solo got nominated for best documentary and it was my favorite movie this year. I'm not typically a huge fan of documentaries, I generally prefer to be entertained and not educated by film. This year had a number of exceptional documentaries, to include RBG, Three Identical Strangers and Won't You Be My Neighbor. Free Solo chronicles the life of Alex Honnold and his obsession with rock climbing; specifically his desire to climb Yosemite's El Capitan. He climbs the 3000 foot sheer rock wall "Free Solo" which means without any ropes or other safety gear. While it is a tale about a rock climbing savant, it's really of an examination of what makes Alex tick. We learn about his motivation, his singular focus, and most interestingly about his personal and romantic life. There is nothing fake or pretentious about Alex. He seems incapable of deceit or artifice. It really is a fascinating film that deeply moved and inspired me and it still lingers fondly in my memory.<br />
Now on to my reviews of the best picture nominees from best to worst- IN MY OPINION. My first two choices and last two choices were somewhat easy to make, the four in the middle could have been in any order.<br />
<br />
1) <u>A Star Is Born</u>: This year, more then most years, I'm basing my list primarily on how entertained I was. I usually put more weight on acting, cinematography, writing and direction, but this year was more about pure entertainment value. Having said that, A Star is Born was the most entertaining movie this year. Following in Ben Affleck's footsteps Bradley Cooper is off to a great start with his directorial debut. It may have been easier filming a re-make (number three) but it's still quite an accomplishment. A Star Is Born is the love story between an alcoholic, aging, deeply troubled, famous musician, played by Cooper, and the heart of gold, young, unknown, meek, aspiring singer song-writer played by Lady Gaga. The chemistry between them simply works. Together they amount to more then either of them could have independently, the ideal of any productive and rewarding relationship. They seem to have genuine affection between each other and it shows. The film could easily have become melodramatic or cliche but it avoided those traps with clever writing, great songs and authentic performances. The evolution of their romance felt real, and the musical numbers even more so. Clearly Cooper is a superior actor and Gaga a superior singer, but each proved to be more then adequate in the opposite role. I do think the movie slowed somewhat during the last third. The build up and growth of the relationship was well paced and gripping. However, later in the film, when the focus drifted to more peripheral topics, like her family and dealing with fame, it seemed to slow and lose focus. However, it's an excellent film, worthy of the top prize.<br />
<br />
2) <u>Bohemian Rhapsody</u>: Another supremely entertaining film. I had forgotten how much I liked Queen music. I had the pleasure of seeing them live in concert, a million years ago, and had that memory as a backdrop. I saw the film with my wife and youngest daughter, and we all had a very positive experience; we were all entertained. The film works well beyond simple nostalgia. Rami Malek clearly did his homework and seemed to embody the essence of Queen front-man Freddie Mercury, both in appearance, swagger, and on stage presence. The remainder of the cast was more then adequate, but Malek steals the show, and all scenes without him are somewhat lacking. The writers and director (Bryan Singer) expertly captured the essence of the time and the complexity of the relationship between band members. Freddie Mercury was a complicated person, struggling with his identity. He doesn't quite know how he fits in with his Indian Parsi family, in society, with his band, or with his sexuality. These topics are explored but only superficially. It's not really a deep dive in to his motivation as much as a tribute to the music. Singer does beautifully captures the look and feel of the era. Bohemian Rhapsody "sticks the landing" with the final Live Aid performance at Wembley Stadium, which is breathtaking, visually and musically. Despite being a gay man, the key emotional relationship, is between Freddie and the love of his life Mary Austin. The film examines all aspects of his life, his motivations, relationships, the music, and ultimately his fatal battle with HIV/AIDS. This film joins the growing list of great musical biopics, such as Walk the Line and Ray.<br />
<br />
3) <u>Vice</u>: This movie reminded me a lot of Adam McKay's other wonderful film, The Big Short. He uses several of the same actors and the same unique quirky style of telling a complicated, potentially boring, story. He was able to make the details of very complicated financial collapse, and now the life of vice president Dick Cheney, both understandable and compelling. Of course it helps when you have Christian Bale doing the heavy lifting. I'm typically drawn to movies that are actor/performance driven, and Vice is definitely that. Bale is consistently able to transform himself, both physically and in character, which in my opinion is the hallmark of exceptional acting. He's arguably one of the finest actors working today and in many ways reminds me of my personal favorite Meryl Streep. He takes chances, accepts a wide range of roles, and seems to become whoever he's portraying, instantly erasing any lingering memory of any other prior equally mesmerizing performance. Working across from Sam Rockwell (George Bush), Amy Adams (his wife Lynne), and Steve Carell (Donald Rumsfeld) gave Bale equally talented actors to play against. Three outstanding performers at the top of their game. I'm sure most won't put this movie as high on a list as I did. Even with McKay's directing talents and superior acting, it's still too long, meandering and a bit dry. That being said, it's a very enjoyable film and if you're not careful you might actually learn some history.<br />
<br />
4) <u>Green Book</u>: It's the 1960's, racism is alive and well, and a black virtuoso pianist takes on a musical tour through the deep south. He requires a driver/security for this trip and hires a white Italian American man for this purpose. Mahershala Ali gives an Oscar worthy performance as the musician. His performance is rich with elegance, dignity, and even subtlety as he uncovers the complexity of his own personal motivations and illustrates the complexity of the nation's racial divide. Ali is rapidly becoming a force in the acting world. He may have one of the most expressive faces I've seen. It's impressive how much emotion and intent he's able to convey with a mere glance, smile, raised brow or tilt of the head. Viggo Mortensen portraying the driver, is his acting equal. The film contrasts a man struggling with his identity with that of a man deeply rooted and secure in his identity. Ali doesn't know where he fits in, in his personal life, within his own race, or in society at large, while Viggo has deep family roots and a clear place in his Italian-American neighborhood. The film is well told, well directed and extremely well acted. However, there isn't much that is surprising or original about it. Two men from opposite sides of the tracks are forced together and learn they aren't so different after all, in the end coming to respect and understand each other. My oldest son pointed out that he knew exactly what to expect and could have easily predicted how it would end even before it began. Sadly he was right. Although it is predictable and stereotypical in many ways it is still an important story, well told, and worth seeing. I was entertained.<br />
<br />
5) <u>BlacKkKlansman</u>: Spike Lee directs this "based on a true story" account of Colorado Springs' first black detective, who was able to infiltrate the KKK along with his Jewish partner, played by Adam Driver. The movie is well acted, expertly directed and beautifully shot. Denzel's son, John David Washington plays the police officer who against all odds infiltrates the KKK. It's the 1970's, and the civil right's movement is heating up. America is a far cry from racially tolerant. Up and coming Adam Driver plays a Jewish cop, who hides from his own ethnicity, seemingly unwilling to recognize his own minority status. Washington tries to embrace and promote his race, unable to hide from it, while struggling to be accepted by his peers and by society. In the end Driver comes to recognize the significance of his own ethnicity and how all races deserve to be treated equally. I very much enjoyed Topher Grace's performance as David Duke, the leader of the KKK. While the acting, the direction and the action make this movie worth seeing, I found the writing to be somewhat redundant. The film kept making the same point over and over. Considering the high stakes of a Jewish man going undercover to infiltrate the KKK, the tone of the film lacked a degree of menace that the theme would suggest be present. There were far too many "silly" and comical moments which I felt took away from the weight and seriousness of the theme. Overall it was an enjoyable experience but I felt there could have and should have been "more".<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
6) <u>The Favourite</u>: Who doesn't love a great period movie?!?! Director Yorgos Lanthimos has made some of the oddest and most uncomfortable films in recent memory, such as The Lobster, Killing of a Sacred Deer, and Dogtooth, all films clearly NOT made for the masses (watch at your own risk). In The Favourite he has assembled a cast of fine actors. The Academy seems to reward performance driven films, very much like I do. The film is beautifully set in the 18th Century, with a sickly Queen Anne, wonderfully played by Oliva Colman, on the throne. The sets and costumes are spectacular. Rachel Weisz is the Queen's aide but also her confidant and lesbian love interest. She controls the Queens itinerary, has her ear, and is even able to influence policy. Naturally her position incites envy and others conspire against her. Emma Stone appears as a prior lady, now a manipulative servant down on her luck, but with limitless ambition. She quickly befriends and charms the Queen, eventually challenging for control and power. Her character will do anything, stoop to any level, to gain an upper hand. There is plenty of intrigue as each party schemes to rise in the ranks. I particularly enjoyed the scenes involving a somewhat secondary character, Robert Harley, played by Nicholas Hoult. Each of his all to few scenes were outstanding. It's never quite clear what each person's motivation is, what emotion is genuine, which words are true...... It's a quirky and unique film, beautifully told, cleverly written, and expertly acted. While I was entertained, in the end, it was just a bit to absurd to rate more highly.<br />
<br />
7) <u>Black Panther</u>: While I did enjoy this movie, and understand it's social significance, I simply didn't think it was even the best comic book movie of the year. My brother, whose opinion I don't always share but always respect, absolutely hated this movie. In any case, I thought both Avengers: Infinity War and Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse were superior comic book movies this year. If ever such a movie deserved a best picture nomination, to me, it would have been Deadpool. In general I suspect I'm guilty of being a movie snob when it comes to the Academy Awards. I don't think critical acclaim should have anything to do with box office success. While I do watch and enjoy the block busters I prefer that the Academy Awards go to more meaningful, serious, or artsy, type movies. I'd be more in favor of a different Oscar category to allow for fan favorites like X-men, Mission Impossible, James Bond, comedies or horror movies to give them a chance at winning Academy Awards. Although, there are other award shows that more readily recognize these type of movies. All that being said Chadwick Boseman was wonderful as The Black Panther, just as he was as Jackie Robinson (42) and Thurgood Marshall (Marshall). I'm glad I saw this film as it has great production value, strong women characters, fantastic effects, excellent costumes, and an interesting plot, but it simply wasn't extraordinary, or not extraordinary enough to warrant a best picture nomination.<br />
<br />
8) <u>Roma</u>: I have no idea how this movie got one, let alone ten, Oscar nominations. It's a black and white, very long, sub-titled movie. The story is set in Mexico and is told through the eyes of a maid, serving a dysfunctional family, in the 1970's. I found the performances to be flat, the direction and pacing to be inconsistent and meandering, the writing to be uninspired and pointless, with the color literally taken out. The only praise I have is for the cinematography. Many of the visuals are stunning. The scenes of Mexico City at the time were interesting and beautiful, there is also a gritty hospital sequence that's excellent. Still, I was unable to connect or relate to any of the characters and didn't really care what happened to them. It's been a long time since I've disliked a "best picture" nomination so much. One scene perfectly summed it up for me; a close up of a car tire slowly rolling over a mound of dog excrement. This was the first time I've missed seeing a best picture nomination on the big screen, and I'm glad for not having spent the money. Often nominated movies are re-released to theaters, taking advantage of the buzz nominations generate. As of yet, Roma has still not been released in any of the many theaters I frequent, including the art house theaters. Roma is a Netflix original that never went in to wide release. I'd love to hear from someone who enjoyed this movie. Clearly I must be missing something as I was NOT entertained.andyeye86http://www.blogger.com/profile/09863649309798299832noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983968235182538740.post-47975463589890328942018-03-04T13:44:00.001-08:002020-02-05T06:52:01.342-08:00Oscar's Best 2017Oscar night has snuck up on me this year. I've seen all of the best picture nominees but have simply been too busy, or too lazy, to actually write down my thoughts. As always, I'm hoping to spark some conversation or debate. There have been a number of very good movies, but just like last year, no single movie blew me away. I did enjoy movies throughout the year, without the customary lag during the winter and summer months. I have noted that movies seem to be longer then usual this year, with many run times well over two hours. It's a trend I'm not a fan off as longer films can become indulgent and boring. Some of the movies I enjoyed this year, that didn't get any love from the Academy, included: Logan Lucky, Baby Driver, Wonder Woman, Tragedy Girls, Only The Brave, Jumanji among others. Some more "out there" and harder to recommend films I enjoyed, or at least found interesting, included: Hostiles, The Disaster Artist, Wind River, Split and Mother.<br />
As always I'll review the best picture nominees from best to worst- IN MY OPINION.<br />
<br />
1) <u>PHANTOM THREAD</u>: I suspect I may be alone in my admiration of this movie, above all others this year. I am typically drawn to movies that are driven by great acting, far more so then by those driven by plot, character, action, suspense, humor, etc. That being said, Daniel Day-Lewis may arguably be the single best currently working male actor. Let's hope his claim to now be retired turns out not to be true, although I fear it is. Direction and writing are probably the next most important element to a great movie. Paul Thomas Anderson wrote AND directed Boogie Nights, Magnolia and There Will Be Blood. Need I say more?!?! Daniel Day-Lewis plays the dressmakers to the stars in 1950's London. He lives and works out of a house, which is run like a military barrack. He has a rigid militant manner to his life and to his work. Life is on his terms and he no tolerance to be pushed out of his comfort zone personally or professionally. The only people who seem to have a permanent place in his life and in his heart, are his equally cold sister, Cyril (Oscar nominated Lesley Manville), and the memory of his beloved mother. The inspiration for his dress designs seem to come from the women he currently loves, although he eventually discards them unceremoniously. The movie begins with a chance encounter, and eventual love affair, with Alma (Vicky Krieps), a simple but strong and beautiful waitress. While acting as his muse and lover she throws his orderly way of life in to chaos. In time, as their love grows, each figures out what the other wants and needs. They become interdependent and bring out the best in each other, even if unconventionally. Does she become the third woman with a permanent place in his life? Does he dump her? Will his art suffer? The acting, direction, writing, cinematography, and the music all weave together seamlessly in to a beautiful crafted work of art.<br />
<br />
2) <u>THE SHAPE OF WATER</u>: Another interesting movie by director Guillermo del Toro who also brought us the stunning Pan's Labyrinth. This somewhat darker twist on "Beauty and the Beast" takes place in the 1960's, set mostly in a secret, underground, government, research facility. Elisa (Oscar nominated Sally Hawkins), the beauty, is a sweet and charming, deaf custodian, with a heart of gold. She encounters the beast, a scaly, water bound, "monster" imprisoned at the facility. She finds herself drawn to him and endeavors to save him. Naturally, in time her affection is reciprocated and romance blossoms. A number of expertly portrayed secondary supporting characters bring life to this film. Octavia Spencer plays her colleague and ally while Michael Shannon plays the antagonist determined to "break" the beast. There is a great deal of humor, tenderness, beauty and intrigue interwoven in this unconventional love story. The movie is beautifully shot, well scored, and tremendously well acted. Del Toro has a way of filming that is dance-like. The choreography and motion of the scenes flows so beautifully, almost whimsically. The film genuinely captures the time period and cleverly sets the mood visually. I did take issue with a bathroom scene that while beautiful was just too far fetched to believe and was inconsistent with the prior "realism". I also didn't love the ending. It felt rushed, awkward, and unsatisfying. As my brother likes to say "it didn't stick the landing". I'm not sure it deserved all the nominations it received, but it is an excellent movie worth seeing.<br />
<br />
3) <u>DARKEST HOUR</u>: Now this is a movie almost solely driven by a single acting performance. Gary Oldman portrays Winston Churchill in this historical biopic. I know makeup, prosthetics, and special effects have come a long way, but I was still blown away by how they were able to physically transform Oldman in to Churchill. However, flushing out the complexities of the character is a testament to Oldman's superior acting skills. I was instantly hooked and convinced I was watching Churchill. His interactions with the King were particularly riveting. As a fan of history, particularly the history of World War II, I greatly enjoyed learning how Churchill rose to power and how he struggled making the weighty decisions he faced. Annihilation and/or annexation seemed likely. Should he fight to the end and risk more innocent lives, or should he try to negotiate with Hitler? His action, or lack of action, would determine the fate of Britain. Like all of the historically set films on the list this year, this film truly captures the essence of the time period in which the events take place. I don't even really care that much how historically accurate the film was. I was completely swept up in the journey and enjoyed the ride.<br />
<br />
4) <u>LADY BIRD</u>: A beautifully written and acted coming of age comedy. I have been critical of several movies Greta Gerwig acted in. However, she did a spectacular job writing the screenplay and directing this film. The gifted Saoirse Ronan, who burst on the scene in Brooklyn, plays a Catholic high school senior, who like most teenagers, struggles with her identity. She is looking to discover what her mother calls "the best version of yourself". In an effort to define herself and have some control she insists on being called Lady Bird instead of Christine, her given name. Like most teens, she's often charming, lovable, witty, clever and kind. However, she can also be selfish, petty, and even mean spirited, making her feel very "real". She has complicated interactions and feelings about her sexuality, parents, siblings, friends, teachers, and religion. There is a natural and inherent selfishness to youth, thinking we are the center of the universe, but why doesn't everyone else recognize it?!? Teens don't necessarily see that others have equally complex and difficult lives. What makes this movie even more entertaining are all the rich secondary characters. An interesting movie could easily be made out of most of the supporting cast. I'd have liked to learn more about each of her parents, her brother and his girlfriend, her boyfriend/s, teachers etc. I admit that I tend to enjoy coming of age movies and this one did not disappoint (and it wasn't two hours long).<br />
<br />
5) <u>THREE BILLBOARDS OUTSIDE EBBING, MISSOURI</u>: What makes this dramatic dark comedy rank so high is that is was simply entertaining. I never checked my watch and time flew by; a primary criteria by which I evaluate movies. I suspect this film will be a fan favorite, appealing to a wider audience. It's a fictional story about a grieving mother who takes out three billboards to motivate the police department. She accuses the chief of police of ineptitude or laziness. Her daughter has been brutally murdered months ago, and she perceives a lack of action and investigation, and she blames the chief. Much of what makes this movie so entertaining, aside from the script, are the poignant performances by the leads as well as by the secondary characters. Frances McDormand as the mother, Woody Harelson as the Chief, and Sam Rockwell as the racist/violent Deputy are the heartbeat of this film. But Woody's wife, Sam's mother, and McDormand's ex husband, along with a slew of other interesting characters contribute greatly to this film. Both Woody and Sam are consistently excellent and yet seem under-rated. My primary issue with this film are the number of unrealistic scenes which I found distracting. I don't mind suspending disbelief and absolutely don't require realism, but I do like some consistency. I was particularly distracted by Sam Rockwell's character. While expertly played, I found it impossible to believe that a small town, in the deep south, would not only employ but retain a police deputy with his degree of overt racism, ineptitude, immaturity and complete disregard for the rule of law. By rights he belonged in prison. There were other inconsistencies and unbelievable moments which lowered this movie's rank. It also didn't quite "stick the landing", leaving me a bit unfulfilled. That being said, it's a fun ride and worth seeing.<br />
<br />
6) <u>CALL ME BY YOUR NAME</u>: Another coming of age movie. I found it fascinating how this movie seemed to be the opposite of Lady Bird. Both movies are about teens struggling with finding their own inner identity and their place in the world. However, they do so in equally interesting but wildly different ways. This is very much an "indie" type movie while Lady Bird is more mainstream. It might make an interesting project for a film student to compare and contrast. Elio, played by Timothee Chalamet, who incidentally also had a part in Lady Bird, does an impressive job conveying his search for identity. The movie is set in Italy and feels like a meandering stroll through the countryside. It's beautifully filmed but in no hurry at 132 minutes. Elio is a gifted musician, highly intelligent, well read and well liked, with understanding and supportive parents. Mostly he seems to struggle with his sexual identity, even his sexual preference. Armie Hammer's character Oliver, comes to live at the summer home in Italy, serving as the teaching assistant to Elio's father (Michael Stuhlbarg). The two eventually become friends and slowly a reluctant, tender and passionate love affair develops. Additionally both have sexually satisfying relationships with women. It's a wonderful movie but I simply had a hard time relating to the characters. Being able to relate to, understand, identify or empathize with a character is critical to becoming invested in the action and outcome. This is the second year in a row that I struggled to identify with a gay themed movie. I just didn't connect. I think I'd have had an easier time relating to Elio were he simply gay, rather then bi. Moonlight, last year's best picture winner, was my least favorite of the nominated films. I am not at all homophobic and have loved many movies which had homosexuality was at their heart. Films like Milk, Dallas Buyers Club, A Single Man, and even Philadelphia are just a few such films that come quickly to mind. There is a lot to love about this film but for me it was too long, a little self indulgent and hard to relate to.<br />
<br />
7) <u>THE POST</u>: Meryl Streep is probably my favorite actor of all time, Tom Hanks is no slouch, and Steven Spielberg is obviously in rarefied air as a director. With those ingredients you'd think this movie would be slam dunk amazing. The Post explores the US government's deception of the American public about the Vietnam War, and the cover-up that followed. Secret government documents exposing wrong-doing are covertly leaked to the Washington Post. These documents become known as the Pentagon Papers. On the grounds of protecting national security Nixon endeavors to legally bar the Washington Post, owned by Kay Graham (Streep) and edited by Ben Bradlee (Hanks) from publishing these damning documents. Should she risk her freedom and the future of the paper, violate the law and publish, or let an important story about corruption and deception go untold? Intrigue, suspense, and dramatic tension should have been at the heart of this movie and yet it was slow and a little boring. Graham who eventually does the right thing, doesn't come across as the strong willed titan she was. She comes across as a timid, confused and a reluctant participant, lost in her late husband's shadow. Additionally many of the scenes felt contrived, unnatural and staged. Shots to make sure every character was in frame, nobody obscuring anyone else. Characters standing by unnaturally, waiting for a cue, eager to give their own lines. It felt a bit like a stage play rather then a big screen movie. In 2015 Spielberg collaborated with Hanks in Bridge of Spies and I had similar directorial issues with that film. I did enjoy the movie overall, but compared to Spotlight, another movie about journalism and uncovering deception, it simply didn't measure up.<br />
<br />
8) <u>DUNKIRK</u>: I had such high hopes for this movie. Director Christopher Nolan brought us amazing movies such as Memento, Insomnia, The Prestige, Inception, The Dark Knight Rises and Interstellar. However, Dunkirk was somewhat disappointing. In 1940 Allied soldiers were isolated and surrounded on the beaches of Dunkirk, France. The German army had them pinned down and trapped, with a real opportunity to end and win World War II. The story is told from three different perspectives. There is the military drama on the beaches, a view from a fighter pilot's cockpit (Tom Hardy), and there are civilian boats rushing to Dunkirk in hopes of evacuating stranded soldiers. Technically this movie was amazing. Many of the images and several of the scenes were visually stunning; beautifully filmed and acted. The opening few minutes and all scenes with Mark Rylance, as a small boat captain, were particularly effective. My daughter loved every scene with boy-band heartthrob Harry Styles, of One Direction fame. However, I'm not sure this alone qualifies for a higher ranking.... Sorry Lauren. On the other hand, Kenneth Branagh's superior talents were absolutely wasted and his scenes went nowhere. There was minimal character development with very little meaningful dialogue, making it difficult to connect with any character or the action. Overall I found the story confusing without a smooth arc to the narrative. Much of the action seemed contrived, disjointed and unrealistic. With no ship in sight why were rows of soldiers lined up on the beach, virtual sitting ducks? It wasn't clearly explained how Dunkirk came to be, what the issues were, and what made it so important. The action at sea and in the air were far more entertaining and coherent then what transpired on the beaches. For example, a minor sub-plot story develops when a group of soldiers seek refuge on an small grounded ship. The entire sequence felt alternately pointless, confusing, manipulative, and in the end cliche. The technical merit of this film can not be denied, and it is worth seeing, but I just don't think this movie deserved to be on the best picture list.<br />
<br />
9) <u>GET OUT</u>: At the risk of being inconsistent, or a movie snob, I'll say this movie was more entertaining, interesting, and "fun" then Dunkirk, yet I rank it last among the best picture nominees. If I had to re-watch any of the movies on the list, I'd easily watch Get Out before I'd watch 6, 7, or 8 again. I should say that horror is by far my least favorite genre of movies and straight comedy may be next. Jordan Peele, of the hilarious Key And Peele fame, writes and directs his first movie. I can't wait to see the next film he directs. Get Out is the tale of an interracial couple, portrayed beautifully by Daniel Kaluuya and the gorgeous Allison Williams. Their relationship has reached the point where she wants to take him to meet her parents. They travel deep in to the woods, to her parent's isolated home. At first everything is harmonious and he's accepted with open arms. Eventually he begins to notice odd happenings but writes them off to his imagination. When her mother, a psychiatrist (too rarely seen Catherine Keener), hypnotizes him things take a dramatically darker turn. It's a unique, fun, poignant and interesting tale well told. So, I guess it depends on what you think "best" means when raking a movie. I think Get Out just lacked some of the gravitas or weight of a great Oscar caliber film. It's a fun movie for sure but it lacks the elements that make a movie important or "best" to me. It's why so few comedies, comic book movies, animated or horror movies even get nominated. By all means see this movie and feel free to tell me I'm wrong for not listing it higher. You may be right.andyeye86http://www.blogger.com/profile/09863649309798299832noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983968235182538740.post-16398624787253298212017-02-12T18:54:00.001-08:002017-02-12T18:54:36.660-08:00Oscar's Best 2016It's Oscar time once again, and once again I've failed to be active on this blog. So much for best intentions. 2016 has had a number of good movies, and overall I'm pleased with the best movie category. However, unlike most years, I didn't find that singular standout movie to make my top choice easy. My top two, and the next two, choices are almost interchangeable. Only the bottom few were easy for me to categorize. I did feel a bit self conscious for selecting all of the racially themed movies near the bottom, but that's just how it went. As always, I welcome and encourage comments, either to agree or disagree with my ranking. I understand that movies are art, and that we don't, and that we shouldn't, agree on what "good" art is. The following list simply represents my humble opinion. Be aware, there may be spoilers.<br />
<br />
1)<b> <u>LION</u></b>: This is an amazing "based on a true story" movie, by virtually unknown director Garth Davis. It's the tale of a 5-year-old boy, named Saroo, who accidentally gets trapped on a train in India. He's unable to disembark until he arrives in Calcutta, thousands of miles from home. Saroo is eventually adopted, out of an orphanage, by a couple in Australia. I'm not normally a fan of child actors in leading roles, as they don't typically have the range to show the "arc" of character development necessary. However, Sunny Pawar is simply amazing as the young lost boy, and in my mind was overlooked by Oscar. Dev Patel does get a nomination for expertly playing the grown and tormented Saroo, struggling to find his own identity. Nicole Kidman, who plays his adoptive mother also deserves her nomination. The film flows beautifully and captured my full attention. The action, cinematography, acting, and direction are all top notch. I was simply swept away. My only slight issue came in the final act, which I felt lacked the same intensity, edge, and tempo. Therefore, it did not hold my attention in the same way the rest of the movie did. The ending of the movie ended up feeling a bit too much like a documentary. That being said, this is an excellent film and should be seen by all movie lovers. Bring Kleenex!<br />
<div>
<br /></div>
<div>
2) <b> <u>MANCHESTER BY THE SEA</u></b>: I felt somewhat conflicted by this film. The thing I didn't like about it initially, is the very thing I ended up liking most about it. First let me summarize- the movie deals with the life of Lee Chandler, played by Casey Affleck, a New England native, dealing with tragedy, sorrow, and guilt. The source of his anguish is cleverly withheld until well in to the movie. Lee is forced to move from his self imposed prison, a dingy basement apartment in Boston, back to the town at the heart of his suffering. He's been named in the will of his deceased brother, to care for his teen aged nephew Patrick, played by Lucas Hedges. I'm a huge fan of, and consistently find myself enjoying movies that are driven primarily by good acting, and this is clearly one such film. Of course what makes extraordinary acting special is the writing. Great actors given great dialogue makes for great cinema. There is a two minute scene in which Casey Affleck chats with his ex wife, played by Michelle Williams (both appropriately nominated), that is simply magnificent. Two of the best at their very best. It's a scene that will stick with me for a very long time. What bothered me most as I walked out of the theater was Lee's lack of "arc." It's a deeply sad movie, about a deeply wounded man, who by the end of the film is nearly as sad and wounded as he was at the start. He's lonely, hurting, and picking bar fights in the first act exactly the same as he is and does in the last. Despite being around loving people, family and friends, who are struggling to move on with their own lives and their own hardships, he simply can't. I left the theater feeling hopeless and depressed. However, the movie is so powerful, so well written and performed, that it continued to haunt me. In time, I ended up appreciating this movie for portraying a character who simply can't get over his guilt and loss. Sure, there is a tiny bit of growth, but some wounds are just too deep to recover from. Not every movie needs to have a happy ending, not every character has to see the light. I respect that this movie was even made. For such a dark movie, there was a lot of humor, some of which I didn't think fit all that well. Lucas Hedges gives a fine performance, for which he got a nomination. However, to me he's the weakest link. It's not the actual performance as much as what his character seems to be about. As paralyzed by sadness as Lee is, Patrick barely seems to recognize that his own father has just died. He seems only to care about fishing, friends, and juggling his two girlfriends. It's a great film, a must-see, but again, bring Kleenex.<br />
<br />
3) <b><u>ARRIVAL</u></b>: Sci Fi at its very best. Smart, rich characters, well acted, great script and superior direction. Who could ask for more?!?! Alien vessels have arrived and are hovering over a multitude of cities around the globe. Are they friend of foe? Merely observers or threats? Amy Adams is a leading linguistics professor and is charged with decoding the "language" which the aliens are using to communicate. I was fully hypnotized by the story, by the acting, by the pace, by the visuals, and by the message. I have seen reviews and heard comments that this is a "snooze fest," "preachy" and "cliche-riddled." I couldn't disagree more vehemently. Finally a movie about alien life that isn't simply a monster story. A film with meaning and heart. I was struck by the directors use of light and focus. Many of the scenes are purposely dark, with only the object of interest in the light. It's a seamless yet artistic way of drawing our attention. A similar technique is used in which there is a short depth of field. Only the object of interest is in focus, while the surroundings are blurred, with changing focus to draw our attention. It's a unique story, beautifully shot, and worth a peek.</div>
<b><br /></b>
4) <b><u>HELL OR HIGH WATER</u></b>: A modern day western. Instead of horses we have pick up trucks. Instead of an evil land baron, we have evil banks. Once again what makes this film superior is the acting and writing. The surprising Chris Pine and the deliciously menacing Ben Foster play Toby and Tanner, cowboy brothers, who decide to rob banks for the money they need to save their family and their land. The brothers both have dark sketchy pasts, but what they also have is a bond, and true love for each other. Toby is fighting his darker nature and appears to be the good brother, while Tanner has malice just barely below the surface. He's not even trying to hide or suppress his baser instincts. The interactions feel real, honest, complex, and unique. The other couple, or partnership, that is equally unique is between the Texas Rangers Marcus and Alberto, played by Jeff Bridges and Gil Birmingham. Once again Jeff Bridges offers a deep portrayal, inhabiting his character as comfortably as if it were his own skin. He steals every scene he's in and makes it look easy. He adds a levity but also a legitimacy to the film. At the risk of sounding cliche, Jeff Bridges is an American treasure. The direction of this film is superb. David Mackenzie takes us on a beautifully paced and artistically filmed western adventure that is absolutely worth the trip.<br />
<br />
5)<b> <u>LA LA LAND</u></b>: I mean this as a compliment: LA LA LAND is a great little chick flick. I should also add that in general, I am a fan of musicals- my favorite probably being HAIR. As much as I enjoyed LA LA LAND I don't think it deserved a record number of nominations. What makes this movie work is the incredible chemistry between Ryan Gosling and Emma Stone. Both are great actors in their own right, and are also magnificent together. Damien Chazelle expertly backs up his amazing direction of WHIPLASH from 2014. I can't wait to see what he comes up with next. The movie is light and engaging as we learn to genuinely like and root for both lead characters We also find an appreciation for the third lead, "Jazz." Their courtship is sweet, even if it is somewhat predictable. I found the first two-thirds of the movie enjoyable and fun, but the final third of the film is what makes it special. All the great musicals I can think of have an edge, a darker side, to go along with memorable musical numbers. Until the final act that edge was absent, which left it feeling simply amusing and "sweet." My only other criticism has to do with the voices. I've heard it said that the relatively sub-par (not awful by any stretch) singing voices of the stars is what gives it authenticity. I'm not of that camp. I found their singing a bit distracting, much as I did hearing Russell Crowe croak in Les Miserables a few years back. If I had to recommend any of the nominated movies for a fun date night out, this would be it.<br />
<b><br /></b>
6)<b> <u>HIDDEN FIGURES</u></b>: When I saw the trailer for this movie I thought it looked quite Pollyanna and a candidate for the TV Hallmark Hall of fame. After a friend, who saw it, told me it was "trite" I was sure I'd hate it. Exactly the kind of movie I typically hate. After seeing it, I was right, it was Pollyanna and even a little bit trite. Even the images were all bright, colorful and cheery. However, I actually enjoyed it a lot. The story is compelling and important. It's a part of our American history that we should all be aware of and I was hooked from the start. It's the tale of NASA's endeavor to put a human in to orbit and eventually on the moon. It's based on the real life significant contribution of African American women, who provided invaluable mathematical contributions to the US space program. Taraji Henson is a captivating as Katherine Johnson, Octavia Spencer is her usual charming self as Dorothy Vaughan, and Janelle Monae portrays Mary Jackson, three "human computers." Theodore Melfi artfully relays the story about these talented women, stressing the support they receive from their friends, family, and community. It's a beautiful representation of life in the 60's and depicts a warm and loving African American community. I was surprised how well a story largely about overcoming racism and bigotry was told without a sharp edge, without finger pointing, and without anger. There is no violence, no cursing, and no gratuitous outrage. Still, it's made evident how difficult the lives of African Americans were at that time, and how deep the injustices were which they had to endure, both socially, legally, and professionally. I tend to like my movies a bit darker and with more grit, but this is an important true story, beautifully told and worth seeing. An ideal family movie date.<br />
<b><br /></b>
7)<b> <u>MOONLIGHT</u></b>: I'm still conflicted by this film. There is no doubt that this movie was well acted and directed but I just couldn't connect or relate. I was only able to appreciate it as a work of art. In the end I just didn't find it terribly entertaining. MOONLIGHT is the story of Chiron, aka Little, a homosexual boy, growing up in the drug infested projects of Miami. The movie is told in three acts, with three actors representing different stages of his life. Each actor is challenged by different aspects of his struggle, as he endeavors to understand his own sexuality and to be accepted. He just doesn't fit in to his community, his school, or even his family. His struggle isn't only external, but he also struggles to define and know himself. He's the product of poverty and lack of opportunity; hungry for positive role models, as he's being raised by a drug addict single mom. My primary issue with the film was once again a lack of "arc." Each of the three actors playing Chiron do so almost stoically. Feelings and opinions are seldom verbalized and have to be inferred. The youngest actor is almost comically silent. There is very little growth, which may be the point, but it left me feeling empty and disconnected from Chiron. This is the a classic "indie" type movie and I only recommend it for true movie lovers. The film is raw, dark, and depressing, yet there is no doubt that it is a work of art.<br />
<b><br /></b>
8)<b> <u>HACKSAW RIDGE</u></b>: I'm not sure I can be totally objective about this movie. First, I tend to be hard on military movies, just as I am on medically themed movies, because I have some real life experience in those fields, making me more judgmental and more critical than I should be. That real life experience for some reason also keeps me from getting fully immersed. Second, I'm just not a huge fan of Andrew Garfield. He was good in a smaller role in THE SOCIAL NETWORK, passable as SPIDERMAN, but in my opinion he is what kept 99 HOMES and SILENCE from being as good as they could have been; I might even say that he ruined them for me. I do like Mel Gibson as a director, and as such he did a masterful job. The movie is once again based on a true story. Desmond Doss was a conscientious objector who served as a Medic during the battle of Okinawa. He didn't carry a weapon and refused to "fight." Still, he was a hero, saving lives, and earned the Medal of Honor without firing a single shot. As such it's a compelling and important story. Doss volunteers to serve and it comes as no surprise that in basic training his fellow recruits, as well as the cadre, want him gone. Nobody wants to be in a foxhole with a solider without a weapon. It also doesn't come as a surprise that by the end they all respect and appreciate him. A significant sub-plot of the film deals with his courtship of a nurse. During the romance Garfield continually makes the same ridiculously dopey expression that made me want to punch him in the face. His social and political fight for acceptance is well documented by the film and as such it's interesting. However, the heart of the movie takes place on Hacksaw Ridge. It's probably the longest battle scene in history, or at least that I can remember, or maybe it just felt that way. In any case, this movie has 6 nominations so someone liked it, I just wasn't one of them.<br />
<br />
9) <b><u>FENCES</u></b>: I've stated that I particularly enjoy movies that are "actor driven." Clearly FENCES is one of those films, and yet it's my least favorite of the Best Picture nominees. Denzel Washington is a living acting legend and Viola Davis is on a short list of best living actresses, and they both shine. That being said, I found this movie to be a series of long, often boring, speeches. Very little action and a plot I couldn't relate to and didn't care much about. The set of the movie is pretty much limited to a single house and the yard around that house. When it was over I said "this felt more like a play then a movie." I was embarrassed to find out that it was actually a Broadway show first, and that the show featured Washington and Davis. Washington directs the action which takes place during the 50's and deals with family, race, loss, and forgiveness. AUGUST: OSAGE COUNTY is another film based on a play, with similar issues, but is a far better film in my opinion.andyeye86http://www.blogger.com/profile/09863649309798299832noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983968235182538740.post-27828959180714975192016-02-10T19:33:00.001-08:002016-02-10T19:33:06.364-08:00Oscar's Best 2015Once again the Oscars are upon us, and I haven't written a single blog this year. At a minimum, this year, I will write a post revealing my personal ranking of the 8 movies nominated in the Best Picture category. I do hope to write a few more posts in this coming year, and I hope to entice some comments, but hope does spring eternal.<br />
Beware, there may be mild spoilers.<br />
Here, from best to worst..... IN MY OPINION. <br />
<br />
1) <u>SPOTLIGHT</u>: I often find myself struggling with the order in which to rank the movies nominated for best picture. Some years it's fairly simple, but this year was particularly difficult, especially after the top two. My choice for the very best picture of the year is typically easy, as it was this year. SPOTLIGHT is quite simply the best movie I saw in 2015. It's such a complete film, without holes. It's a wonderful script, expertly directed, beautifully shot, and honestly acted. The action flows at a steady pace, which is a key construct for making a great film. The story is of course about Catholic priests molesting boys in Boston, and ultimately the world over. It uncovers the systematic cover up perpetrated by government officials, the community, the legal system, and the church itself. That being said, the movie is really more about the craft of being a journalist. It reminded me of ALL THE PRESIDENTS MEN in the way it focuses on the investigation. Michael Keaton plays the leader of the Spotlight team, a division of the Boston Globe. His team typically pursues a single story that requires deep, prolonged, intensive, investigative reporting. Liev Schreiber, the newly hired, first ever Jewish editor of the Globe, essentially assigns the Spotlight team this story. Mark Ruffalo and Rachel McAdams are Spotlight journalists who doggedly follow lead after lead. What's beautiful about this movie is that it doesn't pull any punches, yet it doesn't feel judgmental either. There is no gratuitous religion or church bashing. The facts are honestly and accurately depicted, and the intricate deception is revealed layer by layer. I was also struck by the apparent reluctance, of everyone involved, to uncover the truth, but being honor bound and dedicated to doing so. Often at their own expense they proceed, because it was the right thing to do. For the most part they are faithful Catholics without an ax to grind. Every fact uncovered leads to a darker more disturbing truth, a truth nobody really seems to want to hear. With heavy hearts and a hope to find a different truth, they do their duty. I was swept up in the journey, learned something, and was thoroughly entertained. If you haven't seen it, are older then 20, you won't be disappointed.<br />
<br />
2) <u>ROOM</u>: My second choice was also pretty easy this year. For such a harsh and ugly premise this really is a gentle and beautifully crafted film. Brie Larson plays Ma, a young woman who 7 years previously, as a teenager, was abducted and locked in a shed behind her captor's home. The tale is elegantly told, and expertly paced, in two parts. We join the story in the claustrophobic space of a 10 X 10 foot shed. Ma and her now 5 year old son, played amazingly well by Jacob Tremblay, are locked away and isolated from society. A flickery rabbit-ear television and the captor himself are the only connection to the outside world. The first half of the movie takes place entirely within this space, referred to simply as "room". Somehow Ma manages to make this tiny room a loving home for the two of them. It's impressive how much action and how full a life takes place in this tiny physical space. The second half of the movie deals with their rescue and re-introduction to society. What's striking about this movie is how beautifully and subtly it's been crafted. It was obvious that the writer and director agonized over every line and every image. There were so many opportunities for it to become melodramatic but it never is. It could have become emotionally manipulative or sensationalized but it isn't. Each point is made poignantly but subtly. For example, we suspect the boy will be emotionally damaged and will need professional therapy. We do indeed see him talking to a Psychiatrist, but that scene probably isn't even 30 seconds long. The fact that the perpetrator will have a trial, which will have a physical and financial cost, is only alluded to peripherally. We learn very little of the captor or his motivation. He is not dignified by giving him the weight of a back story. Ma's own father has "issues" with her and his newly discovered grandson. It's never spelled out and it's not debated. The audience is given credit for some intelligence and we are allowed to draw our own conclusions. The movie is all about Ma and her struggle to survive, in and out of room. I was swept away by the elegant, simple, beauty of this very dark and very powerful story. In the end it speaks to human resilience and to the power we have to adapt and endure even in the face of the most crippling hardships.<br />
<br />
3) <u>THE MARTIAN</u>: This is where it got difficult for me to decide which movie I enjoyed more. Depending on your own personal preference and personality the order might well be different. My own "sciency" background is probably why I liked this movie so much. Maybe just because I saw it with my girls and was in a good mood..... The exploration of and travel to Mars has been very much in the news lately. Thousands of people are signing up to be potential one way travelers to Mars. Matt Damon credibly plays an astronaut who becomes stranded on Mars, knowing his days are literally numbered. He methodically and realistically deals with the obstacles threatening his survival; how to eat, how to breathe, how to communicate with earth, how to survive the elements, long term. In his own words "I'm gonna have to science the shit out of this." The story is told with a keen sense of drama and yet maintains a light almost comedic air. I was swept up and fascinated by every discovery, every challenge, and every solution. I was also inspired by the hopefulness and optimism of this film. Humans and humanity are shown in the very best most generous light. The cinematography was breath taking and Ridley Scott's direction was spot on; simply a beautifully told story. I do agree that the pace of the film was a tad slow, especially considering how much of the movie involves only Matt and Mars. I also felt that the ending was rushed, incomplete, and somewhat unsatisfying, especially after such a slow deliberate build. If you don't buy in to the story early, with a run time of 2:24, I could understand how you might feel it long and even tedious.<br />
<br />
4) <u>THE BIG SHORT</u>: If you're interested in the financial markets and enjoy biopic style movies I could see where this film might rank higher on your list then it does mine. I know it was my oldest son's favorite movie of the year, even if he didn't see ROOM. This very ambitious script tries to untangle and explain why and how the stock market crashed, and exactly how that event was tied to sub prime mortgages, or collapse of the housing "bubble". Considering the inherent complexities, director Adam McKay succeeded admirably. The primary characters impressively played by Christian Bale, Steve Carell (no longer a mere comedic actor), Ryan Gosling, and Brad Pitt, are based on the actual people who exposed the corruption. Only the names were changed to protect the innocent. For the most part this film moves along briskly and is captivating. I'm not typically a huge fan of voice-over narration but due to the subject matter and need for explanation, the direct looking in to the camera narration by Gosling actually worked. I seemed obvious that the movie was made by a primarily comedic director. McKay is best known for STEP BROTHERS, ANCHORMAN, and TALLADEGA NIGHTS. There was a humorous slant that I felt was often unnecessary and at times distracting. My most common complaint these days is the length of movies. Do they really need to be more then 2 hours long? Several scenes were pointless and added little to the story or my understanding of what happened. I keep remembering a alligator in a swimming pool, and wonder why??? Still, I was thoroughly entertained and walked out with just the right amount of indignation and outrage.<br />
<br />
5) <u>BROOKLYN</u>: If you're inclined to romance you'll enjoy this movie and would no doubt rank it higher then I did. Saoirse Ronan, who I expect to win the Best Actress award, gives an amazing performance as a young Irish woman who reluctantly leaves her home and family to start a new life, with more possibilities, in New York. Her journey and early experiences are marked by memorable encounters with other fascinating people. Each of the characters she interacts with are rich, full, interesting people. It's a great sign that I wanted to know more about her travel companion, her co-workers, and the women she shared a house with... to name a few. It speaks to the richness of the script, that even the more peripheral characters were intriguing. Her travels are harrowing and her early days in NY are desperate and lonely, yet she endures. She is supported by the church, finds work, educates herself, and lives the American dream of making a better life through hard work. Somewhat predictably she ends up falling in love. The lucky Italian young man is deftly portrayed by relatively unknown Emory Cohen. The slow build of their affection and reliance on one another is truly beautiful. They avoid cliche and contrived drama. Eventually she makes a return trip to Ireland, feeling the pull of home and family. Once back in Ireland there are job opportunities and there is an inevitable attraction to a charming Irish suitor. She is confronted by a choice between a life in NY and the potential of a rich life back "home" in Ireland. The story of this complex woman's life is expertly crafted and tenderly told. <br />
<div>
<br /></div>
6) <u>THE REVENANT</u>: Now if you need a little more action and testosterone in your movies, you'll no doubt rank this much higher. I was particularly eager to see THE REVENANT, in large part because I'm a huge Leo fan (still annoyed and perplexed that he didn't win best actor for THE AVIATOR) and of director Alejandro Inarritu who brought us such amazing and memorable films as BIRDMAN, BABEL, and 21 GRAMS (maybe on my top ten of all time) to name a few. In a nutshell the movie is about revenge and survival. Leo's character's son is killed by the harsh, duplicitous, and menacing character played by Tom Hardy. After the first ten minutes my hopes were very high. The opening depicts an Indian attack on fur trappers in the wild. We've all seen a number of bow and arrow attacks in various films, but Inarritu's treatment is truly unique and majestic. The brutality, panic and fear is palpable. Leadership weighing the options, mounting a defense and counter, followed by a retreat felt "real", was visually stunning, and had my heart racing. The much hyped bear attack was equally extraordinary, leaving me breathless. The landscape and how it was filmed should have been considered for a best actor nomination. The scenery was the lead, and had a lot to do with the power of this movie. So while there was a lot to like, there were enough "issues" that dropped THE REVENANT down in my personal ranking. Maybe it's my fascination with TV's MAN VS WILD, or my medical training, but I kept thinking "he'd be dead of hypothermia", or "no way he'd survive that", a few different times. Heck, I avoid shallow puddles on a sidewalk, skipping around them, even when I have on boots. Yet these men made no effort whatsoever to avoid walking right through freezing streams, in not much more then fur boots. A good friend of mine felt the quality of Leo's performance was over-rated since there wasn't all that much dialogue. I countered with Adrian Brody's performance in THE PIANIST, which was extraordinary but similarly short of dialogue. While it wasn't his most memorable role, I won't be disappointed if Leo wins. For all it's qualities, the film, in the end just didn't deliver enough by way of arc. What was the point? What did we learn? Revenge is good? We're capable of amazing feats if we put our mind to it, or are properly motivated? For me, too little pay off for far too long a movie. Beautiful and entertaining, but a bit empty in the end.<br />
<br />
7) <u>BRIDGE OF SPIES</u>: Steven Spielberg just doesn't make bad movies. Fine, I was no fan of WAR HORSE but still.... His credits are legendary; arguably the best living director, or at worst he's in the team picture. This movie is another popular true story bio-pic. Tom Hanks plays a well reputed lawyer who is enlisted to represent a Soviet spy and eventually to negotiate a conflict between the Soviets and the US. He's untrained and inexperienced for the task he's given. His skills and ethics are put to the test trying to negotiate a prisoner exchange. While the performances were predictably excellent, particularly Hanks and Mark Rylance, the Soviet spy, who I would have enjoyed seeing more of. Still, I felt a number of scenes were "stiff" for lack of a better word. The action felt choreographed at times, almost rehearsed, something unexpected in a Spielberg movie. Again the 2 hr 22 minute run time felt excessive. I checked my watch a number of times to see "how much longer". Another issue may actually have more to do with me personally then with the film. I knew what the eventual outcome would be. Much like ARGO the movie is considered a thriller. How much suspense can there be when you already know what's going to happen? I never had that pit in my stomach rooting for some particular result, or anxiety dreading some other outcome. Knowing it'll all work out, ahead of time, is a suspense killer. There just wasn't enough dramatic tension, nor were the characters compelling enough, to keep me fully invested for the films entirety. There were plenty of exceptional scenes and much to like, but as a whole, for a best picture nominee, I was disappointed.<br />
<br />
8) <u>MAD MAX: FURY ROAD</u>: Ranking this movie last was actually a very easy choice. I just didn't like much about it. Off the top of my head there were a number of movies I'd have rather seen nominated instead of MAD MAX. For example, EX MACHINA, TRUMBO, CONCUSSION, ME EARL AND THE DYING GIRL, THE WALK, and STEVE JOBS were all much more enjoyable and to me "better". I didn't see the animated INSIDE OUT but I have a hunch it too was better. I know this movie has, or will have, cult status. I have a number of friends who loved it. I'll admit that it was stylishly innovative and different for sure. Still, I couldn't get in to it. I was unable to suspend disbelief. It's vital to accept the premise of any movie to be able to enjoy it and I couldn't. The story is about survival in the dessert of a post-apocalyptic world. A tyrant needs to be overthrown and the elements need to be endured. I didn't care for the acting, the premise, the costumes, or even the cinematography. I got hung up on the lack of water which made survival too unrealistic for me to overlook. I felt any number of scenes were "artsy" for the sake of "artsy" which didn't contribute anything to the film. It felt very much like a very long MTV music video, for a song I didn't care for. A guitar player on the hood of a demon vehicle? Soldiers flapping around like flags at the end of very long poles in the dessert? I just kept thinking "really?". To me this movie was a bit like how I feel about good poetry. You may well have no idea what the heck it's about after the first reading, but if you study it, you'll be rewarded by some deeper beauty or truth. In this case I had no desire to study and never found any deeper anything. And as they said in THE BIG SHORT, "Truth is like poetry. And most people fucking hate poetry." I loved the original MAD MAX, far less THUNDER DOME, and even less FURY ROAD. For free, on HBO, I guess it's worth a look, just to see what all the hype is about. Make your own judgement. I welcome opinions on why I'm wrong about this movie, or any other movie for that matter.<br />
<br />
<br />andyeye86http://www.blogger.com/profile/09863649309798299832noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983968235182538740.post-29182246345643215162015-03-01T19:11:00.002-08:002016-02-06T15:56:09.096-08:00Oscar's Best 2014In the first blog I ever wrote, I gave my opinions about the movies nominated for best picture in 2013. Since that time I've written reviews on a number of movies, but only a fraction of those I actually saw, and none recently. I realize now that my ambition to review every movie I saw simply wasn't realistic. Unfortunately, I had mostly negative reviews of many of the movies I saw over the spring and summer months. It was that negativity which in part stifled my desire to review as many movies. This year I hope to blog a bit more, but only about noteworthy films.<br />
<br />
I'm going to start this year, just like I did last, by briefly reviewing the 8 movies nominated for best picture. However, this year I'm going to review them in order, from worst to best. I invite any and all comments about my opinions or about the order in which I've ranked them.<br />
<br />
8) THE GRAND BUDAPEST HOTEL: I have already written a full blog about this movie and detailed why I didn't care for it. I was disappointed to see it won a number of awards, but thankfully none in the main categories. Simply put I don't get the sensibility of most Wes Anderson movies. Clearly the Academy and "people" enjoy his movies. I wish I did, but I just don't. I always end up feeling like I didn't get the joke. I found this movie, like so many of his, to be just silly. It provoked more eye rolls and shrugs then laughs. I've always said movies are art, and it would be horrible if we all agreed on what good art is. To me his most recent movies are like Gangsta Rap, I understand that some people enjoy it, but I don't get it.<br />
<br />
7) BOYHOOD: I greatly appreciate the originality and the ambition involved in making BOYHOOD. Twelve years is a long time over which to shoot a film. I do applaud the effort. I should probably confess that I haven't been a fan of many Richard Linklater directed movies. My biggest misgiving about BOYHOOD is that it simply wasn't terribly entertaining, and certainly not over the 2 hr 45 min run time. It was far more interesting and entertaining. It failed my watch test. Far too often I found myself checking the time and wondering when it would end. On the positive side, I did enjoy the performances. All of the leads (Ethan Hawke, Patricia Arquette, Ellar Coltrane) gave solid performances. I was content to see Arquette win the Oscar, even if I'm not sure her role was merely supporting. I did enjoy watching the actors age on screen and I particularly enjoyed watching the evolution of technology. It was fun to see an old Disc-Man give way to an iPhone and to witness the evolution and impact of the internet and even Facebook on the lives of our leads. I even enjoyed the somewhat choppy way the movie was made. Linklater didn't feel the need to belabor life altering events. A short shouting match, a hidden sip of booze, and it's enough to understand that there was an alocholic and abusive relationship. I'm glad I saw this movie but I'm not sure I'd recommend it to the casual movie fan.<br />
<br />
6) AMERICAN SNIPER: Again I need to start with an alibi. I find it difficult to be objective when reviewing military themed movies. Having spent so much time in uniform, albeit none in combat, it's difficult for me to get fully immersed or to be objective. Ordinarily I'm totally absorbed by whatever I'm watching. I'm able to fully lose myself in the story and in the action. It's only after I've left the theater that I begin to think about what I've seen and to consider my opinions about it. During military themed films I often find myself thinking too much during the movie. I get sidetracked and distracted by outside thoughts. For example, I may question how the uniform is worn or if a haircut would be acceptable. I also notice people, places, and events that remind me of my own experiences. If I'm unable to lose myself, I'm less likely to enjoy it as thoroughly. That being said, I am a huge fan of Clint Eastwood directed movies and I did enjoy this one. UNFORGIVEN is still one of my all-time favorites. Bradley Cooper made the role his own. He was completely believable and seemed to inhabit the mind and body of skilled sniper, Chris Kyle. I don't think it's fair to criticize the movie for not making more of a political statement. It wasn't about the legitimacy of the war, nor was it about what the US role in the middle east should be. It was a strong bio-pic about a soldier and the impact his job and the war had on his life. It was about PTSD and the struggles so many soldiers face when they return home. It was also about what military families might face when loved ones go to, and return from, war. The movie was well made, artfully directed, beautifully shot, and well acted. I believe the script could have been better, which is why it's only my 6th favorite of the 8 nominated "best".<br />
<br />
5) SELMA: I'm not that well versed on the details of MLK's life and death, so I can't and won't comment about the historical accuracy of this film. I did enjoy this movie very much, in particular the hypnotic performance by David Oyelowo as MLK. I understand why people are complaining that he was overlooked for an Oscar nod. On the other hand, best actor was probably the strongest category this year. Oyelowo seemed to inhabit the soul of MLK and channeled him particularly well during speech giving scenes. He was able to portray MLK's determination and resolute sense of purpose. It was clear that he understood, even at the time, how important his mission, or calling, was. The future of social evolution and civil rights in our country, and in the world, depended largely on his actions. I also enjoyed the performances of Tom Wilkinson who played a conflicted President Johnson, and of Tim Roth who played a bigoted and cock-sure Gov. George Wallace. I felt the representation of the attitudes and actions of white Americans at the time was well balanced and on the whole fair. It's still shocking to realize how recently in our past these horribly racist laws, actions, and attitudes existed. A demonstration of our depravity, early in the film, involving a violent explosion, nearly ripped me from my seat and left me feeling as if I'd been punched in the stomach. Still, it is heartening to see how far we've come since that time, even if we've still got a way to go. I felt like some of the characters could have been flushed out more while others seemed extraneous and unnecessary. There were some detours that took us away from the action but overall it was a well made film that deserved the honor of being nominated for best picture.<br />
<br />
4) THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING: The third of four bio-pics portrays the life of renowned physicist Stephen Hawking, based on a book written by his wife. Even if I wouldn't have voted for him, I wasn't surprised nor disappointed, to see Eddie Redmayne win for Best Actor. His performance spanned the full range of SH's life, from vibrant but unsure student falling in love, slowly loosing the control of his body, to the wheelchair restricted, pretzel shaped, voice machine using, genius we're all familiar with. The writing, cinematography and direction were all top notch. I first fell in love with Felicity Jones, who played Jane Hawking, in a sweet little love story called LIKE CRAZY. I'm not sure she was the best choice to play his wife, but her performance was subtle but strong, balanced, and honest. Perhaps because the script was based on Jane's book, I felt the disintegration and ultimate failure of their marriage was almost romanticized and glossed over. Additionally I would have preferred it if they had delved more deeply in to his scientific accomplishments, rather then focus so much on his personal life. Other then that I enjoyed this movie very much. <br />
<br />
3) WHIPLASH: High octane from start to finish, filmed in 19 days. A riveting story about a young musician with lofty goals and a heavy handed "teacher". So much was right with this movie. The writing, the acting, the direction and cinematography were all spot-on. JK Simmons won for best supporting actor, though I'm not sure he wasn't a lead. What was particularly impressive was the young Miles Teller matching the veteran actor scene for scene. Watching the two of them play off each other was mesmerizing and brilliant. Ever since I saw Miles in THE SPECTACULAR NOW I expected great performances from him, and he hasn't let me down. Great acting isn't enough to make a great movie. The script and the exploration of each character's motivation is what makes this movie special. The young drummer not wanting to be merely great, but striving to among the greatest of all time. His aspiration was to be artistically immortal and he was willing to make any sacrifice to attain that goal. He'd practice and rehearse until his hands literally bled, he'd forgo love and intimacy if it interfered with his goals. The teacher expecting nothing short of perfection from his musicians; instructing through fear, brutality, and psychological manipulation. In the end, both know it's all about the music. The only criticism I had was relating to the scenes not involving music. The movie seemed to slow down sharply whenever they were out of the rehearsal room. Perhaps because the film was so frantic and high speed 90% of the time, it really seemed to lag during remaining 10% of scenes.<br />
<br />
2) THE IMITATION GAME: Only marginally edging out WHIPLASH, I enjoyed this movie a great deal. Another bio-pic portraying the life of Alan Turing, a true genius, war hero, and father of Computer Science. As in WHIPLASH the writing is extraordinary and the acting is off the charts. I can't say I really recall any exceptional Benedict Cumberbatch performances previously, but he'll be cemented in my memory from here on out. He captured the essence of a very complex character. He brilliantly showed us what it must be like to to have a singular mind, to be driven, to be misunderstood, and to be at odds with oneself and with the world. Keira Knightley, who's never afraid to take risks, shines as the female genius mathematician who motivates, inspires, challenges, and ultimately humanizes the awkward and socially retarded Turing. I ranked this film higher simply because the scope and range was so much greater. It was a "bigger" movie. What I didn't care for was the relatively short shrift given to the fact of Turing's homosexuality. Ultimately he was ostracized and chemically castrated for his "sin" of homosexuality. I think that was a big part of who he was, and to me it was incompletely addressed, almost rushed, as an afterthought, very late in the film.<br />
<br />
1) BIRDMAN: What can I say, I loved this movie and was elated it won so many awards. I have had friends tell me it was boring, claustrophobic, silly, and even "unwatchable". I can't possibly disagree more vehemently. I admit that I'm drawn to actor driven movies and BIRDMAN was definitely that. There is little I enjoy more in film then strong acting performances. Of course writing is critical and the value of a good director can't be over-estimated. BIRDMAN was directed by the supremely artistic Alejandro Gonzalex Inarritu, who also directed 21 GRAMS, another of my all-time favorites. He's a director who really has a clear vision about what his film should be, and it's always unique. He's also a collaborative director who seems to love actors. His initial intent was to film the entire movie in one single take. While that didn't happen, many of the shots are long and uninterrupted, giving the feel of a single take. Nearly the entire film takes place in and around a Broadway stage; up and down small corridors and in cramped backstage rooms. I truly appreciate the artistic vision and groud-breaking risk taking evident in this film. To say BIRDMAN is unique is a real understatement. Michael Keaton portrays Riggan, a washed up actor known almost exclusively for being the character Birdman, in a string of comic-book movies. In an effort to redefine his career and his life, to be "more", Riggan directs and stars in a Broadway play. A play he's invested his life savings in. Riggan is a deeply flawed and supremely complex character. Keaton's portrayal ranges from subtle glimpses in to the psyche of Riggan to grand, over the top, outbursts. Because of the extreme range of emotion and arc of character I'd have voted for Keaton to win the best actor award. I really felt like I got to know, like, and understand Riggan. The always amazing Ed Norton and Emma Stone round out the cast with equally extraordinary performances. Naomi Watts was adequate as well, but in my opinion she was the most forgettable of the characters. I admit there are elements to this movie the viewer just has to accept. An open mind is a must to enjoy this film. I'm not a huge fan of movies with open endings. I understand a writer or director might want us to think, to decide for ourselves what a movie means; in fact, that's what good art should do. However, I don't typically enjoy having to decide what happened in the end. I hope that's not too much of a spoiler.<br />
<br />
In my next blog I will try to come up with a few "In case you missed it" movies I enjoyed in 2014. I will also try to comment on a few more movies during the course of the upcoming year.<br />
<br />
I welcome any comments about any of the movies discussed. Feel free to disagree about anything. Movies are art and there are no right opinions.andyeye86http://www.blogger.com/profile/09863649309798299832noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983968235182538740.post-22033786683954011132014-07-04T13:15:00.000-07:002014-07-04T13:15:05.322-07:00Godzilla- God NOThe trailers for this movie had my hopes high. While the reviews have been decent overall I was quite disappointed in this movie, as I have been in so many this year.<br />
The film starts interestingly enough, with a strong performance by the incredible Bryan Cranston. However, the groundwork, well laid, leads nowhere fast. Once Cranston exits the action, my interest exited as well.<br />
The run time of 123 minutes seems like it should have been appropriate, but we don't actually see Godzilla until close to an hour in to the movie. Which made the build up tedious. Once the action starts we actually see more of the MUTO, secondary "monsters", then we do of Godzilla. Godzilla ends up fighting these clumsy moth-like creatures, with gangly limbs, and less then powerful or menacing characteristics, in very forgettable, darkly lit, uninspired fight sequences. Where the "monsters" come from, how they were reactivated, what they are trying to accomplish, where they are trying to go, and what the point is............it's all left murky at best. I found it hard to follow, or care about, the plot. The writing, the direction, the flow of the action sequences and fight scenes, and the acting were all poor. Other then that though...........<br />
Our hero, Ford, played by relative unknown Aaron Taylor-Johnson, deserves special mention. He gives a performance that will soon be forgotten.... bordering on embarrassing. He seemed far out of his depth and I'm sure will go back to being unknown very soon. Most of the acting in this movie, apart from Cranston, was sub-par......... and that's being kind. Even the talented Ken Watanabe was made to appear wooden.<br />
I have a million other little things that annoyed me about this movie, but I think I'll adhere to "if you don't have anything nice to say don't say anything at all".<br />
Maybe X-Men?andyeye86http://www.blogger.com/profile/09863649309798299832noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983968235182538740.post-60022975532576263892014-07-04T12:45:00.000-07:002014-07-04T12:45:43.472-07:00The Amazing Spider-Man 2Sadly, I think I may be getting to old to fully enjoy the comic book action movies. I'm finding it harder to be entertained and easier to be critical of this genre I've loved.<br />
This new incarnation of Spider-Man, my favorite comic growing up, was a mediocre rehash of old material. I found nothing much new or exciting.<br />
It seemed to be me that the director just assumed we all know the back story of Spider-Man and his relationship to Gwen Stacey (adequately played by Emma Stone) and to Oscorp. While it took quite a while for the action to build, it didn't feel like we really learned anything new or were made to care about the action to follow.<br />
While Andrew Garfield is an acceptable Spider-Man, I didn't feel like he showed much range, for which I think we can blame the writing and direction. Spider-Man's characteristic sarcasm and humor was in evidence and enjoyable.... just not enough to make up for the other gaps. He's tormented by the loss of his parents and the strained personal relationships in his life, he's conflicted about the role Spider-Man has in the world, and yet there still seems to be little arc to his character. Such fertile ground and so little fruit. Still, he wasn't the problem.<br />
I was most disappointed in Jamie Foxx. His character Max, felt a lot like a bad rip off of Eddie Murphy's character in "Bowfinger". His transformation to the villain Electro also left a lot to be desired. He was far from menacing and looked, if you'll forgive the pun, cartoonish. There was this odd bluish shimmer that was almost comical.<br />
The typically spectacular Sally Field was completely wasted in her role as Aunt May. I think she was plugged in to a few awkward scenes just to justify a paycheck. Two young up and coming talents, Dane DeHaan and Felicity Jones (spectacular in "Like Crazy") could have been used more fully. Dane did as much as he could with the material and I did enjoy his performance over all. I do look forward to watching more of their work in the future.<br />
There was also very little natural flow to this movie. The action seemed to jump around quite a bit. Much was assumed and taken for granted. While technically sound the Direction could have been far better. I am not impressed by Marc Webb at all.<br />
However, I did find many of the action sequences to be excellent. The mixture of full speed hyper-kinetic action and slow motion was well used and inventive, if slightly over-used. I saw this movie in 3D, which is how I think it was intended to be seen. At least in the high flying, acrobatic, web swinging, action sequences the 3D worked very well and added to the sense of flight and magic.<br />
Overall the movie was too long and too predictable. It wasn't horrible, but for me, not as good as previous versions.<br />
Bring on X-Men.andyeye86http://www.blogger.com/profile/09863649309798299832noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983968235182538740.post-81062152899633590732014-05-21T18:37:00.000-07:002014-05-21T18:37:05.522-07:00Draft Day- Select NetflixThe best thing I can say about this movie is that I didn't hate it. Draft Day is another Kevin Costner sports film but nowhere near the quality of "Field of Dreams", "Bull Durham", or even "Tin Cup". I know the reviews were pretty good, but the poor box office supports my overall disappointment in this film. As a huge sports fan I had high hopes.<br />
<br />
Basically this is a story about Sonny, played by Costner, the Brown's general manager, facing the NFL Draft. The entire sports world and Cleveland are watching and criticizing his every move. He's under enormous pressure both externally, and internally. His owner and the Super Bowl winning coach are on his back, his love interest works with him, and even his Mom is pressuring him, along with seemingly everyone else.<br />
<br />
I had issues with the lack of surprise and lack of believability. I never had a doubt that Sonny would come up aces in the end. I wasn't sure how, but I never once doubted the ultimate outcome. Now, knowing there will be a happy ending isn't exactly a rare thing but in this case it really muted the tone and suspense for me. I also knew, since we "met" so few athletes, that each would eventually have some meaningful part in the plot. Nobody is "just there".... Nobody to throw us off. No suspense.<br />
<br />
My other issue was the complete lack of character development and chemistry between characters. The most interesting character, other then Sonny, was the team's owner, adequately played by Frank Langella. There was just too little of him. Sonny's Mom, and the issue surrounding his recently deceased father were poorly developed and merely distracting. A peripheral story-line adding nothing. Ellen Burstyn's performance was distractingly bad and contributed nothing to further the story. Denis Leary plays the coach who actually quits the team because he disagrees with Sonny's choices. As a sports fan this is beyond unbelievable. No NFL coach would quit because of a perceived bad draft. Of course he changes his mind in the end, but still......... Jennifer Garner, the love interest and the team's "capologist", newly pregnant with Sonny's baby, has her moments but overall is window dressing. The scenes involving her financial management role are interesting enough, but the pregnancy was just another peripheral story-line adding little. In general I don't find her to be all that talented and this role did nothing to change my mind about her. "Dallas Buyer's Club" was my favorite movie last year but she was my least favorite part of it. There was even a nerdy receptionist kid, who seemed to be an afterthought, again adding nothing. I guess he was supposed to be the Jonah Hill of this movie but he came across as simply silly. Costner himself was about what we've come to expect from him. Adequate acting and charm, but he can only go as far as the material allows.<br />
<br />
In my opinion this was a poor rip off of "Moneyball", a far superior film. There was none of the intrigue, suspense, or insight. I never felt like I was getting the hoped for peek behind the curtain, the way I did in "Moneyball". So if you're a big Costner fan, or simply want to watch a sports movie, and have already seen "Moneyball" you can rent "Draft Day".<br />
<br />andyeye86http://www.blogger.com/profile/09863649309798299832noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983968235182538740.post-48723893515155173672014-05-11T15:12:00.003-07:002014-05-15T20:22:34.079-07:00Captain America: The Winter SoldierI saw this film with my 18 year old son. Afterwards I asked him what he thought, and an he informed me that he liked it a lot. I pressed him about what he liked exactly, hoping for some teen insight. He simply replied "it was entertaining".<br />
Well, he didn't know it at the time, but he pretty much nailed my primary criteria for liking or disliking a movie. Was I entertained or not.<br />
Quite simply Captain America: The Winter Soldier was entertaining, all 136 minutes of it. I have to admit that in general I'm a fan of comic book movies, and movies that have to do with special powers and abilities.<br />
The film was shot in bright futuristic color yet with a very modern "this could be real" feel. The effects were believable but not so overwhelming as to feel stilted or overshadowing the action. I particularly enjoyed a scene in which an SUV was the star. The car responded to voice commands and "helped" Nick Fury, somewhat overacted by Samuel Jackson, survive an ambush.<br />
To nit pick I did think some of the acting was weak. In addition to SJ's hammy performance I thought Robert Redford seemed uncomfortable at best. Chris Evans and Scarlett Johansson were adequate, even if the lines they were given were a bit Greeting Card. Captain America's goody two shoes overt "I never lie" persona got to be a bit tedious.<br />
The Winter Solider aka Bucky Barnes, played by Sebastian Stan was pretty cool. His look and cold blooded assassin code, along with a metal arm, made him the ideal villain. I did think he looked a lot more intimidating and menacing with the veil like mask, which was discarded too soon.<br />
I know good is supposed to prevail over evil, but this was so black and white it came across as corny. I like my hero's to have at least a bit of an edge. They don't have to be Wolverine, or even Spiderman, but Captain America would make Superman seem downright sinister.<br />
So in a nutshell, it's a fun and entertaining movie. Now bring on Spiderman.<br />
<br />andyeye86http://www.blogger.com/profile/09863649309798299832noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983968235182538740.post-9639673558079668992014-04-26T14:57:00.000-07:002014-04-26T14:57:47.619-07:00Noah: Ah-NO!I am not a terribly religious person and do not know the ins and outs of doctrine. Therefore, I will not comment too much about the "historical" accuracy of "Noah". However, I do think if you're going to make a movie about something from history, a story many people know, there should be some attempt to accurately reflect that history.<br />
Darren Aronofsky has taken on quite a task Directing the life of Noah, what lead him to build an arc, the inner conflict of serving God and watching the world drown, at odds with his wife and kids, and the actual construction of said arc. He has made some very interesting movies and had fertile ground for another. His movies tend to be character studies, focusing on the human condition. I wasn't a huge fan of "Requiem for a Dream" but was absolutely blown away by "The Wrestler" and "Black Swan". None of those films were what you'd call "effects" movies but did evoke strong feelings and reactions. <br />
I had high hopes for "Noah", given the cast and Director, but was disappointed at every turn. The look of the movie was dark and at times cluttered. Earth had a "Mad Max" feel to it, with marauding gangs destroying whatever lay in their path. Tubal-cain, the primary villain, looked like he'd have been more then comfortable in the Thunder Dome. Horribly overacted and poorly written Ray Winstone plays Tubal-cain. His primary purpose, in addition to being a general menace, is to keep reminding us that "man makes the rules and controls his own destiny". He appears to be calling Noah a sissy for not not "manning up" enough.<br />
I'm not sure what's going on with Russell Crowe either. After amazing performances, early in his career, he seemed bored in this role. What happened to the actor who brought to life "Gladiator", "A Beautiful Mind", "Cinderella Man", "L.A. Confidential", and the overlooked but most amazing performance in "The Insider"? Now he's the worst part of "Les Miserables", and going through the motions in "Broken City" and "Man of Steel". There was no passion in his performance, no spell binding speeches, or deeply felt monologues. There was so much potential for strong scenes. I mean for a man carrying out the will of God, and in conflict with his own family, you'd think he'd have something to say. Instead, he seemed to be brooding, scowling, and moping a good bit of the time. This probably has as much to do with the writing as with the acting. When great actors give poor performances you have to look to the script and to the Director.<br />
Sadly none of the other actors came to his aide. Jennifer Connelly who is typically breathtakingly beautiful as well as talented, was suitably bleak, matching her surroundings. Emma Watson and the other "kids" were forgettable at best. I can't think of one scene that was memorable or believable. Even Anthony Hopkins looked lost.<br />
Finally, Aronofsky created "Watchers" who were light-based, angle like beings, originally tasked to protect the garden of Eden. When the apple was eaten, having failed, they were punished with a rocky exterior, binding them to earth. They come to Noah's aide, serving as his protector and work crew. I have no idea who designed these creatures. To me they looked like arthritic, gimpy, broken down rock Transformers. They seemed to lunge and wobble awkwardly with every stride and movement.<br />
So in a nutshell, "Noah" seems to be a fictional historical film, poorly written, thin on plot, flatly acted, dark to watch, and long....... Enjoy.andyeye86http://www.blogger.com/profile/09863649309798299832noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983968235182538740.post-70702091433855062202014-04-13T12:43:00.001-07:002014-04-13T12:43:32.422-07:00The Grand Budapest HotelI really, REALLY, wanted to like this movie. The reviews were through the roof positive, both from critics and viewers alike. Wes Anderson has made a few amazing movies that I loved. In particular "The Royal Tenenbaums" and "Fantastic Mr. Fox" were lively and hilarious. To a lesser extent I enjoyed "Rushmore" and "Bottle Rocket". However, I absolutely hated "The Darjeeling Limited" and "The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou", and I didn't much care for the more recent and widely lauded "Moonrise Kingdom".<br />
<br />
Wes Anderson, like many Directors, has a very distinctive style. Both the look and feel of his movies are uniquely his. However, unlike other great Directors, I often get the "I've seen that before" feeling while watching his films. I think my "issue" with Wes Anderson is simply that I don't get, or I don't enjoy, his sensibility or his creative vision.... no matter how much I'd like to. Just as I don't enjoy certain types of music or other forms of art that others do find enjoyable. I suspect that's part of the beauty of film in general. It is an art form and every person can decide for themselves what is good and what is not. I know, based on public reviews, that I'm in the minority with my opinion, but I simply didn't enjoy this movie. His aesthetic is lost on me.<br />
<br />
The film takes place in an imaginary country and in an imaginary hotel, where M. Gustave, played by Ralph Fiennes, is the concierge. Zero, his protege and Lobby Boy, is well played by Tony Revolori. There was good chemistry between the two. The mentoring relationship between them was often insightful, sweet, and authentic. I don't think I can sum up the plot adequately and I'm not sure the plot really matters. It's just a collection of mini adventures and absurd moments told mostly in flash back. Wes Anderson continues to command the respect of A-list actors, who seem to flock to his movies.... much in the way they do to Woody Allen films. He has he favorite collection of actors such as Bill Murray, Owen Wilson, Jason Schwartzman and Edward Norton. This time he adds F. Murry Abraham, Harvey Keitel, Jeff Goldblum, Jude Law, Adrien Brody, Willem Defoe and others. It was fun to see these great actors in such quirky roles, and I did find many small moments to be charming and entertaining. There just weren't enough of those moment.<br />
<br />
One of my issues with this film, and other Anderson movies as well, is that his style or artistic vision doesn't seem to further the story or enhance the characters. Artsy for it's own sake feels hollow and pointless to me. The eccentric dress, the odd physical characteristics, the combination of cartoon and live action, seem more distracting then amusing to me. The absurdity of Zero using a pencil to draw on a thin line pencil mustache? Do we need to see an aging Harvey Keitel shirtless? <br />
<br />
My other main issue is that the movie just felt plain silly most of the time. Not the kind of silly that makes you laugh, but more the silly that makes you groan, or maybe just scratch your head. I saw this film in the theater and I don't think there was a single outburst of laughter. I did chuckle a time or two and smiled here and there, but it was far from hilarious. I understand that the film is shot like a cartoon mixed with live action. I appreciated what he was trying to do, and even found some of the blending to be interesting and fun. But in the end, there were far too many silly moments. For example, there are convicts are in need of tools to help them tunnel out and escape. M. Gustave has tools smuggled in. When shown diligently, and seriously, using the tools, we see that they are tiny. Little hammers and picks no bigger then the palm of your hand.<br />
<br />
Based on the number of A-list actors who seem eager to work with him there has to be something to his movies that I seem to be missing.andyeye86http://www.blogger.com/profile/09863649309798299832noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983968235182538740.post-9867267903847474122014-03-30T14:40:00.000-07:002014-03-30T14:40:08.094-07:00Divergent- Teen StrongMy youngest child is an avid reader. She's been anxiously awaiting this movie for months, having devoured all three books of the series. She's 12 and loved the film, informing me that is was close enough to the books and worth the wait.<br />
<br />
Shailene Woodley, who amazed in "The Descendants" and "The Spectacular Now" is off to a great start to her career. She plays Tris, a teenager in this futuristic adventure. The world is regulated by five different factions, each championing a different virtue and serving a different function in society, without any cross over. Abnegation is all about selfless service to others, Dauntless is about bravery and physical strength, Erudite is the intelligentsia valuing academics and logic, Candor is about honesty and honor, and finally Amity is about peace and love (and farming). At a certain age each citizen if forced to choose a faction. When Tris chooses Dauntless, after having grown up in Abnegation, she faces her future alone in her new tribe, without contact with family or friends.<br />
<br />
The world created by director Neil Burger is in some ways modern and futuristic, and in others a barren, run down, version of our current world. The future Chicago is surrounded by a wall, protecting us from some undisclosed threat. The buildings appear bombed out, the trains are rickety, and much of the clothing tatters. Yet there is sophisticated machinery and weaponry. The look and feel of this movie is consistent and interesting. I did find it odd that there seem to be no old people in the future. Ashley Judd, playing Tris's mother, was just about the oldest person on the planet.<br />
<br />
My typical criticism about action movies is the lack of character and plot development. The action starts too quickly, without giving us time to get to know and care about the characters. The more we know, the more we care, and the more the action matters. "Divergent" was completely opposite. It felt as though the entire movie was a build up. We spent hours getting to know the characters, watching them grow and learn. Tris transitions from a meek girl to a strong and brave warrior, while falling in love with her mentor, Four, played by Theo James. The two share a wonderful chemistry and it's easy to root for them. However, after an entertaining set up that I did enjoy, the final action seems to fizzle. There is no true suspense and no satisfying payoff in the end. It's almost as if the director suddenly realized he already had two hours in the can but hadn't yet shot the final act, and only had 20 minutes left to wrap it up. <br />
<br />
While there was an overly thorough and entertaining character development, I didn't feel that much attention was given to plot development. I do know that basically one faction was trying to overthrow another, under the guise of protecting the collective society. However, I'm still not exactly sure what the one faction did to put society at risk or why they had to be eradicated. The reasons for much of the action was vague at best. I suspect this is all made more clear in the books.<br />
<br />
Overall this was an enjoyable film and I'm looking forward to a sequel. It was entertaining and well paced until the end. I do think it'll be enjoyed more by a younger audience.andyeye86http://www.blogger.com/profile/09863649309798299832noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983968235182538740.post-21810497429388508662014-03-29T11:11:00.000-07:002014-03-29T11:11:27.545-07:00300: Rise of an Empire- limpIf all you care about is violent combat scenes you'll love this movie. If you care about plot, acting, or anything else, you probably won't.<br />
<br />
I knew the sequel to the amazing "300" was in trouble when I saw there would be a different director. This uninspired edition takes place after the original 300 all perish at the hands of the cartoonishly evil Xerxes. The remainder of Greece is now being pulled together by our new hero, Thermistocles, played by Sullivan Stapleton, in an effort to push back the invading Persians, led by anti-hero Aremisia, played by Eva Green. None of the actors have half the charisma or talent of Gerard Butler, who himself isn't exactly DeNiro. <br />
<br />
On the plus side.... the combat scenes are well choreographed and satisfyingly violent for this type of film. There are more swords going through more various body parts then I can ever remember seeing. It doesn't end with a blade going through a torso, neck, mouth, eye, or skull. There are also more amputated limbs and severed heads then you'd expect at a KFC slaughter house. That being said, it did seem like there were far too many scenes in slow motion. At times it felt as though the entire movie would be shot S L O W. There was also a shocking lack of color. I don't think there was a hint of yellow or green in the entire film. Even the gallons of shed blood were more dark maroon then red. Once in a while our hero had on a dark blue cape, which did make him stand out. I can appreciate using color to set a tone or as a vehicle to amplify the mood but this was just dark for darkness sake.<br />
<br />
My brother-in-law, whose taste I don't typically share, but whose opinion I always respect, once told me that a voice-over narration is the lazy man's device. Most of the plot of this film is shared by voice-over narration, thoroughly making his point. I don't agree that it's always "wrong" but in this case....... since there was no other real plot development, it was all wrong.<br />
<br />
In addition to there being virtually no plot development, and poor acting, there was no chemistry between any of the characters, making it impossible to care if they lived or died. The one sex scene in the film was as close to rape as a consensual act could be. I also found it hard to be intimidated by Eva Green's character. She's a thin woman leading, through fear and intimidation. Her cowering legions are a collection of sweaty muscle bound Greeks. There are more six packs in this movie then at the local liquor store.<br />
<br />
If all you want is combat, by all means see this film. If you're expecting a sequel to carry on where "300" left off, you'll be sorely disappointed........ as I was.<br />
<br />
<br />andyeye86http://www.blogger.com/profile/09863649309798299832noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983968235182538740.post-66537794790341629322014-03-16T15:01:00.002-07:002014-03-16T19:47:03.345-07:00The Great Beauty- NotFirst I should admit that I'm not a huge fan of foreign films, I simply don't always enjoy reading movies. I also tend to be put off by pure "art films". That being said, it should be no surprise that I didn't much care for "The Great Beauty", even if it did win the Oscar for Best Foreign Film.<br />
<br />
"The Great Beauty" is what I call a classic "poem movie". Instead of following a more linear or obvious narrative, like a novel, a poem is more random and less literal. A poem feels more like a collection of lines, thoughts, or scenes, then a continuous arc of a story. It's more like several MTV videos then a show. Poems, to me, are more thought provoking then entertaining. Poems might leave you wondering "what did that mean?" or who a character is, or how someone or something fits in to the story. A good movie shouldn't leave you confused about what's happening or what the point is. To my mind, while watching a great movie, there should be more feeling and reacting, then thinking. <br />
<br />
"The Great Beauty" is an Italian film, set in Rome. Jep, our "hero", is an aging author, recently turned 65, and still living a playboy party life. His claim to fame having written an important novel in his 20's, but nothing since. The movie shows his conflict with aging and the meaning of his life. He's finds himself alone, even at parties he doesn't really want to attend, and surrounded by "friends" he doesn't really like. He can't even be sure anymore which of his friends he's slept with and doesn't really seem all that interested in genuinely connecting with anyone. He's a sad, lonely, character contributing nothing. We're made to pity the one couple who lead normal lives..... loving each other, watching TV together at night, and being in bed before midnight. <br />
<br />
The dimensions and the range of aging are demonstrated in several ways. The music is dramatic and an important character in this film. It ranges from soft and classical, to heavy modern beats you might hear at a rave. Even the dancing ranges from isolated stripper-like performance dance, literally performed behind glass, to an old fashioned Conga-line train that is praised for "going nowhere". The costume design also ranges from old fashioned to modern chic. Older characters are often shown dressed in styles suited to younger characters. Nobody seems comfortable in their environment or in their own skin. Ironically none of the main characters is particularly attractive and one is a dwarf.<br />
<br />
Perhaps this particular "poem" is trying to tell us that art isn't created but lived. The "Great Beauty" isn't something we can go to a museum to find, it's in the way we live and the choices we make. The beauty around us, the music, the town we live in, the people we surround ourselves with, are the art of life. Maybe that's more important then what we do or what we create. Several unusual artists are portrayed in less then flattering, even painful, ways. We're shown a poet whose climax comes by running in to a brick wall to reveal blood oozing from a fresh head wound, a child painter throwing buckets of paint on to a canvas while sobbing, a self indulgent writer shilling for a politician, a dancer who is literally a Forty-something year old stripper, and a photographer whose work consists solely of one self-portrait taken every single day of his life. None of the artists have any depth or soul, not to mention beauty. While there are several scenes I enjoyed, characters I found interesting, many visuals I found entertaining, in a nutshell I felt about the film in it's entirety like I did about the artists portrayed in the film....... Pretentious and lacking beauty.<br />
<br />
Clearly I must be in the minority with this opinion, given that it won the Oscar for best foreign film. I welcome all opinions and debate. andyeye86http://www.blogger.com/profile/09863649309798299832noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983968235182538740.post-87184500509261605652014-03-09T10:49:00.000-07:002014-03-09T10:49:02.577-07:00Movies you may have missed- 2013The Oscars have come and gone, even if some of the nominated films are still in theaters. The summer blockbusters are still weeks away. This is the annual drought for movie lovers, who, like me, prefer to see films in the theater. Here are several movies I enjoyed in 2013 which didn't get recognized by the Academy, most of which didn't enjoy as large of an audience as I think they deserved.<br />
<br />
I was thinking about why I like certain movies. There are a few elements that are critical... to me. First and foremost I simply want to be entertained. To that end I expect the duration of the film to transport me. Time should stand still and I should become part of the time and place of the movie. If I'm checking my watch, or thinking about, or wondering, what's happening then I'm less likely to be captured by the action. I don't care as much about if it's serious or silly, deep and meaningful or frivolous, as long as I'm entertained. The single most important element which makes that possible is simple. I just have to CARE what happens to the character. It needs to matter. We can root for him, or against him, hope he finds his love or gets his comeuppance, but in the end we just have to care. I suspect it's the writing that makes us care more then any single element. The characters, human or not, are developed and flushed out in the script. The look and visuals of the film, the cinematography, the effects, the music and sound, the editing, the direction, and of course the acting all simply enhance or magnify the degree to which we care. <br />
<br />
So, here are a few movies I saw in 2013, which didn't enjoy a large audience but that had characters I cared about. I'd put "The Butler" on the list but it made over 100 million, while the others at most made 21.<br />
<br />
1. THE ICEMAN: I'm typically less impressed by "based on a true story", but somehow when it's a biopic I find that less of an issue. Think "Walk the Line", "Capote", or "Ray"........ In "The Iceman" Michael Shannon portrays contract killer Richard Kuklinski who recently died in prison after being suspected in more then a hundred murders for the mob. The film has a dark edgy feel reminiscent of old Scorsese, a-la "Mean Streets". Director Ariel Vromen expertly manages to capture the look and feel of the 80's. Michael Shannon, best known for his performances in "Boardwalk Empire" plays Kuklinski as a cold, calculating, relentless, but not conscious-less killer. The only time we see any heart is when it comes to his family, whom he clearly loves and wants to protect. Somehow Shannon manages to play the character in a flat monotone of murderous intent but yet we're able to see his humanity. I've often objected to the lack of range, or arc, of emotion in such characters. They are typically played so stoic that we're left cold, can't connect, and ultimately don't care. Somehow Shannon pulls it off, being cold and unrelenting, yet letting us see his deeper love and concern for his wife and children. Compare that to the failed deadpan performance of another gifted actor, Ryan Gosling, in "Drive". Lesser roles well played by a terrific case including Chris Evans, Winona Ryder, David Schwimmer, James Franco and Ray Liotta make this film worth seeing.<br />
<br />
2. THE SPECTACULAR NOW: It's all about the writing. This gem of a coming of age film was written by Scott Neustadter, who also wrote one of my favorite Romantic Comedies of recent years "(500) Days of Summer". He has an authentic way of capturing the feeling and the tone of youth. He seems to understand the conflicts that confront even the most well adjusted adolescent. The film is about Sutter, played by Miles Teller, a high school kid, who is conflicted about everything and everybody in his life. I'm not sure why I felt so connected to his character but that's the beauty of film. After the writing I credit Miles Teller. This is the first film of his I've seen and I found myself hypnotized by his charm and skill. He has a Tom Hanks every-man quality and a charisma seldom seen in such a young actor. I'm really looking forward to seeing more of his work in the future. This is not your typical boy meets girl movie and I strongly recommend it.<br />
<br />
3. THE WAY WAY BACK: More people, still not enough, saw this coming of age film which in my opinion it wasn't quite as effective as "The Spectacular Now". Liam James plays Duncan, a struggling teen on a beach vacation with his Mom (Toni Collette), her asshole of a boyfriend (Steve Carell), and his sister. Duncan is conflicted by his own identity and his place in his family and in the world. Not an uncommon theme. He takes a job at the local water park amusement center. He learns about himself and life under the watchful eye of Owen (Sam Rockwell) who hasn't quite grown up himself. This movie has a few more "that can't happen" moments then I like to see in a serious movie but not enough to seriously detract. There are a lot of laughs and a few poignant moments as well.<br />
<br />
4. ENOUGH SAID: This is marvelous film made for an adult audience and told with a female sensibility. Julia Louis-Dreyfus and the recently deceased James Gandolfini, along with Catherine Keener, give deeply soulful and authentic performances. The movies gives us a peek in to the lives of real people struggling with real issues. How do we move on, how do we find love or companionship after divorce? Who are we when we're not in a relationship? What do we want and what do we NEED from a potential mate? How do we deal with the loss of our children when they move out? How do we deal with our children when they become adults and their own people......who we may not understand or even like? This is a tender tale beautifully told and acted. I cringed at times, laughed more then a few times, but always cared!<br />
<br />
5. ABOUT TIME: This romantic and quirky time travel Rom Com was a lot of fun. Tim (Domhnall Gleeson) learns from his father (Bill Nighy) that he can travel backi in time, simply by going in to a dark space and wishing it. What would you do if you could have countless do-overs? How would you improve your life? Tim's primary focus is love and family. His love interest is played by none other then Rachel McAdams who made her name in everyone's favorite love story "The Notebook". Sure, there are plenty of those "that can't happen" moments and the rules about time travel are murky at best. However, the genuine emotions, the chemistry between characters, and the spot-on performances carry this film. I was easily able to accept the premise and move on from there. I found the moments between father and son to be most powerful. That may have something to do with my personal fondness for such scenarios, but more so because of the writing and performances. Bill Nighy steals every scene he's in. You can't take this movie too seriously but it held my attention from start to finish and I left the theater with a smile on my face. What more could you want?<br />
<br />
6. THE KINGS OF SUMMER: I'm not sure why I have so many movies on the list about teenagers, but here's another one. This one is about three friends who are fed up with being kids. They find a clearing deep in the woods and build a "house" in which to live. They hope to become men, living off the land, fending for themselves. This movie has a true indie feel and while flawed in several ways was different enough to be interesting.<br />
<br />
7. RUSH: I'm not sure why this movie didn't do better at the box office. It has the charm and rugged good looks of Chris Hemsworth. It has the high octane power of formula 1 car racing. It has the tension of a deep rooted rivalry and conflict of style. It also has the expert direction and easy story telling of Ron Howard, who admittedly is hit ("Apollo 13", "A Beautiful Mind", "Frost/Nixon") and miss ("Far and Away", "Edtv"). In the end I enjoyed the look of the film and cared about the characters. Not exactly a chick flick but I think this movie deserves a chance.<br />
<br />
As always I do hope someone actually reads this.<br />
As always I welcome any and all comments........ be they in agreement or to tell me I'm out to lunch.<br />
I also welcome comments about movies I haven't "reviewed". I just simply enjoy talking film.<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />
<br />andyeye86http://www.blogger.com/profile/09863649309798299832noreply@blogger.com0tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-7983968235182538740.post-65660731378815794942014-03-02T14:16:00.001-08:002014-03-02T14:16:19.029-08:00Oscar's Best Picture ReviewAs in most years I have seen all the movies that have been nominated for an Oscar in the major categories. More accurately I have seen them all in the theater.<br />
As this is my first experience with blogging I decided to start with a quick review, or opinion, about each of the films that have been nominated for Best Picture.<br />
<br />
I should mention that I've been addicted to movies since I was roughly 12 years old. Every year I probably go to the theater 40-50 times. I enjoy all sorts of film ranging from the artsy indie types all the way to the summer blockbuster commercial types; and pretty much everything in between. I'm particularly drawn to drama and action, especially if it's on the darker side. I just find sad, demented, tortured, and angry more interesting then happy. Horror and silly, slapstick, comedy are probably my least favorite genres but I have enjoyed any number of both. My primary gauge to judging a movie is how entertained I was. If I'm moved or if I learn something, I consider that a bonus. I do not go to the movies to feel good, but I do like to feel something, even if it's sadness.<br />
<br />
So, I will give my opinion about Oscar's Best Picture nominees for 2013. I will review them in no particular order.<br />
<br />
1. <u>AMERICAN HUSTLE</u>: I understand that this movie is one of the front runners to win Best Picture. Director David O. Russell has assembled an A list cast and it shows. The movie was well written, interesting from start to finish, with rich characters brilliantly acted by Christian Bale, Amy Adams, Bradley Cooper, Jeremy Renner and Jennifer Lawrence. My issues with the film were few but significant. While I felt Jennifer Lawrence's performance was quite good I found her character to be unbelievable. I have heard many contrary opinions from those who found her character to be absolutely spot-on. However, I found it hard to believe anyone could be so self delusional, naive, and unaware, while still being so clever, manipulative, and insightful at the same time. I didn't think she deserved the Oscar win over Jessica Chastain last year, and won't be rooting for her this year, which is not to deny her significant talent. I also felt the film lacked the big scene; the one unforgettable moment. While there were many scenes demonstrating acting brilliance, like Cooper trying to seduce Adams or Bale scheming with Adams, not to mention the bathroom scene between Adams and Lawrence. Still, there wasn't that one moment that jumps to mind when I think about the movie. In fact, there were many moments that felt like I'd seen them before.......maybe in "Casino" or "Goodfellas". All that being said, I won't be disappointed if it wins the Best Picture award.<br />
<br />
2. <u>NEBRASKA</u>: Another actor driven movie. It was fun to see Bruce Dern, who clearly doesn't work enough. June Squibb stole every scene she was in; a true joy to watch. Even big screen novice Will Forte held his own. Still this movie, while being an acting gem, was somewhat slow moving, bordering or boring to me. Dern's character thinks he's won a million dollars in an obvious sweepstakes scam. I kept wondering why nobody just explains his delusion to all those who accept it as true. It would only have taken a few sentences to let the world know he was delusional but then we wouldn't have had a movie. I'd only recommend this film to acting aficionados and true indie movie lovers.<br />
<br />
3. <u>CAPTAIN PHILIPS</u>: Based on a true story, which is a tag line that should give pause in most cases. The movie was solid but far from overwhelming. I just never felt the sense of menace needed to drive the dramatic tension. Not once did I think Hanks might die. I was riveted by Barkhad Abdi and was thrilled to learn his performance was rewarded with an Oscar nomination. That alone wasn't enough to make it a truly great film. It was entertaining enough and certainly worth seeing. I am a fan of Tom Hanks but didn't find this performance Oscar worthy, and am not one of those crying about his being "snubbed". Joaquin Phoenix has a far better case for being overlooked in "Her". <br />
<br />
4. <u>PHILOMENA</u>: Another film "based on a true story" but far more interesting and relevant then "Captain Philips". It's a beautifully written and acted film about the meaning of faith and forgiveness. "Philomena" shows what it is to struggle with your faith and yet never lose faith. It's insightful and poignant, but still clever and funny at times. It is a slow moving film and likely won't appeal to a younger demographic. I don't think a movie like this has a chance to win any of the major awards but it is a gem!<br />
<br />
5. <u>DALLAS BUYERS CLUB</u>: This was my favorite movie of the year and the one I hope wins for Best Picture, although I don't think it has a chance. The character masterfully played by Matthew McConaughey shows the greatest "arc" of any of those up for best Actor. He takes us on a journey it'll be hard to forget. We start out hating him, pitying him, cringing at his antics, and by the end we are genuinely rooting for him, even falling in love with him Despite his transformation he manages to remain true to his core self. There is no epiphany, no bolt of lightening. He simply grows, learns and evolves in to a better person; flawed but better. Jared Leto plays a cross dressing drug addict in truly unforgettable fashion. He will win the Oscar for best supporting actor and he'll deserve it. This is not a feel good movie by any stretch of the imagination, but it's a must see!<br />
<br />
6. <u>12 YEARS A SLAVE</u>: Clearly the most important film in the group and the likely winner for Best Picture. The deeply personal and deeply painful look in to slavery was gripping and memorizing. Steve McQueen has a way of showing inner pain in a unique and powerful way. 2011's "Shame" was perhaps the most sad and tormented portrayal of a human being I can remember seeing. The topic, the performances, the direction, and the visuals were powerful and meaningful. I will have no objection if it wins the award for Best Picture, in fact I expect it to. My one "issue" with the film was the writing. It seemed that every single characters, no matter how high or low their station in life....... from slave to slave owner...... spoke as if the words were written by Shakespeare. There was an eloquence that was so much more flowery then seemed natural. This is an important film and I strongly recommend it.<br />
<br />
7. <u>GRAVITY</u>: A thrill ride of a movie. If it's not already a ride at Disney Land it should be. Much to my surprise I have heard several people say things like "it was cool to see but lacked a story". I couldn't disagree more. There are essentially only two human characters in the movie but the lead was played by "space". The deep peril of facing near certain death, the cliff hanger feeling knowing debris was imminently inbound, the shear terror of being alone miles above early...... simply gripping. I also found the story to be fascinating and the visuals to be mind blowing. This is one movie that deserves to be seen on the big screen....... IMAX if you can find it. Even better, the run time is only 91 minutes. A bit of a pet peeve of mine- the need to make all movies well over 2 hours long.<br />
<br />
8. <u>THE WOLF OF WALL STREET</u>: Martin Scorsese is probably the best living Director. Leonardo DiCaprio is at worst in the conversation for best living male actor. Terence Winter is a writer without peer. The movie was absolutely entertaining and time seemed to fly. That being said, I'm not sure it needed to be a full 180 minutes long. I can't remember a movie that glorified drug use more. Heck, it made me feel like I needed to use drugs if I want to enjoy my life to the maximum. The decadence and debauchery was legendary. What bothered me was the degree to which they choose demonstrate how "over the top" the characters were. I understand that "over the top" and "out of control" is what it was all about The characters lived in a rule free, narcissistic, greed fueled world. Still, it went over the line of what I found believable. When a movie plays it straight; meaning it tries to make you believe "that could happen", then it should stick to that form or story telling. I don't mind if a movie wants to go the unbelievable route- heck, I loved "The Hangover". All I ask is for it to be consistent. This film just crossed the line from plausible drama to just plain silly too often. All that being said, I did really enjoy the film. In my opinion DiCaprio got robbed when he didn't win for "The Aviator" but I don't think he deserves it this time.<br />
<br />
9. <u>HER</u>: This is the least discussed and I believe the least well known of the nominated films. It also happens to be one of my favorites. Joaquin Phoenix continues to add to his resume in impressive fashion. No matter the role he takes on he seems to inhabit the character in an authentic way. There seems to be a sadness or torment within him that he doesn't mind sharing with us in his performances. This movie is relevant in a number of ways. It explores the impact automation may have on all of our futures. Will it be a blessing or a curse? Spike Jonze gives us a glimpse in to what may lay ahead. However, the film really has less to do with what the future holds or anything abstract. At it's core it's a film about loneliness and what we're willing to do to combat it. Humans are intrinsically social creatures and we all need a connection to someone. Does that someone need to be human? This is a thought provoking work of art.<br />
<br />
I do hope someone reads my thoughts.<br />
If you have read my blog and wish to share your thoughts I'd welcome it.<br />
I hope to continue writing more detailed reviews as I watch movies going forward. <br />I think I'll also give a few suggestions for movies people may have missed in 2013 that I think are worth seeing.andyeye86http://www.blogger.com/profile/09863649309798299832noreply@blogger.com0