Change Your Image
rsj624
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Lists
An error has ocurred. Please try againFinding a unique film that stands apart from all the rest is no small task, and these are just some of the best ones I've seen in my time as a film fanatic; as well as some that just need to be seen to believe! Hope you enjoy!
Reviews
Under the Silver Lake (2018)
A Scathing Critique on Modernity
First and formost, dude better not have actually written in permanent black marker on the zelda fold-out map from Nintendo Power Magazine Issue #1... Just sayin. Okay, onto the review!
"We crave Mystery, because there is none left".
This single line uttered during the runtime of Under a Silver Lake perhaps hit me the hardest of them all. I have spent most of my cinema going time as of late journeying through the 60s and 70s, in search of the next great thriller/horror or mystery film I had yet to see. So even thought this line within the context of said film is meant to imply more of a loss of originality and imagination in the modern world, it spoke volumes to me on a personal level. Under the Silver Lake a modern day take on the classic mystery films of old, and boy does it deliver on all the key ingredients that made its many inspirations so great in the first place.
Under the Silver Lake stands as one of the few rare films in recent times that follows no rules but its it's own, and ventures fearlessly into the limitless realm of cinema at it's most adventurous and entertaining. But let me state that it is by no means a perfect film before I gush all over it. It does feel way on the long side at an over 2 hour runtime, and many segments felt like they were used to pad out and better pace the film. The ending is a bit of a letdown and some loose ends are never addressed, yet, those are hardly complaints when considering the scope and ambition and mystery of the warped LA world we are introduced to, not to mention that even at its worst I was still more entertained than I ever thought it'd be.
It's a scathing critique of modernity, pairing pop culture with conspiracy theory in which director David Robert Micthell employees the same dizzying world logic he used in his last film "It Follows", to provide us with what feels like a surreal journey through a beautifully nightmarish landscape, populated by characters as alluring as they are apathetic. It's all about the layers here, and there are plenty of them to peel back. It's aethestics, both good and bad saturate the world in which nothing is what it seems, yet everything is as basic as it appears. Andrew Garfield's aimlessly incorrigible take on a clueless protagonist blundering through an amateur detective-esque parade of bizzare occurrences and inconsequential encounters, just to find a girl he likes, simultaneously feel like a whole lot of nothings, within a whole lot of somethings. It's quite the achievement in my opinion for a film to balance so many opposing elements, yet all frame under such a titled, but cohesive narrative.
But most importantly it's just a fun movie to watch. It doesn't take itself as seriously as it seems, yet it's obvious a lot of work went into making everything feel as finely crafted as possible, something I feel few films outside of maybe The Lighthouse, Little Women, and Marriage Story from last year managed to successfully do. Again, this isn't to say its perfect, and those other films I mentioned are a better watch in my opinion, and indeed Under a Silver Lake could even be considered 'goofy' at times, but it's nice to see a film be so genuienly daring.
Here's to hoping at the very least in time it finds it's audience, and can become a cult classic. I recommend this one to any film lover who feel things have been a bit stale lately, and need a good dose of the wild and weird.
Uncut Gems (2019)
Fair Warning, Not a Popular Take
I did not like this film, and although I will attempt to be constructive about it, there is barely anything positive I can say about my experience with Uncut Gems.
Coming off how amazing Good Time was, I expected that the Safdie Brothers would hit us all with one of the most amazing films of 2019. Instead, I found myself frustrated for 135 minutes as I watched a lot of unlikable people do a lot of uncool things all while yelling (a lot of yelling) at each other, never reaching many understandings, and I wondered why any of it had to go down the way it did, and why there was such a strong desire to aggrivate us as the audience.
In short, its a comedy of errors without the comedy. It's Frustration Cinema at it's best.
Most of the supporting roles did not impress me, with the exception of LaKeith Stanfield, who is easily the most enjoyable actor in the film. Idina Menzel provided a very one dimensional take on a relentlessly unsympathetic character with some serious hatred for her husband, Howard (Adam Sandler), and his girlfriend on the sly, played by Julia Fox, who acted well enough, but still felt thrown in the mix as a way to drive the plot forward during certain key moments. It was also hard to sympathize with Howard, as he was thoroughly unlikable, thickheaded, and really good at upsetting people. All of this and we are still expected as viewers to care about his whole world to begin with.
If he is supposed to be such a loser (and this is strictly speaking in the most objective of terms), how does he come to run his own Jewelry business, have such a nice house, and super slick apartment in the city? How did he manage to have three kids with a wife who hates him so much? How does he manage to have a girlfriend on the side as well? Or for that matter why is his girl so super committed to him if he has nothing going for him? I guess I needed some more exposition here to buy into Howard's character being such a loser with so many successes in life.
My guess is I'm supposed to assume he's not self made. It's implied that his family may fund him, but this is, from what I could tell at least, never truly confirmed. Perhaps I'm not supposed to read into all this so much, but given how Uncut Gems film seems to pride itself on its hyper realistic and gritty portrayal of events, it probably somewhat important that it feels believable.
If there is one super high point in Uncut Gems, it's the soundtrack, which oozes synthesizer goodness. Problem is unlike in Good Time, it feels forced and is mostly limited to moments of transitioning from scene to scene. Also putting the spotlight on the superstitions athletes have when it comes to harnessing success was a clever touch, and more believable than the whole of Howard's arch. Even though Sandler does put on a better acting display than he is usually well known for, I'd recommend watching Punch Drunk Love to see his real range put on display, not just copious amounts of yelling and bad decision making.
I know this film has many fans, and a passionate audience, and I know many people regard it highly, which is cool. No film should fail if it's made well enough. And this is not me saying that a film has to be happy, or that it can't be sad, or make someone angry, but for me, I need to care about the characters on screen, or care about what and why it's all happening at the least. But in spite of how well crafted it all is, I personally couldn't squeeze much, if any care out of anything that happens in Uncut Gems. It's high stakes ending brings some late game enjoyment, but throws it all away on (wait for it) the dumbest, least most rewarding ending ever to a film, and I mean ever! This ending was just plain bad. The plot felt like it left itself no where else to go but to the worst of places... so it went there, and it was not worth it. It made everything I had witnessed up til that point feel like an even bigger waste of time than I already felt it was. Uncut Gems was the biggest disappointment released in 2019 for me so far.
Marriage Story (2019)
A Most Cautionary Tale
Most films that tackle marriage or breakups often times feel too bitter or too sweet depending on the vibe the film is going for. Marriage story however maintains the perfect middle ground, opting to not chose sides, but rather grant us as the viewer an impartial look into a failed marriage and all the messiness therein, combining both the bitter and the sweet to devastating effect.
First off this film would be nothing without the power of its actors, all of which are in top form, further supported by a great script and very competent filmmaking from director Noah Baumbach overall. Johansson and Driver are both gutwretching as their rollercoaster divorce darts back and fourth between friendly and ferocious, culminating in one scene which can perhaps rival the best of any fight scenes between couples I've ever witnessed on screen. Even with all that being said, the film never loses the tenderness at its core. The only issue I can even think to have with Marriage Story is that everything is perhaps a little too neatly and quickly wrapped up in the last 15 minutes or so. But with it sporting around a two hour run time, this is hardly a big issue.
By the end, it's hard not to feel put through the ringer with Marriage Story, but we may also be thankful for it. It serves as a painful reminder of the impermanence the very things we want to have stick around most in life possess, and how what we once loved so much can get so far away from us in no time at all. I've seen few films portray this as brilliantly as Marriage Story, and if you're able to take what it can dish, this one is a must see.
The Apartment (1960)
Not So Little Ditty bout Jack and Shirley
The Apartment is about C.C. Baker played by Jack Lemon who falls for an elevator operator named Fran Kubelik played by Shirley MacLaine, all the while lending his apartment out to some fellow co-workers to conduct their after-hour indiscretions. The two eventually see their paths intermingle within the apartment itself as Baker begins to progress up the company latter. Holistically the film is a masterwork. It's pacing is slow but deliberate, the story it tells is cohesive and never confusing. The dialog is witty yet relatable, and it's cinematography is nothing short of pure eye candy being a rare black and white film shot very wide with long lenses and long takes used. Though the static nature of each frame and near perfection in the editing itself might turn off some, it was a great lesson in this classic style of film making for someone like myself.
My grievances with the film mostly involve how the plot itself unravels and how things end. Not to spoil anything, but there where a number of times within the film that Lemon's character could've walked away from everything he was getting involved in, and a number of times that MacLaine's character could've as well. The ending also just sort of...well, ended. It was unremarkable, happy, but very "meh". At times it ends up feeling like one of those films where you want to shout at the TV like, "just do that instead", or "this would be the time to tell her that". But it is an older movie, and I guess it's behavior in the Hayes Code era was typical back then. These complaints are very minor however when compared to all the things the film manages to get right.
In the end if you are looking for a classic film that is up there with the greats, and you haven't gotten around to this one yet, it is highly recommended and true joy to watch.
The Invitation (2015)
I Invite You to Pass on You're Invitation
I have not written a review on here in quite sometime, but after watching this film I felt the need to voice out a bit on some thoughts I've had regarding it. First and foremost, I am a huge fan of how horror films are being more legitimized in the last few years and look forward to the merging of more art meaningful stories in creepy and freak out narratives. So this is in no way written with a bias against this genre of cinema, however, when I feel a film is being granted as much praise as this one is and it isn't, in my opinion, quite deserving of it... it's time for some criticism.
The Invitation centers around a group of friends who have long since gone their own ways, some due to a tragedy; others just life happenings, meeting up for a reunion of sorts at the house of our main Will and former wife Eden. Will brings his girlfriend Kira with him to the gathering where said friends act all kinds of polite, while try to reconnect and avoid addressing the elephant in the room. Will senses something very off about his ex-wife's new man David and that elephant begins to rear its head more and more as the film paves a path towards it's climactic ending.
Without giving too much away at this time, The Invitation is worth it for about the last minute, if that is too much spoiler for you than I apologize, but it almost feels like it is inviting you to a challenge of sorts; a "how much of a slow burn can you tolerate" challenge. With that being said, slow burn films can be amazing, especially in the horror genre. Other horror films like The Witch, or artistic films like Upstream Color, even Primer are perfect examples of low key slow burn films that deliver on their concepts and stories. But The Invitation just keep dragging you along for a ride that you know is going to go south at some point, just at what point? This is so much so that eventually you start thinking to yourself that whatever place it arrives at cannot possibly satisfy enough due to how long it takes to get there.
**Potential spoilers** Further harm is done when the emotional pull of the film, mostly regarding a tragic event in the former married life of Will and Eden, is seemingly overshadowed and rendered practically moot by the films third act. To some I guess it all can serve as a way to bottom line the films theme of failure to cope with loss, but everything that ultimately happens at this party will be a far worse loss, with far worse memories gained for everyone involved. No one wouldn't require a massive amount of therapy afterwards.
**Actual spoilers** Also, David, again, that new boyfriend dude of Eden, has never met any of these friends of hers beforehand. He is sided with his own group of friends that also don't know anyone prior to their meeting. Choosing their roles to be that of the outsiders makes their involvement in the films big scene take everything to such a clichéd old-school horror level that it bails completely on it's own potential. What do I mean by this? How about it would've been so much more gut-retching and gushing with emotion if this was friends against friends with layered characters and multiple arcs. Histories and agendas that have something to gain and lose from it all? It really blows a chance at something revolutionary in horror cinema in favor of a more accessible and clichéd final act all for the sake of sticking to a much more grounded and less complicated set of themes. **end spoilers**
In closing, if you are okay with being dragged for a long ride that pays off at the very very very very end, then by all means watch this movie. It's not horrible, it just doesn't strike me as a film that deserves a lot of the praise it is being given. You have better artsy horror film choices out there in It Follows, The Conjuring, Beyond the Black Rainbow, The Babadook, The Witch, even You're Next. Basically any other well reviewed horror movie of the last few years was serve as a better dish.
Tess (1979)
Masterful, but not a Masterpiece
I was on board with this movie from the moment I had began watching it, which is why it is so much more disheartening to me that I can't give this film higher than an 8. Once upon a time I believe that all good movies needed to be over 2 hrs long, now I feel quite the opposite.
While a film like Tess could never be done justice in under that amount of time, plenty of films these days benefit story wise from being significantly shorter than films of the past, some even hovering around 75 mins now rather than 90 or 110, however, my problem with Tess is not how long it is, as much as how necessary it's three hour length is. That's why I find it such a benefit that films are shorter these days, they are shorter because they don't need to be any longer, and if you cut out the whole last half an hour of Tess, although an incomplete experience at that, you might walk away feeling a little less cheated and depressed.
My reasoning for feeling this way stems from how Tess goes from being a character that has endured a lot and managed to live with her pride in the face of countless attempts to break her as a person, only to ultimately see her actually be broken as a person, wed a man she doesn't love to stave off ruin for her family, and in turn murder that man, which leads to her being hanged. This is frustrating enough as it is since it feels too dramatic for an otherwise mostly somber two hours previous, but then we have the man she does truly love, Angel, who walks away from their previous marriage once he finds out she is far from pure, only to have him come back into her life ever so expectedly to then not only then fail to make up for his shortcomings, but see her off to her death.
I get that it's faithful to the source material, and that it is probably meant to be more realistic and less formulaic, but at the end of the day you watch a film to be entertained, not preached to, unless something profound can be preached. What Tess said back in 1979 may have been profound as a film, and if it was, but if it, it was perhaps a few time periods too late and otherwise praised and rewarded for all the other things it did right, as I just cannot see many being okay with the last act.
I found this film to be amazing in every way a good film can be up until the last half an hour and perhaps even the last 45 minutes where it really just feels like a real let down, a bummer, and not in an enlightening or worthwhile way. If you go into this movie expecting a tragedy, then perhaps you will not share in my experience, but if you're looking for a masterful work of Victorian era fiction, you're best sticking to more light-hearted fair, like Room with a View, or even Far From the Madding Crowd (dare I say light-ish, or lighter at least).
Men, Women & Children (2014)
The Digital Era Has Been Critiqued Indeed
This is another one of those indie styled films that has been mysteriously ill-received by critics and movie-goers alike. I for one cannot understand why. It's basically a film about several related and unrelated relationships, and I guess in some ways its preachy narrative; which asks people to look at our reliance on technology, as well as how we as humans struggle to relate and forge relationships with others at any phase in life, may seem to confrontational to some. If that is the case it is unfortunate because the ensemble structure of this film and everything it looks to tackle are very contemporary norms, or at least popular ideas of social norms that need a little bit more spotlighting in film.
One can criticize the films slow pacing, long length, somewhat lacking characters that fail to wholly engage, and even ridicule the product placement. However, if everything was just that perfect, interesting, and willing to sacrifice authenticity in order for this film required to work, then it's whole point would be lost in mere moments. It needs it's characters to feel real, and it's world to feel real. This film tries to be unbiased in the good vs. evils of technology argument, and both fails and succeeds as much as reasonably possible.
Jennifer Garner's character for one seems to despise technology and it's inherent dangers, while embracing it as a mechanism to fuel that hate and be an overprotective mother. Adam Sandler's character and his wife both use computers as a source to find pleasure outside their marriage. Judy Greer's character seeks to live out a life of fame vicariously through her daughter but ends up destroying her chances through the very means she meant to use to propel her. Others see the benefit to forming physical relationships through social networking while some less fortunate become alienated by it.
All that leads to Jason Reitman's film simply asks us viewers to watch this movie and it's message to see if anything resonates; if perhaps we know any people like this in real life, and if technology has truly not helped or hindered anyone on Earth in someway, just as much like the world that existed before the digital era. If it's a film that's easy to criticize, to me, that just means its done it's job.
I recommend this movie to anyone whose looking for a more realistic take on relationships from multiple perspective and just a look at life today in general, albeit a skewed one at times.
Digging for Fire (2015)
Though a Dimly lit fire, A Enduring one for Sure.
While Digging for Fire is not the finest Swanberg film, for anyone who knows what they are looking to get out of his movies they will not be disappointed here. Digging for Fire is less about a man's journey to unearth a potential crime from the past buried under a clients home, but more about self exploration during a brief time apart from his marriage to his wife; whom makes up the other scenes in the film.
Digging for Fire avoids being sympathetic towards either main character and rather provides a basis for us to just watch instead of judge. All involved are indeed flawed, but very human. The brief moments we share with them don't plan on leading to anything Earth shattering, but rather provide two sides to a coin flipping back and forth. If you don't care much for films lacking in plot development; rather just moving from moment to moment guiding with each scene instead of using traditional story progression, than Digging for Fire will not be for you.
Anyone else should be more than pleased by this well acted and nuanced mumbercore hit, and again, while it isn't quite Drinking Buddies, or Happy Christmas, it's still a film more than worth the watch! Also, the soundtrack, while minimal is a pretty good listen as well!
6 Years (2015)
A Modest Yet Effective Heart-String Tugger
Anyone who has ever been in a relationship for an extended period of time knows all too well just how difficult love can be with every up and down being hopelessly unavoidable. 6 Years aims to take an intimate and very indie approach to a lovers quarrel involving their most pivotal and challenging period.
From what I've gathered, the film has generated a rather lacking reception and has polarized critics; not resonating much at all with viewers either. To me, this feels like it's either due to the film missing its mark with it's intended audience, or the possibility that it's portrayal is almost too earnest and flawed to be seen for what it actually is...a short, heart-wrenching, and honest contemporary love story.
The film makes sure to drive it's emphasize on intimacy home, opting to use mostly close up shots outside of those that set up a scene. Where it falters most is in it's intended dramatic moments. Any time it breaks its melancholy and slow pacing we feel like the film is looking to destroy itself almost as much as it's couple. These moments come off as extreme in comparison to the rest of the film, and usually more abrupt; lessening the focus. Perhaps this is to convey just how quick and fleeting many moments that compromise a relationship can be, but it just makes the pacing feel very darting.
Even with these hiccups though, 6 Years would've been a benchmark film had it come out, well, closer to 6 years ago. It's unfortunate since now perhaps it feels to many like that token hipster film with the cool soundtrack, saturated pop infused look, and focus on indie culture standards. If that's the case, it's an old, easy, and honestly quite poor stance to take, as this film is easily watchable and recommendable if you take it for what it is and not expect to see the greatest movie of all time. 6 Years is an emotionally awesome indie train wreck.
Foxcatcher (2014)
Tackles the Heart, but Lacks the Soul.
Foxcatcher seems to ride that fine line between a sports film with masculine themes and an artistically filmed movie looking to put a unique spin on the world of professional and Olympic wrestling. Being drawn towards films that like to try and mesh together two worlds that seem on opposite ends of the spectrum, I expected Foxcatcher to be a stark portrayal of the life of Mark Schultz, however, upon watching it things became clear that the movie was about John Du Pont, Mark, and his brother Dave Schultz, which was unexpected, but not the problem.
As tragic as the story is, the problem is in how things unfold. Granted that working with a true story puts some limits on artistic license, little is done to really heighten the tension in the film to a boiling point. Even when things seem at their most tense, a lack of atmosphere and soundtrack always keeps things too bleak and saturated for the sake of realism to make it any bit interesting or fun to watch. Foxcatcher feels like more of an education of the story of the Schultz brothers more than a film to entertain.
Which leads me to my next problem with the film. If it is a film to educate, it does very little in terms of explaining the sport of wrestling to help understand the matches we witness and elevate the intensity. Two types of movie goers I would expect are most likely to watch this movie, and they would be wrestlers and/or fans of professional wrestling, or movie buffs. But given the dedication to their art and life long practice of sports, I don't see many serious wrestlers taking to watching serious films spotlighting cinematography, dialog, saturation, aesthetics; the look of the film, the sound editing, and attention to detail that otherwise does this film justice.
Having friends that wrestle, I know that they haven't even seen the movie, nor do they seem to care to. So it seems that little was done to make sure that Foxcatcher hit its target audience. The lack of attention it got during the Academy Awards outside of a few nominations could be further evidence that while well received, it just isn't all that interesting. Its long, well shot, but slow paced, and not in a good way. The film just doesn't resonate as well as it's other contemporaries do.
If you're a fan of both wrestling and artistically filmed movies, or a fan of true stories, then by all means, this movie will perhaps be for you. For everyone else, I cannot recommend Foxcatcher for any reason other than that of curiosity.
Réalité (2014)
A Satire Within a Satire
--There Will Be Spoilers--
I've already seen a number of reviews and comments popping up that seem to not fully grip the hugely satirical natural of this film and seem to dock it points based on standards it just can't be held up to. Quentin Dupeiux, who has dictated other strange and surreal dark comedies such as Rubber and Wrong, knows his films are unique, and he knows what he's doing and he proves no differently with this film.
The whole thing is one giant Hollywood satire. Anyone looking for coherency in the film is missing everything it's trying to poke fun at. For example it has countless plot twists that don't feel necessary, and this is where it takes a dig at the mainstream's need to have some sort of twist happen in every film to hold an audiences attention; this is contrasted by the ex-documentary director in the film desiring to hold shots of "boring scenes" for way longer than necessary. The film also takes a jab at Inception, at one point having us as viewers watch a movie of people watching a movie in a theater watching a girl watching a movie on TV.
The future director of a film being pitched throughout the movie at one point walks into a theater, where his idea about a film where TV's destroy the minds of viewers is already being played in a local cineplex, and treated as if the audience is impossibly watching a movie that hasn't even come out yet. This in my opinion is poking fun at the current industry standard of repeating the same ideas over and over again to audiences willing to ingest the same tired story. At the same time it could be taking a jab at directors who think their ideas are so original that no one else could possibly come up with the same thing, only to find out that it's been done already.The whole picture is absurdly left mostly unresolved, and intentionally so, in order to convey a sense of everything we see either being a dream, or that we as viewers have been made stupid and confused by our own TV's beaming waves at our brain, much like the ones in the movie "Waves" within this film.
It's all a big joke, any attempt to take it seriously will leave most frustrated and disappointed.
It's a Quentin Dupeiux film, you've been warned.
Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (1998)
Not Quite Snatch, but Not too Bad.
Lock, Stock, and Two Smoking Barrels may have been the film to cemented Guy Richie's spot as a cinematic and iconic force to be reckoned with, but after having watched both this movie and Snatch, it's hard to argue in favor of the former being a superior film. Everything this film lacks, Snatch made up for and expanded upon. Now this isn't to say that Lock, Stock isn't a great film, it's quite enjoyable. However, its slightly harder to follow even though it's plot is less complicated and convoluted than Snatch.
The cast is weaker, but the focus on their characters is better. Where the movie failed to grab me as a viewer is how each character could be considered slightly less memorable than those in Snatch as well as the dialog. Snatch sees it's cast embody far more personality as well as polishing the gritty world a bit more; making it an easier and superior watch. I can usually argue against polish in a film if everything else is in check, but as I stated before Lock, Stock feel like the less fully realized film. It doesn't have that punch that Snatch has either.
If you're looking for a great film to watch and haven't seen either, then I recommend watching this one first followed by Snatch, or if you've already seen Snatch then watch this one, but only if you're a fan of Guy Ruchie films or crime comedies more than anything. It's really a film that perhaps could have been best experienced back in the days when it first came around. But given that was the 90s and other similarly themed films such as Reservoir Dogs, Pulp Fiction, Trainspotting, etc, where around this one could be considered a weaker entry for some.
Last Night (2010)
Mellow, Moody, but not Masterful
**May Contain Spoilers**
Last Night is one of those films that's bound to make enemies of many and friends of few. From a critical perspective it can be considered too nuanced and subtle in it's storytelling approach, lacking much bulk in both story-telling style and character development. But this film doesn't seem to care about pleasing critics, rather, it's most enjoyable when it's thought of as asking us as viewers to recall a time which we have embodied at least one of the films four characters. The husband who wants to cheat for one night, the girl who wants the man she knows she can't have, the wife who wants the man she knows she truly belongs with, and the guy who hopelessly loves the girl that got away.
For the most part it's easy to be at least one of these four people, and this chance to relate is perhaps the movies strongest asset aside from a great performance from Keira Knightly, who rarely disappoints, and some beautiful NYC locations. If you go into Last Night expecting it to be 'that movie' everyone overlooked, you'll be let down. But if you treat it as one of those late night quick watches, or a movie to relax with when sick or simply not feeling like doing much, it's an easy and mellow watch.
Lost River (2014)
Sorry Haters, This Ones Better Than You Think!
**May contain spoilers**
Going into Lost River I'd already known about its commercial failure, and upon watching the trailer for it Nicholas Winding Refn's influence could be seen in almost every segment. However, unlike some I dare say that this is actually a very good movie. It's an art film, so if the word "art" coupled with "film" could scare you away then this movie will do just that. There is little difference in terms of the degree of graphic content featured in this movie then there would be in films like "Drive" or "Only God Forgives" that Refn would employ in his films, and Gosling emulates it perfectly in this film.
That's not to say that it can't be off-putting at times, and if the more trance like droning pace of contemporary films such as "Upstream Color" and "Beyond the Black Rainbow" aren't your thing, Lost River will do little to chance that. Call me bias, but these types of minimal dialog and high atmosphere films are amazing to me, almost like fever dreams or journeys to other grounded yet fantasy like worlds. The characters are a bit surreal and lacking in any true development, but that lends to the fantastical nature of the events being portrayed; a twisted romanticizing of a gritty and hopeless world.
I think if any criticism can be thrown at Gosling its that his vision for this first effort doesn't seem like much of an attempt to put his own true stamp on it; merely borrowing influence from others and giving his own take on them or showcasing their inspiration, which again, I am fine with since I think this film turned out great. It's not confusing, it's not congested, quite straight forward and gets resolved by the end making it easier to appreciate the art-house style it plays up to without needing to over think anything.
Maybe the film comes off as pretentious or overdoing it to some, but honestly that's art for ya! I'd rather a film like Lost River exist any day over the Paul Blarts of the world. When compared against the great art-films throughout history, it may not hold a torch now, but this film is much less deserving of the ridicule it has received rather than praise. It'll quietly float away down a stream into nothing only to be found years later and hailed as a cult classic.
One can only hope.
Enemy (2013)
Perhaps the Best Psychological Thriller ever, but can it be explained?
**spoilers ahead**
I'll admit that I was a little lost and left scratching my head after this film and did some research into what the meaning behind the film was and came up with some very interesting results. Mainly a lot of different takes exist, but what I found most interesting upon analyzing the film myself, was that all these views are not only right in their own regard, but could also each be smaller pieces to a much bigger and very involved puzzle. So before I actually review this film, albeit briefly, below is an analysis mixing these beliefs and findings with my own take upon re-watching key moments of the film armed with this new knowledge.
For one thing, Adam is a history teacher whose focus in the film is on Totalitarian societies. Interestingly enough the film itself is heavily themed in Totalitarianism as Adam is ignorant to the fact that he belongs to the very type of repressive and controlling society that he teaches to his classes. This is supported by the heavy atmosphere in the film depicting a claustrophobic, borderline colorless, and hazy city that appears to be confined within its own space. Adam's double Anthony exists to shock Adam out of his individualism, and Anthony's existence further strips Adam of his identity within this rouse of a free world. Also highlighted in the film is the presence of spiders everywhere, which suggest that they are the ones that run society.
This is where the film travels into surreal territory as the ending suggests that Adam has become the victim of a body snatcher, and that the spiders enforce this illusion of control within society by taking on the identities of humans rather than eradicating them. This also hints at Adam being a cinema buff, which his character leads us against believing at first. If you choose to interpret the film from this point as one big dream that Adam is having, then Anthony would be his mental manifestation of this obsession with Cinema; seeing as Anthony is an actor, as well as indulges in a more pleasure-centric life style. When Adam enters the rental store, we see an "Attack of the 50 ft. Woman" poster in the background, adding further weight to the possibility of the body snatchers being drempt up, and also further supported by a brief surreal segment showing a giant spider roaming the city; very "War of the Worlds" like. Also, even further supporting the film being a dream Adams is having can be finalized by the title of the film's special feature within the DVD: "Lucid Dreams".
But the body snatchers angle from what I've figured out is actually an elaborate red herring, a part of Adam's subconscious that works its way into his dream along with his history lessons in attempt to distract him from making sense of the guilt and regret he feels for cheating on his pregnant wife and killing his other girlfriend in a car accident. This is supported by Anthony's wife seeming to know who Adam is near the end using suggestive dialog, and never really dismissing or rejecting his character. She even takes jabs at Anthony knowing why there is a double of himself saying "I think you know..."; further suggesting they are one in the same. Both Adam and Anthony also share a scar in the same spot, which could have been caused by the car accident and also indicating that Adam had survived the car accident.
These realities of Adam's life work together in his dream through the creation of Anthony, his mental manifestations of his wife and his deceased girlfriend to further push him towards what his dream is actually trying to make him aware of. The fantasy world of the spiders and having an actual double is used to throw us as viewers off as well as showcase Adam's inability to deal with his trauma. Like most dream worlds tend to do; things feel fragmented, consisting of recycled thoughts, dreary, disconnected imagery that confusing rather than directly explaining to ones self what's going on, much like the film itself chooses not to do.
In the after Adam officially assumes Anthony's life, Adam's wife reveals herself to be a massive spider. She is afraid of Adam due to his cinematic mind making it seem like he has figured out that the spiders are body snatchers, when in fact it's hinting to us viewers that everything is a dream and that Adam will continue to escape and assume the mentality of Anthony rather than deal his mistakes. Anthony dying in the car crash can be seen as Adam's attempt to rid himself mentally of Anthony and his wrong doing, but the film's ending suggests he will only continue to fail at ridding himself of his repressed guilt through escapism.
WITH ALL OF THAT MASSIVE ANALYSIS BEING SAID this movie is perhaps one of the best films I've watched in recent memory. It's such a risk to make a movie that is so layered and so fragmented, yet makes perfect sense one you manage to piece everything together. Part of the great lure to such a psychological thriller is not truly knowing what's going on. Everything from the lighting, to the use of overly dramatic and eerie music, to the placement of the camera, dialog, actors; everything whether planned or not allows for this film to prompt an interpretation of the events and their relevance within the world of Enemy. Few films can demand so much from it's viewers and give us such a playground of information to formulate an opinion on. Perhaps the greatest beauty is how it all seems so possible, none of it too far fetched. That's the mark of a truly well done film. When you know it's fragmented and confusing, but not due to being poorly constructed or made by amateurs. Cheers to you Enemy, job well done!
Maps to the Stars (2014)
The Stars Shine Bright, but the Story Doesn't
After watching Videodrome and ExiStenZ I knew I was going to go into Maps to the Stars being a bit unprepared. This movie has light years more in common with Cronenberg's later works which I have yet to finish watching, and continues his trend of more psychological and socially radical films rather than visually striking ones.
Given the subject matter in this film some may find it fairly inaccessible, but for long time Cronenberg fans, or even frequent movie watchers, this isn't the most difficult watch and at times will leave you wondering when things will pick up or really challenge us as viewers. The pacing isn't so much an issue, but rather trying to figure out exactly what Maps to the Stars is trying to be when it jumps from scene to scene.
Sometimes it feels like a plain ol' satire; the frequently used term attempting to describe this film to a broader audience, but it feels more like a creepy thriller or a Hollywood horror story. Other times it feels like a TV drama with it's off-kilter portrayal of a dysfunctional family; housing some radical ideas and perceptions of their world which slowly unravels before them.
Honestly, these days most entertainment goes off the rails willingly or trends relentlessly into twisted territory in attempt to keep its audience interested, so with this kind of film you can't just go by the numbers or expect such a bare bones plot to take you far unless you do something particularly special with it. That's where Maps to the Stars falls flat. While everyone involved does a great job and the film is worth watching, it feels very been-there-done-that in almost every cinematic regard.
Those less seasoned in cinema will no doubt find it difficult to stomach at times, but most others won't. It pains me to say that when it comes to Cronenberg this is one of his least hypnotizing films.
The Two Faces of January (2014)
A Subtle and Tranquil Thriller
On the surface The Two Faces of January appears to be one of those films starring has-beens and a couple nobodys that features beautiful locations and a tired plot, however, I beg to make a case against such an assumption for this movie. Everyone who stars in this film are in top form, and while the film itself doesn't sport too many real gripping threats, it is a perfect example of what it means to romanticize locations in a period piece, and offer actors a chance to moonlight with less conflict and more focus on mood, art, and event transitions.
This film is pretty much all about Viggo Mortensen, Kirsten Dunst, and Oscar Issac. All three are given (for the most part) an equal shot at being convincing characters, and rather than pin each one against each other, explores the complexities of relationships under dire, foreign, and stressful conditions. The film lacks some real bite at times since it's focus seems too favor setting up locations and mood over the events themselves, but I find this to be a waste of a complaint since the beautiful scenery, outfits, and even the sparse dialogue made the film a pleasant break away from so many other contemporary thrillers and big budget movies; even some indie films can learn from its minimal and grand scale mixing approach.
In the end, if you watch The Two Faces of January expecting to be blown away, then you may be disappointing, but if you have a thing for romanticized locations, period pieces, slower paced thrillers, and in general an appreciation for films that go against the grain, then this film should not disappoint in any way.
Frank (2014)
Frank....
Frank is a testament to everything that both good and bad about music and it's experimental nature. On the one hand its a movie about learning through life and death how music can bring about amazing memories and life experiences. On the other hand it's movie about utter insanity and the cost of ones own well-being just to make a record and spend time with some truly whacked out people.
As someone who has played an instrument in the past, and had friends in bands, and even had my own solo project, it's insulting to a degree to see a movie play up how true creativity and amazing music comes from places deep within or from people who have some sort of mental illness/overwhelming life problems.
To be fair to the movie however, perhaps making it about the opposite wouldn't have made it as interesting or dramatic, but some people just have a gift for music and don't need to be disturbed to send a great message; and while the film tries to forward our understand of Fassbender's character actually being limited by his own inherent mental illness rather than gifted by it, the band on a whole still comes off as pretentious and difficult, and Frank is about the only truly likable character in the film.
I know the film is not trying to be insulting, but given the limited amount of music based movies out there, it would be nice to see one that doesn't use insanity, drugs, or bad life experiences as the reasons most great music has been written.
Aside from those complains, what the movie does get right is in its unfolding of said dramas. It's so crazy that it's entertaining enough just to see if everyone is actually going to make it out of the movie in one piece.
Frank is not the easiest movie to speak of, given it's perhaps best watched to truly understand, and while I feel this review is more of a generalization of how easy it is to both love and hate it, perhaps that's it's genius.
If you don't finish watching this movie and have some mixed feelings about it, then I don't think it's done it's job. Frank is so deep in both it's simplicity and complexity that its somehow equally easy and hard to recommend, and that should give you every reason to watch it; music fan or not.
American Hustle (2013)
Feel Hustled? I Do Just a Little Bit.
American Hustle is one of those movies that will be appreciated for it's directing and it's actors. It's thought of as a movie for movie fans, but as a movie fan, or a 'film fanatic' I actually found this to be David O.Russel's weakest movie to date.
The Fighter was an amazing movie, and The Silver Linings Playbook was great, but American Hustle just barely scraps by as very good. This movie feels like it should belong to Bale, however, Jennifer Lawrence character is primed to steal the spotlight whenever she can, and she does.
Problem with this is that her character is a chaotic nascence. While her acting is great, her character doesn't seem as much fun as it seems a hassle to portray given her poisonous nature.
Further can disappointment be added to how Amy Adams feels underused, even at her best. Her character is central to just about every other major actors in this film, yet the degree of sympathy we should feel for someone caught so in the middle of everything is under-minded by the difficulty of figuring out whether or not she's truly a good or bad person.
Bradley Cooper also feels sold short, with more focus on his looks and his character's determination than any actual development. The movies plot feels more confusing at times than it should be and I attribute this to the film being longer than it needs to be; something that befalls one too many Oscar hopeful films.
American Hustle did not win best picture because it didn't stand a chance, but because it was not the best. While the movie is worth the watch, and a very good film at the least, there are better choices out there for a serious drama.
Nebraska (2013)
Woody Wants His Money, and You'll Want Yours Back too!
At one point in the movie Woody's son played by Will Forte comments to an office worker saying that his father just believes everything people tell him; this of course is in reference to the bogus letter stating he has won a million dollars that Woody wants to travel to Lincoln,Nebraska to claim. Well as my first major point of concern: if Woody believes everything everyone tells him, then why are the members of his family, and seemingly everyone else around him the only people he won't listen to? From the start this film is frustrating. The constant location changes vary from the open road, to bars, then back to a house somewhere in the middle of nowhere, to a bar again, and then the open road some more, and again to some boring houses.
The script itself ins't really that deep or interesting either, granted that probably isn't the point, but while attempting to showcase a more 'realistic' portrayal of life in the middle of the country where they doesn't seem much to do, it's rather insulting when you think about it; and heck, I live on the east coast. Somehow it just seems very wrong that a movie about a drunk who drags his sons and wife through the ringer for most of their lives, including these latest debacles, garners a best best picture nod and has people singing the praises of Bruce Dern. Honestly, he has perhaps the fewest lines on screen, is not all that interesting, and causes all the families problems therein.
It may sound like I'm just bad mouthing this film, but this frustration has more to do with the politics of cinema more than the actual movie itself. If just left alone to discover perhaps I wouldn't have such a beef with how great it supposedly is for a modest motion picture, but given the vast praise it received from critics and academy members before I saw it, upon viewing, this movie is a let down. It's not the worse by any stretch but it's hard to recommend, since it's filled with boring locations, a bare bones script, unlikable characters, and a grim portrayal of life that teeters a little closer to cynicism than actual reality. Considering these are the things that most critics bash bigger films for employing, they seemed to have no problems loving all over this dud for the same exact things.
The Double (2013)
An Overlooked Quiet Dystopian Masterpiece
**This review may contain spoilers**
The Double is an amazing film for what little it chooses to work with. A bleak dystopian future set in an industrialized area, while employing dark comedy to accent the miserable existence of a timid man; nothing ever really feels as serious as it could be, but that's a good thing considering the sort of picture this gritty little film reality could've painted for us.
Jesse Einsenberg does a great job when pinned up against his other self, and while considerably difficult to do, the movie goes back and forth between making this feel too artificial while at other times being spot on.
What makes this movie so much fun is the stark contrast of dry comedy along with humor found through misfortune; almost like a dark and twisted Looney Tunes, although at times this could be considered frustrating. For me, this is one of the few instances where mistaken identity was more enjoyable than it was plan frustrating to watch.
A lot is owed to the set design, the decision to make the film more artistically minded, lighthearted, and to take relativity uninspired concepts and give them a refreshing look for audiences to gravitate towards. It's just a shame that more won't see it. I recommend you give this movie a chance at the least.
Godzilla (2014)
Better than '98, Worse than '54
**This review may contain spoilers**
This new take on Godzilla is not a bad one, but it's not really the best either. I can get all kinds of technical about why it is that I think this movie is a B rather than an A, but honestly when it comes to blockbusters it's all about how they make you feel, since the focus is rarely ever on intelligence over explosions.
The problem with Godzilla is it's decision to focus the greater part of it's narrative on people and the Godzilla mythology rather than just Godzilla himself. Godzilla is present for hardly any of the movie outside of the last 45 minutes, and it's not really even clear as to whether or not he's a good guy till practically the end. They attempt to give the movie a humanity angle by throwing us several formulaic characters with the typical loss of a loved one cliché, and then proceed to dance around showing us any monsters for quite some time.
Not to sound like a die hard, but when I think Godzilla I think the ridiculous monster movies that I grew up watching, or hell even the 1998 adaptation which was all kinds of horrible, but at least that movie had it's focus on the spectacle that was Godzilla. Despite my harsh opinions towards this film, the things it does do right it does right without compromise, and the last 45 minutes makes up for the majority of the movies failures.
Pacific Rim is honestly a much better choice if you're looking for some supreme monster beat 'em up moments.
Manhunter (1986)
A Decent Red Dragon Adaptation
--WARNING: There may be some spoilers ahead for those who haven't seen the film, so just a heads up. In order to accurately review this film, it may be necessary to talk about some key moments.--
This is a film I watched based upon reading a lot of excerpts and snip- its stating that it was one of the finer accomplishments of the 80s in terms of style and substance; not really very appreciated at it's time but much more understood and respected throughout the years. It's not hard for an average movie goer to spot exactly why it was so initially rejected by both viewers and critics alike. It's influences of the time were immediately noticeable and mostly considered uninspired along with it's pacing and atmosphere, which weren't exactly the norm during the blockbuster boom of the 80s cinema landscape.
However, from the acting to the specifics and details regarding the hunt for a killer, as interesting and well thought out as everything was during this movie, it still feels like it's been 1up'd by many more films that have come after. I felt constantly pulled in and pulled out of this film by no one thing in particular. It was just hard to go from segment to segment and feel any sort of consistency in interest. The style and the pacing as slow as it was, both were hardly ever the problem; more the fact that much of what the film focused on just wasn't genuinely that interesting. It seemed like it wanted to be much more than it was.
Brian Cox playing Hannibal was one of the high points in the film, and from what I've gathered this was intentionally done, but I find it a critical mistake to make your most interesting segments regarding a character that doesn't even take a front seat in the book series till "Silence of the Lambs" and then is left largely behind by the en, more or less forgotten. Manhunter is not a bad film, but it isn't very hard to see why it didn't catch on at it's time. Not an easy recommendation unless you feel the need to see every movie adaptation involving the Hannibal mythos.
Beyond the Black Rainbow (2010)
Beyond Inspirational & Much Appreciated These Days
--WARNING: There may be some spoilers ahead for those who haven't seen the film, so just a heads up. In order to accurately review this film, it may be necessary to talk about some key moments.--
Honestly, I wish there were more films like Beyond the Black Rainbow out there. Development on films like this tend to be dismissed rather quickly if no financial profit can be predicted, so it stands as a stern reminder to this reviewer than some are still willing to take a chance on original ideas, or in this case, rather heavily stylized and atmospheric genre films, having enough of an audience to merrit production. It's an easily polarizing one, and if you don't know what you're getting yourself into you will most likely be done with this movie in the first ten minutes. Expect to see art and atmosphere; not a story. Since this film is made primarily to pay homage and hearken back to more genre type films of the late 60s through the mid-80s, the cinematography is blatantly grainy, the soundtrack decidedly retro grade, and the pacing an unforgivably droning slow.
The summary provided for the film will basically tell you everything you need to know and climax and/or shocking moments are intentionally underscored by style. Every second of this film seems to have been planned to perfection and it's decidedly less experimental then it seems because of it. This does nothing to lessen it's impact however, since it's nice to know that some directors aim to develop this kind of film rather than just go with it and see what happens. Beyond the Black Rainbow is about as refreshing as they come these days. Few movies will establish such a dark and ominous tone combined with artistic awareness aimed at a genre that frequently overlooks everything but the scare factor.
Beyond the Black Rainbow succeeds as a horror movie because it strives to disturb and chill rather than actually scare. If you don't fall in love with it's cinematography, then it's soundtrack is there. If you don't fall in love with it's soundtrack, then it's unique and dedicated style is there. It's almost fool-proof that you'd walk away without some sort of inspiration or feeling of gratitude from watching this movie. But it can really only be recommended for those who are looking for something different, otherwise it will just be the plan ol' weirdest movie you've ever seen. An open mind is most definitely required.
Computer Chess (2013)
Programmed to Fail
--WARNING: There may be some spoilers ahead for those who haven't seen the film, so just a heads up. In order to accurately review this film, it may be necessary to talk about some key moments.--
Computer Chess is very much so an insiders game, and in all fairness, while it may have it's audience, it's as inaccessible and boring a film as they come. Now I for one love looking for a good movie that offers something different or has a unique quality to it that separates it from the rest; but when it feels like said insider's game is more condescending than it is an inside look, or utilizes intelligence at the expense of being interesting, then it's easily one of the worst types of film you can experience, and Computer Chess fits that bill.
I was anxious to watch this movie, it seemed like an awesome retro indie film that was going to have some style, personality, substance, and real panache to it, but instead it was a lifeless portrayal of an earlier age of computers that I find hard to believe was THIS boring even among it's most intellectual and socially awkward; and if in fact it was this way ( since I conceit to having no experience with a hobby like this before viewing this film), then why make a movie about individuals who are in no way interesting and who are trying to create the perfect program to beat each others computers at chess? Admittedly it has it's moments, but those are so few and only make up roughly 3 minutes worth of the whole movie.
Computer Chess was set up to be as authentic as possible in how it was developed but I found it just translated very poorly into a fun experience, especially with it's kooky and at times creepy paralleling spiritual story that seemed poised for a perfect juxtaposition, but rather felt very misplaced, bizarre and more like blatantly awkward filler.
It almost seems to thumb it's nose at popular culture in the worst possible way by going against every conceivable norm in cinema that it can. The acting is sub-par (granted the actors were nonprofessional), the plot barley existent, the music is mostly horrible, the cinematography comes off as forced art more a product of our current times than 1980, conversations are filled with jargon or flat out just not interesting even at their most basic, the cast on a whole is unappealing, the concept dated, the choice to film in black and white hurts more than it helps; honestly the list goes on and this movie is just a headache. A major disappointment and very hard to sit through, but I managed.
To anyone who enjoyed this movie I applaud you; I'm sure I must be missing something since it wasn't reviewed poorly, but to me, I would never watch it again or recommend it to anyone unless they were seriously into either computer chess, chess, or the history of computer technology in general. It's just flat out boring.