Change Your Image
mrblacktip
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
Dunkirk (2017)
A Solid Left-Handed Pitch From Nolan
When the title and scope of this movie was revealed I was very surprised: the director that has lead the charge in surreal story telling, superheroes, and sci-fi since 2000, is doing a WWII piece? It did not add up in my head, but I was anxious to see what would come of this unexpected combination of elements. The final results did not disappoint, and left us with a solid left handed pitch from writer-director Christopher Nolan. That said, I would agree that this film is one of Nolan's least accessible films for a casual viewer.
The fact that Nolan left behind sci-fi and fictional tales to tell a story based on true events is something new for the director; doing a war piece is new; and much of his cast was all new save Hardy and Murphy. However, with all these new pieces on the board Nolan still retains some of his hallmark characteristics to ensure a delightfully told story, namely his manipulation of time. Non-linear story telling and time manipulation are used in a large portion of his films whether it be the flashbacks of Following, the meet in the middle of Memento, the journal reading in Prestige, slowing time down in Inception, or speeding it up in Interstellar, the man rarely tells a straightforward story, and he does it yet again in a novel and innovative fashion in Dunkirk.
With seeing the same events from multiple perspectives throughout the film, and jumping around on a time line between the land, air, and sea the film immerses you more so than usual into what it must've been like for the individuals involved. Whether it was the pilot in the downed airplane, the group swimming out of the sinking ships, or the men in the boat having Tom Hardy protect them from his airplane.
I have read some criticisms on how there seems to be a lack of connection to the characters-this film lacks any single leading role (A large departure from typical Nolan) and lacks much dialogue-which can make it difficult to feel sorry for them when things go bad, but I argue that the viewers need to meet Nolan halfway. There are numerous instances that are scattered throughout in which the viewers can latch onto in order to feel more deeply connected with characters if one only puts in the effort. A shortlist of said examples are: The boat captain (Rylance) refusing to turn around despite George getting hurt and the soldier warning against it; Hardy's character deciding to stay longer to shoot down more enemy planes despite his fuel levels; The frenchman opening the door on the destroyer after it had been torpedoed; Kenneth Branagh staying longer to help evacuate the French; Peter lying to the soldier (Murphy) about George. All of these moments speak into the character of the individuals and the sacrifices they were willing to make for the greater good.
Such a terrific and novel way to show the heroism of WWII. 10/10 will watch again
Spotlight (2015)
Spotlight: Scariest Movie Not Labeled Horror
A good one-word description for Spotlight would be "unadulterated". As with many films in the drama genre it is typical for some amount of "crowd pleasing" romance, action, side plot, or pacing/climatic build to be included that can have little to do with the actual plot as a means to entice the average minded audience member. That is not the case with this film: Spotlight appears to be very strict; holding to what actually happened with minimal embellishments and "hollywoodizations" to make it more "fun" for the viewers. It very straightforward like tells the story of how a team of journalists uncovered huge amounts of child molestation and cover up within the Catholic Church, and that's it. No clichéd montage that makes tedious work appear enticing, no stupid love triangle to make it more exciting, and no typical 3 Act screenplay in which you can predict the outcome of every scene with an exciting build in the last 30 minutes. Don't misunderstand me and think that this film is boring and approaches the story from an apathetic viewpoint. This film is very exciting and passionately and brings the story to life in a well-balanced and paced way that makes the viewers want to weep and question mankind's morality.
Everyone knows that the catholic church is famous for having priests getting to cozy with altar boys and such but few of us actually think about how awful that is, how awful it is that it is so widely covered up, and how awful the long term consequences (for the victim) of the actions are. Spotlight gets down to the nitty gritty with unabashedly frank sexual dialogue so as to not sugar coat the situations, impassioned performances by the cast, and incredible writing with character development that takes a turn into questioning human morality.
I grew up always hearing the cliché of Priests and Altar Boys but it was not until I saw this movie that I realized the extent too which this has occurred. Spotlight makes the viewer very aware of the systemic problem within the Catholic Church with a very gradual build in the plot. I never felt that any part of the movie was rushed; on the contrary it takes its time so as to not gloss over anything or to presume the audience knows the story already nor did it ever feel like it was dragging or moving to slow either. It is haunting and keeps you on the edge of your seat as you wait to see what next turned leaf will reveal making you feel like a detective or investigative journalist yourself by just watching the film. On a personal level, in one of my jobs we had to be trained in recognizing the signs of sexual abuse in children and the behaviors of predators and it was amazing how much the film got right when it comes to the behaviors of predators and "grooming" their victims which is said by one of the victims in the movie. When it comes to child abuse, it's not stranger danger you have to worry about so much, it is the friend you thought you could trust, and the movie presents just that situation. Who wouldn't trust a man of God to mentor their child? It is down right terrifying.
It is very difficult to say anything about this film from a technical standpoint because of the amount of emotion that it evokes and distracts you with. I honestly can't remember a darned thing about the camera work, the music, or the editing. I was completely absorbed in the recreation of the Boston Globe in the early 2000s as if I was there, and I hope that was the aim of the director and producers. In a sense it is the complete opposite of "The Revenant" and "Mad Max" which slap you in the face and command that you notice the technical aspects of their creation. Spotlight commands that you acknowledge the horrendous acts that have been committed and think deeply about what you as an individual can do to make the world a better place. A scene toward the end when Keaton's character starts asking "Why didn't we do anything sooner, everyone knew?" was hard hitting and makes you think about what situations you might be looking the other way.
Terrific film. Terrific Script. Great Acting. Scary as hell.
The Big Short (2015)
A Beautiful Depiction of a Horrendous Disaster
Adam McKay's drama directorial debut and it is one not to be forgotten. It is amazing how source material as mundane as bank fraud, defaulting loans, and other boring financial elements can be transformed into something that is gripping, comedic, and morally horrifying all at the same time. My hat is off to you Mr. McKay. How in the world did the same guy that directed every Will Ferrell film from Talladega Nights to Anchorman 2 bring us this riveting and palpable (that word was used in the film) historical film?
The housing market crash occurred when I was in 8th grade and I did not fully understand the severity of what was happening around me at the time. All I caught onto was the economy was in shambles and people could no longer pay for their mortgages. The Big Short shined a whole new light on the economy crash of '07 for me and opened my eyes to the evil that was behind it all. The whole idea of how something like that had never happened before, how it was fueled by fraud and greed, and how it affected the entire world economy was almost too much to handle for me while I was viewing it. The movie tore me into two pieces: 1) I am laughing at the wit and bluntness of the actors interactions with one another (Steve Carell was impeccable) 2) I am disgusted by the greed of people. I was utterly astounded at how a movie was able to evoke such different feelings out of me.
The Big Short's style was one that I compare to The Wolf of Wall Street and The Office (and yes, I do mean the t.v. show starring Steve Carell). Between the blatant continuity errors, voice over narration, forth wall breaks, and depiction of real life crime I felt like I was in a Scorsese film. However, with the shaky camera, business setting, and "documentary" vibe I felt like it was The Office. The overall style of the movie was something that I found very creative and entertaining. With the quick edits and cuts, sound mixing, and chaotic camera work it created a sense of urgency and stress which I assume was their aim so the viewers could experience what life on wall street and in the big corporate world is like.
Many of the performances were stellar and absolutely made the movie. Steve Carell's portrayal of the morally conflicted and brash banker was the best performance of the film and I am surprised he did not get an Oscar nomination; I liked him better than Bale. Even in the midst of all the numbers and talk of money the film managed to give the characters depth and background and not just use them as ventriloquist dummies to convey information to the viewers. Christian Bale's performance of the socially awkward genius was pretty good too. Given it is based on true events and people made it a little awkward to watch Bale's character because the majority of his performance is just him: he has minimal interaction with other actors and absolutely no interaction with any of the other leading cast. Not to say that his performance was not terrific, it was just awkward to watch at times.
Given as amazing as I think this film is, it did have some short-comings like all things. Primarily it dealt with convoluted source material. Trying to put something as complex as banking and financial agreements into understandable dialogue is near impossible and as good of a job as this film did at that, it still, for me, was not enough for me to understand what was happening all the time. So much information was presented to the audience that sometimes it made my head spin; but it was a necessity for the film to progress with any sense. The film makers know this so they tried to do comical and creative ways to teach the audience about such topics ( I wont go in depth so I don't ruin the surprise) and did a decent job at it too. All in all it was a terrific film that I will watch more in the future and recommend to anyone with half a brain and an interest in recent American history.
The Revenant (2015)
One of the Best Movies I'll never watch twice
The Revenant falls into the same category as Aronofsky's "Requiem for a Dream" and Spielberg's "Schindler's List" for me, in the essence of being a terrific movie but not something I think I can sit through a second time. In all these movies there are brutal sequences that cause emotional stress and disgust just watching because it is so REAL and GRIPPING. To think that events in these movies actually happened or that they could very well happen is too much for me to think about. Not to say that I did not enjoy this film thoroughly.
The Revenant is a technical masterpiece that left me wondering "How the hell did they do that?" after many scenes and sequences. With beautiful cinematography and adroit camera movement this film is a visual magnum opus. It is apparent that the great minds that put forth this film are none other than the same ones that brought us Birdman: Lubezki and Inarritu. There are many long shots without cuts that are sprinkled throughout the film that add a sense of sophistication to it with the added bonus of predominantly location based shooting and natural lighting for the film , that can even make a novice film watcher raise an eyebrow at its complexity.
The camera work is not the only noteworthy aspect of the film; The actors did a superb job executing their rolls. Many are raving about DiCaprio's performance but I was more of a fan of Hardy's brutal and gritty character Fitzgerald. Granted, half the words that came out of his mouth were unintelligible but he left no doubt in my mind that he was fully devoted to his role and bringing Fitzgerald alive instead of just Hardy playing a character named Fitzgerald. He was simply amazing.
With all this said, there are still flaws in the film. At some points it was dragging on and moving too slow. It gave the impression that the film itself was cocky and wanted to show off all of its beautiful scenery and camera work too much. Then there was the "he shouldn't be alive" situations. Hugh Glass was a real guy that really did survive a bear mauling but in the film they make this guy practically immortal. There were too many instances where I was thinking "he should be dead three times over right now, for me to enjoy the film as much I should have.
All in all a great film that I only recommend to seasoned and mature film viewers.
The Hateful Eight (2015)
A reinvention of earlier films
To begin, this film (I saw the Road Show edition) was such a unique film in a general sense I first had trouble finding a rhythm or pacing to it. As it progressed I begin to draw parallels in this film to other Tarantino films, especially Reservoir Dogs.
Going in I was expecting something along the lines of Django again with Tarantino's typical fancy for grandiose fight sequences (post Jackie Brown) which can also be found in Kill Bill sword fighting scenes, Inglorious Basterds' movie theater massacre, and Django's shootout. In a manner of speaking he kind of spoiled us with over the top action balanced with a good plot and impeccable dialogue. This was not the case for Hateful 8 however; a gun isn't even shot until about 1.5 hours in and even then, there is no "big shootout" which is a typical trademark of traditional westerns.
This made it difficult for me to watch for a while into it because I couldn't understand the pacing or where it was going-which some may argue is a good thing. The opening act is pretty much only dialogue. It was typical Tarantino banter and wittyness except I found that it seemed more forced than normal and drawn out, even for Tarantino. The dialogue just kept going on and on with extensive relational development between the characters. Once I discovered that I was going to have to sit tight for a while before I could understand the scope of the film I was hooked.
Hateful 8 has a tension build similar to the bar scene from Inglorious Basterds and the entirety of Reservoir Dogs. It is excruciatingly slow and detailed making you hang on the edge of your seat for 20 minutes at a time before anything is resolved. With this in mind, that is how I see it as a reinvention of earlier films: it seems as if he wanted to redo Reservoir Dogs. The majority of the film takes place inside one room and centers around character interaction of finding out who the "bad guy" is. In both cases it's Roth. Some of the characters even stay in the same place for long periods of time such as the General in his chair, Daisy on the ground chained to the Hangman's corpse, and the Joe Gaige at the table. I've also read that it is similar to "The Thing" which I have not seen yet.
As much as I enjoyed Hateful 8 there are notable flaws, in my opinion, of the film. One of the biggest is I feel that Oswaldo and Major Warren (Roth and Jackson respectively) are rehashes of Dr. Schulz (Django) and Jules (Pulp Fiction). Even though the dentist and Oswaldo are played by two different actors with different nationalities, they were so similar in the overall effect they have on the film, mannerisms, and style of humor.
A second is Tarantino's love for over the top gore. The vomiting blood sequence was too much in my opinion. I could have done without that and without watching Tatum's brains get splattered on Leigh.
All in all, I found it a very unique and interesting film definitely worth a watch.
Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens (2015)
I wanted to like this movie so much.
I wanted to like this movie so much but I just couldn't credit it as a "good" movie. I waited in anticipation to see Starwars debut on the silver screen again but I was disappointed very much. The original Star Wars had such a significant cultural impact (having one of the most quoted lines ever) as well as a significant impact on the film industry with its unprecedented sound and visual effects. This one, however fell flat with no originality and average acting at best.
My biggest critique is the entire plot of the film was ripped off from previous Star Wars film; especially Episode IV. For example, the opening scene is the bad people attacking the good people; the bad guy wears a mask and has a cool voice; the good guys hide secret information in a droid; the droid begins to wander on a desert planet; the droid gets captured; the droid is rescued by an "orphaned" ( I use this term lightly) young person who so happens to be strong in the force but doesn't know it yet; the Millennium Falcon is used to escape the desert planet while being attacked by the Empire/First Order. This is not even the end of it. This film ripped off episode IV and some parts of V scene for scene.
The next critique is the "tone" of the movie. I enjoy movies that might be able to mix comic and serious matters within a film as well as I enjoy movies that are just overall quite bleak or overall happy-go-lucky. The Force Awakens managed to do neither. i was so confused the whole movie of what I was suppose to be feeling: am I suppose to fear for Poe's life and well being since he was captured by the First Order in the opening scene? Or should i laugh because he cracks a joke about not knowing who should speak first when he is captured and brought to Kylo Ren? The jokes in this movie fell flat and did not fit many of the situations. I couldn't find an overall theme that they were shooting for because of this. Should this be a tense and stressful movie or should I be laughing at every one liner the characters dish out. Let's not even mention the dialogue between Poe and Fin as they escape from the First Order in the Tie Fighter.
My last large complaint were some significant plot holes and stupid writing. When Solo is introduced into the film he hides Fin and Rey while some smugglers board his craft wanting payment but he keeps the BB8 droid with him. Why? Who knows? He just thought it was a good idea apparently...but it wasn't. The smugglers identify the droid as one that the First Order is looking for along with two fugitives which leads to the awful monster/alien sequence inside the freighter. Anyhow, immediately after that they go to bar on some other planet and bring BB8 with them into the bar where there are tons of people and spies! Whether they were expecting spies or not, which they obviously weren't, they should've kept BB8 out of sight given he was immediately identified just moments ago by smugglers. So what happens when they take BB8 into the bar? He is immediately recognized by like three spies....stupid.
Another plot hole is Rey's uncanny ability to use the Force without any training....at all. The closest thing to Force training she has is Ren trying to read all of her thoughts and she is able to reverse the effect onto him. From here on out she can do the 'ole jedi mind trick on a storm trooper, out do a trained Sith in using the force to retrieve a lightsaber in the snow, and out do a Sith in a lightsaber battle the first time she ever used a lightsaber. What? I get it...the force is strong with this one but she has no training! As a matter of fact, she wasn't even confident there was a "Force" until Solo told her. All these pieces just do not add up.
I am hoping that whoever ends up directing and writing the next two can do a better job than this. Maybe introduce an original screenplay? Just a thought.