About a month ago, I saw a documentary called “De Palma” about, who would guess, Brian De Palma. Having had never seen a De Palma film, the documentary gave me a good sense of the three things that he’s most often associated with and criticized for:
Since then, I’ve seen my first De Palma film: Blow Out, his 1981 thriller which opens with a scene that has:
I couldn’t believe it. “Well, everyone is right about De Palma,” I thought to myself. Turns out that Blow Out has a film within a film. The protagonist, Jack Terry, is working on a low-budget exploitation film -- that opening shot that we were just watching. So that exploitation film is a satirical take on a De Palma film. Is De Palma making fun of himself? Is he making fun of the criticisms that are attached to his films? I’m really not sure. I just think it’s awesome De Palma did that. The rest of Blow Out is extremely fun. It's your average thriller, except it's slightly heightened by De Palma's style. It's got a good performance by John Travolta, who waves his hands around to emphasize his confusion and, more importantly, the metaphorical tinfoil hat slowly being placed on his head as he continues to unravel a conspiracy. In a film about a sound designer, the sound design is great. And then the ending comes along and ruins it. I won't spoil it, but it pisses me off. The rest of the film is so fun to watch and the ending decides to become melodramatic, cheesy, and "touching." Except it's hard to touch me when you add:
Maybe the lights are a metaphor for America? They're American colors... Do I just not get it? Well, even if I don't get it, it's still cheesy as hell... Blow Out is still a lot of fun. It’s certainly gotten me interested in seeing De Palma's other work. But the least you could have done is let me think at the end instead of waving a giant sign that says "BE SAD." It’s really a shame, because Blow Out is an above average thriller. It’s got an interesting plot which is heightened by De Palma’s idiosyncratic direction. It’s just a shame that he couldn’t let me think for myself at the end like he was letting me do the rest of the film.
0 Comments
WARNING: SPOILERS FOR "ATONEMENT"
"Atonement," the book, is fantastic. It's ravishing in its details, and it keeps building. It might build a little bit too much, to be honest—the war section gets a little irrelevant to the bigger story— but what it builds to is genius. "Atonement," the film, is good. It's got admirable performances, production design, cinematography, writing, but the main reason it works is Joe Wright's fast-paced direction that fills in the important details of the book subtly, and without voiceover, which should be CELEBRATED. That's a difficult task. Instead of voiceover, Wright uses the telephoto lens and dynamic camerawork to establish relationships and perspective. (In particular, I love how he implicates Paul Marshall as Lola's rapist with his camera placements.) While the fast pace makes the film lose a bit of what makes the book fantastic, it's still great. Until the ending. The film closes with a televised interview. Briony talks about her new novel "Atonement" being her swan song, claims she's dying, and, most importantly, says that Robbie and Cecilia died. She says she feels guilty about causing their deaths (duh) and then the film ends. The novel is in the third person until this final chapter, when it becomes first-person. She writes about going to the doctor on her seventy-seventh birthday, finding out she's dying, becoming nostalgic, becoming more nostalgic because her first play, "The Trials of Arabella," is read at her birthday party, and she retires to her room. You know the book is ending because you can see the text stop. You're aware this book is about to end. And Briony says she could never end her book by telling people that Robbie and Cecilia died and were never reunited. She questions how she could do that. What message would that leave readers with? How could she not give them the easy, happy ending we want? If I was describing my experience with the ending of the film "Atonement," I would say it was a good plot twist. It was unexpected. It was sad. If I was describing my experience with the ending of the novel "Atonement," I would say I felt cheated. How could you do that to me? Seriously? It was the FINAL PAGE. I was so close. It comes out of nowhere. I'm sad about the reality of what happened, I'm angry about it coming out of nowhere, I'm disappointed that I couldn't get my happy ending. And that's why the book works. The book ending stayed with me. Because I was SO DAMN CLOSE to what I wanted. The film is very blatant with the facts. It spells it out for us in one final scene. But the book says "By the way, you don't get what you wanted because that's life, bitch." and leaves us there. Ian McEwan gives us reality passively. The film gives us reality blatantly. And if there's anything I know about art, it's that blatant is bad. *Spoilers*
It’s a perfect film. What’s the point of reviewing a perfect film? Pretty much everything has been said about The Godfather. The baptism scene and its juxtaposition; the wedding and its energy juxtaposed with the quiet meetings with Vito; the ending shot and its perfect encapsulation of Kay and Michael’s relationship; the garden scene, representing the mob in its entirety:it’s all fun and games and then suddenly you fall over, dead. The list goes on and on and on. Everything about this movie is iconic, everything is legendary. And yet one thing I haven’t seen people talk about is a small detail: the leitmotif. I looked all over the internet and couldn’t even find the music track I’m talking about, only the “theme music” of The Godfather. I literally had to figure out how to record audio on my computer, then I had to scroll through “The Godfather Epic” on HBO GO and find one of the moments where the track is used, record it as a video, save it as an mp4, etc. And yet there is nothing that sums up the film for me better than the track I’m thinking of. In case you don’t know what it sounds like, here’s the track I recorded: The leitmotif tends to be played after a moment where the mob has affected someone’s life directly. Normally, this comes after shootings; Vito’s near-death experience, Sonny’s death at the toll-booth, and so on. But the moment I always found the most interesting is the moment where Michael truly becomes a part of the mob. (The clip is here) He discusses with his father topics outside of the “family business,” and tells his father he can handle everything that he wants to do. Then the music starts. This is an absolutely brilliant moment because it truly is the turning point; Michael is engraved in this forever, and he’s determined to do his job. The mob has affected him, not in a physical way, but as a character; and the change is heartbreaking. So why is this particular music selection played? Well, I think it just has to do with the notes. I see it as a metaphor for mob life in general. It goes slightly up, but then it goes down. No matter what, the mob life will end downhill, and it will be ugly. The song is beautiful, yet sad and short. (The life is marvelous, but filled with sadness and will end quickly.) This was really just an essay on a tiny detail in The Godfather. I think that goes to show just how layered and dense this film is, and there’s so much to discuss about this masterpiece that I just wanted to discuss a little thing inside of it that I appreciate. One of the great things about film is that each one can be extremely different from another. Each one is unique. Unfortunately, Finding Dory isn’t very unique; it’s a lot like Finding Nemo, as well as Pixar’s other films. And it’s just not as good as the rest of them.
Finding Dory follows a fish named Dory (Ellen DeGeneres) who has short-term memory loss; as a result, she barely even remembers her parents, who she lost when she was young. While Dory is currently living with Nemo and Marlon, the characters from the original film, she decides she wants to search for her parents. She, Nemo and Marlon end up at the Marine Life Institute, where they hope to find them. Once there, Dory will learn a few new things about family. I think the beginning of Finding Dory shows what Pixar is going for perfectly: cute. We see Dory as a toddler, and she is adorable. Her eyes encompass half of her head. My theater gave out an all-encompassing “aww.” But is the cuteness enough? For me, no. Cute tends to be forgettable, and that’s just what the film is. It’s Finding Nemo: Dory Edition. Except instead of an ocean, as in Finding Nemo, we get a Marine Life Institute, a location which is cute and pretty forgettable. One of Finding Dory’s best qualities is its inventiveness. It comes up with interesting ways to make you laugh, although the laughs aren’t as frequent as they were in Finding Nemo. The inventiveness is what I will remember, particularly a scene set in slow-motion near the end of the film, which had me laughing out loud for quite a while because I wasn’t expecting it like I was the rest of the film. I think the problem with Finding Dory is our own bias. We expect too much out of Pixar. They continue to play with our emotions (even literally last year) and make us laugh. Finding Dory does on some levels; I laughed. I cared. But compared to other Pixar films, this is mediocre. So it’s fine. You’ll enjoy yourself. A good night out with the kids. You’ll be amused. But it’s at the bottom of the Pixar heap. I think a cliched parenting line sums it up perfectly; “I’m not mad, I’m just disappointed.” The posters for Love & Friendship, the latest comic outing from Whit Stillman, included statements from critics like:
Love & Friendship stars Kate Beckinsale as Lady Susan Vernon, who takes up temporary residence at her in-laws’ estate and, while there, is determined a find a match for her daughter Frederica — and herself too, naturally. I stole that plot summary from IMDb because I couldn’t remember much about the plot of this film. It was boring and I didn’t care about anyone. They were all rich, snobby egomaniacs, and not the interesting kind that you can find in films. Instead, I just found myself thinking about why this film has a 99% on Rotten Tomatoes, with one negative review. Is it just that it’s not my brand of humor? Well, my theatre didn’t have many people laughing out loud. Is it because it’s so different from most of the comedies you see today? Is it a Jane Austen fandom? (The film is based on a Jane Austen novel called Lady Susan) Is it that people are used to the crap they tend to get, so anything alright is amazing? Were my expectations too high? Is it because I’m 15? Do I not get it? I’m really not sure why people are loving this movie so much... Was there anything good? Tom Bennett as Sir James Martin is kind of funny. He’s pretty naive in the movie, and is an exception to the stereotyped snobby, smart rich aristocrats. The difference is appreciated. The movie looks good, and it’s not too flashy with a beautiful setting. The way Stillman introduces characters is interesting, employing freeze frames with text describing a particular quirk of the character, which often try to make you laugh. I think after all those questions I asked myself, I’ve decided it’s just not my sense of humor. I have a more visual mentality with my humor, although I don’t necessarily exclude dialogue-driven humor. I just didn’t find it amusing here. So I asked myself: “if it can’t make you laugh, what else does it have to offer?” And I didn’t find it offered very much else. Who knows, I might revisit it in a couple years and look back on this review in disdain. And yet, when I’m part of that 1% on Rotten Tomatoes, I can’t help but feel guilty. So tell me; if you’ve seen this film and liked it, without talking about how much it made you laugh, can you describe other good things about it? Let me know. Because most of the best comedies I know -- Annie Hall, Some Like It Hot, Borat, Fantastic Mr. Fox -- all these films have characters I can care about, messages behind them, and dramatic elements, while Love & Friendship lacks these. So let me know. In Popstar: Never Stop Never Stopping, the title lets you know what you’re in for. It is a biting satire of the modern-day music industry, being a celebrity, and the egos that fuel it all. It’s funny enough, but it isn’t without its problems.
Popstar follows Conner4Real (Andy Samberg), a former member of the “Styleboyz” who branched off and went solo after he got more attention. Owen, (Jorma Taccone) another member of the Styleboyz, is his DJ (he plugs in an iPod and acts like he’s doing stuff) while Lawrence (Akiva Schaffer) quit and is now farming. The film focuses on Conner and the release of his second album, “CONNquest,” which isn't getting the reception Conner hoped for. The Lonely Island (the people that created this movie) are hilarious. They’re responsible for the SNL Digital Shorts, which are pretty much all great. And there's a lot of funny scenes here. These guys are especially good at music, and the music here makes fun of different things artists do, from getting on a social justice bandwagon to seem like a better person or a song where they repeat the same words to a dance move. These scenes are great. Other laughs come from the tons of cameos throughout the film, mainly consisting of popular artists and SNL alumni like Maya Rudolph and Bill Hader. Most of these laughs are funny on paper ideas; “Dude, what if we made Bill Hader do ____?” But the jokes work well and I laughed at them. The film is shot as a mockumentary, and the format really helps with the cameos mentioned earlier, allowing celebrities to appear in talking heads (shots in documentaries where people talk to the camera) throughout the movie. It allows an inside view, but it also allows for some interesting jokes. It’s parodying the recent documentaries of Justin Bieber and Katy Perry, which glorify these pop stars despite their mistakes. It’s hilarious how people suck up to Conner in this film, and it feels real when they do. Andy Samberg is great in the leading role. I love how he uses modern lingo -- hella, dope, fire, etc. -- because those terms all sound dumb, like the character. Sarah Silverman and Tim Meadows are both great as Conner’s respective publicist and manager. Joan Cusack is underutilized as Conner’s mother, and some other supporting roles don’t get as much screen time. If there’s any problem with Popstar, it’s that it feels more like a series of SNL skits than it does a feature film. I sort of wish that Conner was a recurring character on SNL, because I feel that it could have fit better. Other than that, it’s a little slow in getting to the third act and not every joke hits as hard as they think it will. (Like in almost every comedy) Popstar is smarter than most people will give it credit for. It’s a one-joke movie, but there are hidden details throughout. For example, there’s a scene where people are arguing about a mishap that happened on stage, which is about to go viral. In the background, on TV, there are real issues being discussed that are being completely ignored. It asks the question: why do we care so much about every single little detail of a celebrity’s life? Isn’t that stupid? (It is.) There’s a scene where Conner goes on Jimmy Fallon and he tries to get him to do an old dance move that the Styleboyz made, which is the most Jimmy Fallon thing ever. There’s a hilarious parody of TMZ. I appreciate these small details and parodies throughout. Despite feeling more like a series of skits, I enjoyed Popstar quite a bit. It made me laugh, and the points it makes are so straight on it’s hard not to love it. Basically, this movie is #helladope. I can’t get The Lobster out of my head. It has been plaguing my thoughts ever since I saw it about a week ago. Luckily, this is in a good way; this film is intelligent, dense, and subtle, and may insert itself into your thoughts like it did mine.
The Lobster follows a man named David (Colin Farrell) who, after breaking out of an 11 year relationship, is transported to “The Hotel,” where he has 45 days to find a partner. If any guest fails to find a mate in those 45 days, they are transformed into an animal of their choosing. Some people run into the forest surrounding the hotel and become loners; you’re not an animal, but you cannot form a relationship. This sounds like a dystopian premise, but the world feels more like an alternate reality. There’s no jetpacks, teleporters, high-tech buildings; instead there are forests, trees, dirt roads, etc. Basically, it feels rooted in reality and that makes it all the more scary, and this movie is scary, despite not being a horror film. David is the only character with a real name; everyone else is named by a defining trait they have (the limping man, short sighted woman, etc.) and it shows how devoid of humanity the society of the film is. Lines are delivered in a flat, monotone, almost robotic way. The performances here are certainly idiosyncratic, but they’re very simple and very uniform. They help define the film. In a world where there isn’t love because we can’t make it for ourselves and we are instead forced to, it’s no surprise that emotions are gone. The song used throughout the film (a leitmotif) adds to the horror; you feel that something is about to jump out and murder these people. And yet the movie is also hilarious; the delivery of the lines and the lack of emotion behind them is funny. The voiceover used throughout the movie is basically just being used to show how spelled out everything is in this world; it points out everything we see visually. The humor balances extremely well and there’s no mixed tone; there’s funny parts and there’s dramatic parts, and sometimes the contrasting tones just mix together, while the film still flows extremely well. I don’t tend to notice the costume design of films, but it has to be praised here. Every person that stays at the hotel is given the same clothes, so no one can show off their body, giving them equal chances to find a mate. On the contrast, loners cover themselves up; they wear a poncho-like clothing so nothing can be seen of their body. The camera tends to stay still throughout the movie. This gives a feeling of simpleness, reflecting the world the film follows. Director and screenwriter Yorgos Lanthimos (Dogtooth, Alps) does his job well, fully immersing us in this world. It was strange walking out of the movie; I felt as if I’d literally been transported into a different world, which is a feeling that I don’t get often, even with sci-fi epics taking place throughout different galaxies. It’s the power of filmmaking. The Lobster showcases a strange world, and yet it’s captured so well and so subtly that it has to be praised. The ending is also something that will keep you thinking for a while to come. Be prepared for some heavy thinking afterwards. The two exclamation points get it right. This isn’t “Everybody Wants Some,” this is “Everybody Wants Some!!” And I’m almost certain it is the best time you’ll have at the movie theater this year, beating out Deadpool, Hail Caesar, Kung Fu Panda 3, and so many others.
Richard Linklater is a filmmaker who is wildly varied in the content he puts out, but there’s a recurring theme: time. There’s no pin on any ending; you’re experiencing a specific point in time for this character. The time can be varied, from what boils down to an hour or two (Before Sunset) to 12 years (Boyhood.) The time here focuses on a group of baseball players in 1980 three days before college starts and their adventures in partying, getting laid, getting high, and experiencing the “!!” of life, before the “...” of life. There’s another thing Linklater is known for: dialogue. The visual aspects of his movies generally try not to impress you; the conversations are the important parts. And they’re great here. You get a variety of different people who all start off as stereotypes but become more three-dimensional as the film goes on, and all these characters are pretty hilarious -- their banter especially. It’s very quotable as well. There are even some very psychological conversations in the film, which for some may not fit in, but I thought it did with the context of the scenes. The best conversations, though, happen between Jake (Blake Jenner) and Beverly (Zoey Deutch.) Their relationship is very sweet and is a nice break from the “!!” part of the film. Linklater is also a very literal filmmaker. He’s not focusing on metaphors, this isn’t the kind of film you analyze for tons of little details that add to the bigger picture; he’s just letting you watch these people. Which means there’s not really much to pick apart here; the only metaphor I could think of is when the characters get thrown out of a disco club, representing a transition from the 70’s to the 80’s. Other than that, there’s not a lot of depth. However, because the movie is so fun, energetic, and the characters are so charismatic, who cares? I wanted to watch it again as soon as it was over. “Everybody Wants Some!!” is such a good time. The film is hilarious, and it has got one killer soundtrack. It truly is the spiritual sequel to Dazed and Confused; they’re the ultimate party movies, the ultimate “stoner” movies, the ultimate coming-of-age movies. They’re endlessly rewatchable, and I don’t want to compare them because they’re equally great. If you’re looking for a great time, you’re gonna want some!! -- of this movie. When I review movies, I like to think; “was there anything bad here? How does it compare to the good?” When I got out of Batman v Superman: Dawn of Justice, I thought to myself; “was there anything good here?” I haven’t rolled my eyes throughout a movie this much in a long time. How can you make it this boring? How can you make your characters so dumb, and their logic so flawed? I don’t understand how anyone -- like my superhero obsessed younger brother -- could watch this and say, “I loved it!” There’s so much wrong here.
Batman vs Superman: Dawn of Justice is about Batman fearing that the actions of Superman are horrendous, with Superman causing a 9/11-like attack on his city. Batman takes on the Man of Steel, while the world wrestles with what kind of a hero it really needs. So I guess I’ll start with what I liked. Ben Affleck was good as Batman. Wonder Woman was great whenever she was on screen, and she had a cool theme song. Jeremy Irons was awesome, and I’m just glad he’s Alfred. I didn’t mind the title sequence; if you’re gonna force the death of Bruce Wayne’s parents, at least it was over the opening credits and you made it look cool. That’s it. Superman was not very likeable and his motivations for hating Batman were not very clear in the film. There was an uneven pace throughout the movie. There were stupid dream sequences with Batman, nightmares which I won’t give away, that felt forced and unnecessary. They had to force set up for an eventual Justice League movie, and it made no sense story-wise. Zack Snyder, director of Man of Steel and 300, is a mediocre director; when he goes stylish, it doesn’t even feel like it applies to the story, and when he’s not being stylish, he doesn’t do anything else interesting. Most of his direction is just simple close up to close up, shot/reverse shot, etc. Those are my non-spoiler issues. Now I’m gonna spoil some stuff, so read this part once you’ve seen the movie. Pretty much all of these issues are issues of characters being stupid. Batman’s whole motivation for wanting to kill Superman is that he destroyed the city, his wife, and a ton of his employees. More just for causing 9/11 in Man of Steel. So when Doomsday is out in an unoccupied forest area, what does he do? He brings him into the city. I understand you need to get the Kryptonite, but maybe get someone else to do it? You got Alfred on the line; make him call someone. If you magically get Wonder Woman’s e-mail address to tell her about the future Justice League members, can’t you magically get her phone number? “Hey, Wonder Woman, I need some Kryptonite, here’s the exact location of the spear, look for it, then come to where I am and stab Doomsday.” Even when Wonder Woman, Batman, and Superman are all together (with the Deus Ex Machina by Wonder Woman so Batman doesn’t die) they figure Superman should go get the Kryptonite. The guy who is weak against it. I get it, he’s the fastest, but Batman looked pretty fit with all that bench pressing he was doing earlier, make him run, or make him use the grappling hook. Then, when Superman dies because he had to get the Kryptonite, there’s some cheesy choir singing when he’s “dead.” Then we spend 10-15 minutes wrapping it up, everyone crying because Superman is “dead,” and then? The dirt levitates? So he’s not dead? So that 10-15 minutes was wasted? I mean, it’s not like it is telling me anything I can’t infer with my brain. Lois Lane is sad that her boyfriend is “dead?” Really? A mom is sad because her son “died?” Really? It was obvious that he was gonna come back; can’t you let your audience maybe think he’s dead for a year or so? If you’re gonna make a ballsy move, at least follow through with it. Finally, the Batman vs Superman fight. I mean, why didn’t you use the Kryptonite right away, Batman? It’s his weakness! Just try punching him, that’ll most definitely work. (Psst; it won’t.) And then, you got him right in your hands; about to drive a spear into Henry Cavill’s beautiful face. Then he whispers something like, “they’ve got Martha!” Hmm, they have someone named Martha? Not my mom, since, you know, she died. Then Lois comes around and explains that Martha’s his mom, cause she TOTALLY heard Superman whisper that. But man, Superman has somebody he wants to save named Martha. How relatable, I guess I’ll be your friend. There’s not even tension for the rest of the movie; we have moms with the same name, let’s be best friends. WHAT? Hillary Clinton and Bernie Sanders mothers have the same name (Dorothy), I guess that means they get along perfectly. (No they don’t.) Batman vs. Superman is a mess. It doesn’t make sense most of the time, it has forced in plot points just to set up the Justice League, and I don’t like Superman. It was sad watching this movie. It’s one of the worst movies I have seen in a long time. People are excusing it, probably because they like superheroes, but it’s terribly flawed. I’m not a comic book fan; my brother is, and he liked it more than me. Do you have to be a comic book fan to like it? My uncle is, and he hated it. So what’s going on? All I know is that I kept rolling my eyes, and I’m getting angry just thinking about how stupid the majority of this movie is. If you haven’t seen it, you really don’t need to. The Oscars are tonight, and I thought I would make my own nominees since a lot of the nominees aren’t exactly who/what I would have chosen. I’m not gonna do every single category since I’m not the kind of person to judge the best sound mixing. I’ll also include which of my nominees would win if I was choosing by making the name bold, (like this) and which one I would pick out of the actual nominees. Let’s get going before it gets too complicated.
Best Picture:
Best Actor
Best Actress
Best Supporting Actor
Best Supporting Actress
Best Director
Best Writing (Original Screenplay)
Best Writing (Adapted Screenplay)
|