Before getting into the list, I just want to give a list of 2015 releases that I haven’t been able to see yet, either because they’ve only played at festivals or I just haven’t had the time to. If something’s not on the main list, please look here. Hopefully I’ll see them eventually, but for now, here’s the list: Dheepan, The Lobster, The Assassin, The Tribe, Victoria, Where To Invade Next, The Witch, The Danish Girl, Rams, A War, Macbeth, Youth, Trumbo, The End of the Tour, The Gift, Theeb, Dope, Love & Mercy, The Diary of a Teenage Girl, and Mustang.
When choosing these movies, I thought about a couple different things; rewatchability, the weight of any issues I had with the films (e.g. a boom mic visible vs. a horrible performance, one being a more significant factor than the other) and how much I enjoyed them. This was a hard list to make. While some films were pretty solidified in where I wanted them, #8-2 were all being moved around a bit, and it was very hard to compare some of the films because of their difference in genre. (How do you compare a Holocaust drama to a coming-of-age high school film?) I still had to leave quite a few films worthy of being here off the list; It Follows, (inconsistent) Bridge of Spies, (enjoyed the main plot more than the subplot) Brooklyn (don’t need to rewatch), The Revenant (too long), Shaun the Sheep Movie, (fun but forgettable) Creed, (bad villain and out-of-place scenes) Mad Max: Fury Road (didn’t live up to expectations), Star Wars: The Force Awakens, (too familiar to A New Hope) Inside Out, (predictable) and Hitchcock/Truffaut (too different since it’s a documentary) were all great. Lastly, and most importantly, you will disagree with this list. I present; my top 10 films of 2015. #10: Mistress America - Noah Baumbach, who co-wrote my favorite animated film, Fantastic Mr. Fox, (the other writer being Wes Anderson) wrote and directed this hilarious and upbeat comedy. It's very quotable and features an upbeat score that keeps the movie flowing and energetic. The film goes by very fast, with a less than 90 minute running time, and it's definitely worth every minute. #9: Beasts of No Nation - Beasts of No Nation is a depressing, hard-to-watch film, but it’s so well done that it’s hard not to like. While I personally think #OscarsSoWhite is a bit overblown, I do know that Idris Elba not getting nominated for Best Supporting Actor is a snub. And I better see Abraham Attah in more movies soon. The filmmaking here is exquisite. Gary Joji Fukunaga, the director and writer of this film, also wrote and directed season 1 of True Detective, which is highly acclaimed. Surprisingly, this one hasn't been getting much attention at awards shows, and I think it definitely deserves it. #8: Spotlight - This film is not only an important watch for anyone not familiar with the story, it’s extremely well executed. It doesn’t just rely on you knowing it's an important subject. It clearly shows how it is, how abuse decades ago is still affecting the victims, and how the cover-up was deliberate and massive. The entire ensemble is great, and it had me on the edge of my seat, dying to know everything by the end. The direction is so held-back and simple, giving a matter-of-fact feel to the film, which is very effective. If it’s between the Revenant and this at the Oscars, I know where my vote would be going. #7: Anomalisa - Charlie Kaufman is a brilliant screenwriter, and it shows again here. His metaphorical approach to writing is always interesting to watch, and this film is filled with a lot to think about. Of all the films on this list, though, this is the least accessible to a mainstream audience. It's an R-rated stop-motion film with penises and oral sex, along with a cast of three people, but it's very integral to the story. Some people will call this film "weird;" I call it mind-bending. #6: Ex Machina - Smart, stylish, and mysterious, Ex Machina kept me on the edge of my seat the entire time and was always unpredictable. Its atmosphere is something to be admired, as well as great performances from the entire cast. I'm still thinking about it, and I can’t wait to see more of Alex Garland’s directorial work, along with catching up on his previous writing credits. #5: 45 Years - What a fascinating look at marriage. Kate and Geoff, the two main characters of the film, are fascinating and unpredictable. The direction here is impeccable, with many small and subtle moments coming back to play later in the film. The story may be simple, but it's also powerful. I love every last detail of this film. #4: Son of Saul - This film is hard to watch, but I hope you do, because it treats you like a smart human being. Its subject, the Holocaust, is not forced into your face, and it instead focuses on our protagonist, Saul. Géza Röhrig as Saul was my favorite male performance of the year; he embodied his character so well that it hasn't gotten out of my head. It may be yet another film made about the Holocaust, but it stands out from the bunch as an absolutely outstanding piece of art. #3: Me and Earl and the Dying Girl - This movie appealed to me the most on a personal level this year. However, it's personal appeal doesn't change its outstanding quality. Alfonso Gomez-Rejon's first feature film features stunning direction, honest representations of high schoolers, great acting, and is hilarious, mainly through the parodies of classic films that Greg and Earl make. Since this movie didn't even make its $8 million budget back, I cannot recommend this one enough, and I would suggest that you go see it. Like, right now. #2: Sicario - From the opening scene to the ending credits, Sicario stunned me. Not just in the horrifying story, (which could have easily been a pretty standard action movie plot) but in the great direction by Denis Villeneuve and the creative, beautiful cinematography by Roger Deakins, capturing night better than almost any cinematographer working today. The performances are also great, particularly Emily Blunt. Unfortunately, only Deakins has been getting attention for his work. (Deservedly so, of course) If there's an awards contender that people have been missing out on this year, it's this fantastic piece of work. #1: Carol - I could talk about Carol for hours. The fantastic performances from Kyle Chandler, Cate Blanchett and Rooney Mara. (Mara giving my favorite performance of the year) The excellent writing by Phyllis Nagy. The fantastic direction of Todd Haynes, making every shot be like its own painting, telling an individual story. The moving ending, with a sweeping score. Everything about Carol is magnificent, and it's the best movie of the year.
2 Comments
Son of Saul is a film about the Holocaust. I knew this walking in, and my expectations were set for one thing: this is gonna be hard to watch. I was right. There was also a question I was asking myself: What does this movie have to offer besides being a film which agrees that the Holocaust is bad? (Which I hope is something that we can all agree on.) Luckily, Son of Saul offers a whole lot.
Son of Saul follows Saul, a Sonderkommando during the Holocaust. A Sonderkommando was a Jew who was forced to help clean up gas chamber victims after their deaths, on threat of their own lives, and would eventually be killed after a few months of work, as explained in text before the action starts. After a couple months, he finds a young boy’s body, who may or may not be his son. (The movie leaves it up to us to decide and gives us hints of both.) The film follows Saul’s journey to give a proper burial to the carcass, including finding a rabbi to give funeral rites, instead of letting his body become like the rest of the victims. The Holocaust is one of the most awful events in human history. Every single person who has been through middle school knows about it, and director-writer László Nemes knows this. We all know what's going on when those doors shut for Jews to "shower," and instead of showing us this in an excessive, violent fashion, he focuses on the effects it has on our protagonist, Saul. This the reason why this film stands out among a wave of Holocaust films; Nemes respects his audience to determine what is happening by themselves. Instead of dialogue and exposition, we get silence and subtlety. The fantastic direction is unforgiving, like the Holocaust was, and is filmed in a box-like aspect ratio, never leaving Saul's perspective. Because of it, the movie feels claustrophobic, but that’s the point. The close-up nature never feels excessive. The performances in this film are remarkable. Géza Röhrig as Saul is worthy of an Oscar. He somehow captures a man bottling up his emotions and hatred inside, and the obsession with burying his "son" properly. This is most definitely his movie, and I never wanted to see anyone else. And despite Saul being the main character, I always felt he could die at any second. Since the movie is mainly filmed over his shoulder, you can always see a red "X" on his back. He is marked for death. It's just a matter of when and where. The writing here also helps set up the hatred, with the Nazis referring to the decaying carcasses they are about to burn as "pieces" or "it," refusing to acknowledge the Jew's humanity. The editing even helps. Most times, a scene will finish quietly and cut straight into a chaotic one, or vice versa. This keeps the movie flowing, and keeps you engaged in it. Most of all, though, the little details help here to set up the story. There are moments throughout the film that tell the greater story. For an example, a man asks Saul to "clean," referencing a table, and it takes Saul a second to understand what he's asking, because there aren't bodies around. He can’t understand what’s he saying for a second. The ending here is also very interesting, going for an ambiguous approach that keeps you on the edge of your seat, savoring the details until the credits start, with a haunting soundtrack playing beneath them. Son of Saul is a Holocaust film, but it stands out from the bunch. It's very well made, the acting is fantastic, the subtlety lets you think for yourself, and it doesn't feel excessive in making you feel uncomfortable. When my biggest gripe with a movie is that once or twice the camera got very shaky and it distracted me from the experience, I have to know that I'm watching something incredible, and that's exactly what Son of Saul is. 45 Years always feels big. Its wide shots and often silent scenes offer the same feeling you'd get in a sprawling epic, particularly when the characters are outside. And yet it is anything but a sprawling epic. Which is fine, when done well, and it’s done very well here. The film is subtle, gorgeous, and is very British. Lovely.
45 Years follows Kate Mercer (Charlotte Rampling), who is about to hit the 45th anniversary of her marriage to Geoff Mercer (Tom Courtenay.) About a week away from the anniversary, Geoff gets a letter about a former girlfriend, whose body has been recently discovered, perfectly preserved in an Alpine crevasse, though she’s been dead for 50 years. The letter evokes memories of a life before Kate, and triggers something in Geoff that is unknown to Kate. What is he reminiscing about? Charlotte Rampling and Tom Courtenay are both truly fantastic in this film. They deliver performances that work without their dialogue, and the subtle nuances they add to their characters are much appreciated. Andrew Haigh's direction is not stylish but observant, of both the small details and the tension between characters. Since the movie is set over what is about a week, we see these characters do some of the same mundane activities every day, and we see the changes in those activities depending on the preceding day's events. It's subtle filmmaking at its best. The characters in this film are three-dimensional beings who are always interesting to watch. I was almost always engaged, with the exception of a slow start at the beginning. After 10 minutes, it had caught my attention. The film is filled with some great scenes as well, including a fascinating ending and a long take filled with growing resentment, with you watching it grow and grow. It's fantastic technically, performance wise, and in telling an interesting story. This is one I've kept thinking about since I've seen it. See this one as soon as you can if it's available, since the film is in limited release, and likely won’t play in your area long. You won't regret it. Oh, David O. Russell. Why? Just.. why? Why did you make this movie? Did you want to have a movie with a feminist message? Did you find the story of a woman making a better mop fascinating? DId you need another vehicle for Jennifer Lawrence and Bradley Cooper? What compelled you? All I know is that you fell flat.
“Joy” is about a woman named, you guessed it, Joy (Jennifer Lawrence), who made a new and better mop, and the challenges she faced in getting said new and better mop out to the public and troubles making the new and better mops. Yeah that's it. Sounds stupid in my description? That's because it is! Yes, I know, any plot can be done well with the right direction and writing, (See: Lost in Translation) but it's just not done well here. It's very predictable. It's mainly a boring movie, and there's no great performances, either; Jennifer Lawrence is good, Bradley Cooper is alright, Robert De Niro is alright, nobody excels. This movie is a comedy? Really? People laughed in my theater maybe five times throughout its two hour running time, and I only laughed once, at a line that was supposed to be serious but just sounded like something no one who breathes air would say. Every character in this movie is one-dimensional. Even Joy never really becomes interesting; she's just a really determined "strong" female character. The most interesting character was Joy's ex-husband, who doesn't do much, but he is her friend and her biggest cheerleader even though they are exes, which goes against what I expect. But when your most interesting character is an ex-husband who doesn't have much to do, you're doing something wrong. But Joy's biggest crime is just being unsubtle and beating you over the head with its message. One of the first lines in the movie was (paraphrased) "I don't need a prince." I thought to myself, "Oh, boy, I wonder where this is going." This desire for strong female characters that movies so desperately try to claim leads them to beat you over the head with a message of feminism, how women don't need a big, strong man to succeed! They can do it themselves! But instead of letting us watch women succeeding, it tells us that women can succeed. That's an important message to tell, but a movie isn’t a motivational speech; it's a story. Tell a story. In the end, Joy is a message. It's not entertaining and the only redeeming quality is being alright from a direction and acting standpoint. Don't waste your time with this one. *WARNING: SPOILERS*
Before I start my critical charade, I think there's one thing we can all agree on; this film is breathtaking. It's an experience of a movie. It is marvelous to see nature at its most beautiful. And then it becomes really, really disgusting and I shut my eyes. (Seriously, Leonardo diCaprio character’s wounds after getting mauled by a bear--a fantastic achievement-- had me cringing.) This film's brutality is relentless. It's so hard to watch at some points. The natural feeling of the film and the actual pains the cast and crew went through to make the film somehow make it even worse. It makes me feel like everything in this is real. And that's absolutely terrifying. This film is 99% technical brilliance, although some dialogue didn't seem to match the character's lips. The Revenant follows Hugh Glass, (Leonardo DiCaprio) a frontiersman on a fur trading expedition in the 1820s, who fights for his survival after being mauled by a bear and left for dead by members of his own hunting team. The performances in this movie are mainly good. Leonardo DiCaprio as Hugh Glass is marvelous. Just thinking about some of the stuff Glass goes through in the film makes me shiver, and Leo made me believe it every step of the way. Domhnall Gleeson, in his fourth critically-acclaimed movie of the year (After Ex Machina, Star Wars: Episode 7 - The Force Awakens, and Brooklyn, holy crap this guy wins 2015) is also great. Will Poulter's character is basically how I would react to everything going on around me if I was witnessing these events, and he's great. Tom Hardy is a great actor, but I couldn't understand a thing he was saying in this movie. I hope Hardy doesn't become that guy you don't understand in every movie, since he was also Mad Max and Bane. Every single action scene in this movie is marvelous. They feel dangerous, real, and are very difficult to get through at parts. Since Alejandro González Iñárritu and Emmanuel Lubezki just made Birdman, you should expect the long takes/oners throughout. They add to the impressiveness of the film, and the beauty. So this film follows a formula of revenge films, that formula being "you killed my ____, I'm gonna kill you for revenge!" And although the film is a great version of that formula, if you look at the real life story, none of that formula happens. Glass gets mauled by the bear and two people leave him to die. He doesn't die. His revenge in real life was a psychological revenge; it's a message. "You guys left a dying man to die, and he didn't." It makes them feel horrible about themselves. Fitzgerald, Tom Hardy's character, doesn't even die in the real story. A revenge film with no main character dying and a much more fascinating motive sounds a lot more interesting to me. There's also smaller issues I have with the movie; Glass has too many visions of his dead wife, where it just felt excessive and I had already gotten the point. The film drags in between Glass getting better and the main group of his hunting team finding him. But it's mainly great, and the visual look of the movie is really fantastic. It's just something I have seen before, although it's certainly a good sight. When I saw Room, everyone around me was crying. Sobbing, stifling tears, every ounce of emotion in this movie worked on them. But not on me. At 14, am I just too young? Is it because I'm not a parent? Maybe. But even if I wasn’t emotionally invested in Room, there's still stuff to like here.
Room is about a 5 year old named Jack (Jacob Tremblay) and his mother (Brie Larson) who are trapped in a single room. Jack was born there, and it's the only life he knows. Mom was abducted 7 years before the film starts. But after their escape from their captor at the start of the film, the real world might be too different and strange for them to adjust. The performances in Room are remarkable. Brie Larson is incredible in this movie, as is Jacob Tremblay, who I really hope continues to act and doesn't get involved with the wrong crowds, like so many child actors before him. All the supporting characters are also great, with Joan Allen standing out, along with a surprise appearance by William H. Macy, who I didn't even know was in the movie. All the characters in the movie are given an extra layer of dimension because of both the writing and the acting. Despite Jacob Tremblay's great performance, for me it was undermined by his narration throughout the movie. I didn't feel like it fit in with the rest of the movie to have him narrate, and the narration emphasized points that were already very clear. There are also musical swells throughout the movie that felt very cheesy to me. Lenny Abrahamson's direction is also too close-up. It makes the shots uninteresting, since all I can see at some points are the actor's eyes. While it works alright in the room, since it emphasizes the small amount of space, once they're out of the room, it continues. While it may be a metaphorical use, it's just not pleasant to look at, and there's not enough of a balance. Close-ups should emphasize things, not be all we see. Despite its directorial issues and an unnecessary use of narration, Room is a good film. I appreciate the magnitude and importance of the story, and the actors elevate it. While I think people are blowing its greatness out of proportion a bit (as of January 10th, 8.3/10 on IMDb which puts it in the top 250 films of all time, 96% on Rotten Tomatoes, and 86/100 on Metacritic) it's at least a good movie. Although I was expecting more, it might just not be for me, and its target audience of parents will most likely enjoy it more. Let me start with a warning. The first words I heard after ”Anomalisa” ended were “Well, that was a terrible film,” followed by, “it’s too weird for me.” Then leaving the theater, I heard “why the hell was that animated?” Outside the theater, as I listened with other preview goers, lots of folks discussed how much they disliked or even hated the movie. A favorite comment:“I hated it, but I feel like it’s important.”
Now let me tell you how much I liked it. Anomalisa follows Michael Stone, (David Thewlis) an author that specializes in customer service, who is depressed by how similar and uninteresting everyone is, until he meets someone out of the ordinary: Lisa. (Jennifer Jason Leigh) I know; sounds cliched and uninteresting. It succeeds in its execution, however. This is a very unique and adult film, greatly crafted and metaphorical. Despite one of the quotes above, “why the hell was that animated,” this film has a use for its animation; a metaphorical use. It's also surprisingly very funny, despite the depressing themes. The humor comes from a very awkward place -- our lead’s introverted ways -- ways most of us can relate to. The awkwardness also helps set up Michael’s depressed mindset. Hitchcock once said "drama is life with the dull bits left out." This film is real life, but not dull. This film also had a very handmade feel to it. The entire movie was funded through kickstarter.com, with a budget of about $8,000,000, which is pretty tiny for a movie. You can see tiny hairs on the puppets moving around because of people moving the puppets, since it's stop-motion. It gives the movie a controlled feeling to it, which works very well with the story. Charlie Kaufman is known for his screenwriting; he's written movies like Being John Malkovich, Adaptation, and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. Lately, he's been directing as well, with Synecdoche, New York being his directorial debut. So far, he's doing great, as he and Duke Johnson (known for his work on Moral Orel) direct pretty well, with their longer takes emphasizing long periods of awkwardness. (And Charlie Kaufman writes another great script, along with the direction) If there's any quarrel I could take with this movie, it's that it may be too weird for some audiences. The animation can make some people uncomfortable, particularly during a certain scene. You know what I'm talking about if you've seen the movie. While that might be an issue for some, it wasn’t for me.I found it one of the most interesting films I've seen this year. Certainly the best animated movie of the year, if you’re thinking award categories. (And I loved “Inside Out.”) It will stick with you after you've left the theater. Please give it at least a try, but if you don't like it, don't say I didn't warn you. Walking into the Hateful Eight theater was fantastic. The overture was playing, I got in my seat, and the movie opened with a fantastic title sequence, setting a dreadful, hateful tone for the movie, complete with provocative imagery and a fantastic Ennio Morricone song. (The entire soundtrack is great here.)
Unfortunately, not all of it held up. The Hateful Eight follows Major Marquis Warren (Samuel L. Jackson) as he journeys to a cabin in a Wyoming winter, seeking shelter from a blizzard. Along the way, he meets a ton of strange characters. Like all of Quentin Tarantino’s movies, The Hateful Eight is not just in one genre; the movie is dramatic, comedic, suspenseful, mysterious, thrilling, etc. and it works a lot better because of it. But I found that the movie hit its stride in the second half, when it became more of a mystery, and the most self-aware of all of Tarantino’s movies. I also believe this movie, at 3 hours and 8 minutes, should be seen with an intermission. My showing did , and there is a change of pace and tone after the intermission, which I believe works better if you have time in between the two halves to process the movie a bit more. The acting is great. Tim Roth and Walton Goggin's performances were standouts for me. Everyone is great, however, and I’m sure you will have your own preferences. Tarantino’s script is entertaining and mysterious. He does a fine job here both writing and directing. There are very few movies that deserve a three hour running time. About 90% of them feel bloated, and could use a trim, (though there are exceptions, like Seven Samurai and Godfathers 1 and 2.) The Hateful Eight fits into the 90%. It's a little bloated, and could have been trimmed. Especially the first half, which is a lot of setup that was on-again off-again. For me, a long running time is an issue with most of Tarantino's movies. The Hateful Eight isn't flawed technically; it looks great, delivers fantastic performances, and has an entertaining script. The problem is just that it's too long. While it's definitely one of Tarantino's worst movies, he has set the bar pretty high. Although most people will consider "Carol" a romance film, which it is, it's also a coming-of-age film, a drama, and a period piece. This film feels alive, and is brimming with charm, beauty, and flair.
Despite the film's title, "Carol," it's not about Carol. It's about Therese (Rooney Mara) falling in love with Carol (Cate Blanchett), in the 1950s, when just being gay or lesbian was considered a mental illness. It's an important distinction to make, since this is one of the finest examples I can think of that has two leads and makes one the main character by just the way everything is shot; from her point of view. Because of this, we get to see Therese's emotions much more distinctly, including her childlike innocence, and Carol is more mysterious, at least in the beginning. The movie’s subtlety throughout should also be praised. From all the men in the frame in the way of Therese in scenes, Therese's desperation to please Carol by smoking with her, despite never smoking anywhere else, and even the name of Therese's boyfriend. (It's Richard. AKA dick.) It's also beautiful to look at, because of Todd Haynes fantastic use of quadrants in the movie, letting us move our eyes around to notice the action, instead of moving the camera around, which is the most objective thing to do. The acting is the thing that is getting the most praise right now, and it's all great, particularly between the two leads. Rooney Mara is wonderful as Therese, with her slowly losing her innocence, and Cate Blanchett is great as Carol, nervous yet excited about falling in love. The two have great chemistry. Kyle Chandler is also great as Carol's husband, whom she is divorcing, and his desperation for Carol's love, similar to Therese's desperation for her, never made him come off villainous, despite him being a villain in the movie. He always came off as someone in love who wanted to not lose that love. In a way, he's as much a victim of the time period as they are, which is not what i was expecting. At all. Carol is a fantastic film. It's wonderful in pretty much every way, including its ending, and stays with you after the fact. It's technically flawless, impeccably acted, well-written, magnificently directed, and is the best film of 2015. (So far for me, at least.) Pixar has made some of the best animated films of all time. Whether it's Toy Story, WALL-E, or my personal favorite, Up, they make films that appeal to both adults and kids. In fact, sometimes they favor adults. This is not the case for the Good Dinosaur. This is mainly a kid's film, with some good scenes that can be appreciated by both. It's a good movie, and nowhere near Pixar's best, but our expectations might be too high.
A recurring thought I had throughout the Good Dinosaur is that this movie looks amazing. The animation goes for a photorealistic qualify with its environments, and it looks fantastic. It does not, however, go for it with its mammals. Dinosaurs, snakes bugs and humans are all cartoonish. This is probably to combat the humans and the dinosaurs from looking too separate, especially since Pixar tends to go for cartoonish looks for their humans. However, the two didn't blend well together, and I often felt less immersed whenever in a frame with a photorealistic background and a cartoon dinosaur. Another great thing about this movie that Pixar always does pretty well are the silent scenes. These scenes are often short, to the point and tell the most about their characters. They are pretty beautiful (Other examples of these silent scenes Pixar does well would be Up’s opening montage and WALL-E’s entire first half). Other memorable scenes that work well are mainly ones that caught me off guard with their sense of humor aimed for people over the age of ten, including a hilarious yet disgusting scene with a bug and an ACTUAL DRUG JOKE inside a kids film. Set in prehistoric times with Dinosaurs. Well done. There's not many problems I can really give with the Good Dinosaur. It's just average. Average in the cliched story it's telling, average in many of its scenes, and average for a Pixar movie. Everything about Pixar is memorable; in almost every single movie they have there is always something exceptional. There's nothing of that here. And that's the problem. But we just may be expecting too much. |