You have to be kidding me. Epic crap artists on display here. I was constantly jarred out of the movie by the terrible writing, oafish "seriousness" and total lack of psychological understanding of our species. It's nothing but forced, unbelievable, melodramatic storytelling for the sake of genre fulfillment and a slow build. I defy you to get through the first 10-20 minutes of this movie and say you're interested. Only those with a desperate thirst for a 'crazy thriller' could possibly drink from this scummy pond. 16 "critics" gave this a good review? Yet another death knell for American film criticism. RIP
The Revenant's story is flat and difficult to accept as realistic or mythic. It may be magic realism but that doesn't make this particular story an effective narrative- its strengths lie in the visual trip it takes you on. However, what story it does have ruins that visual trip, unlike in the best works of Malick or Tarkovsky, where the natural imagery and the dreaminess better compliment the narrative, and vice-versa. It's not realistic, despite being 'based' on a true story, because it keeps the main character alive past all biological possibility. (For those who would quibble with the 'true story' factor, the actual story of Hugh Glass doesn't have the main character defy death ten times over. Furthermore it's a 'true story' of a mountain man doing something extraordinary. This usually means it's a tall tale.) And if Glass' death-defiance is meant to subtly show the main character as a kind of undead or supernatural being (or ambiguously or liminally so), that idea is not developed interestingly. Even worse, if Glass' endurance and death-defiance are supernatural, then his determination is irrelevant and the theme seems to be: 'family love powers magic revenge'. That's an F for story to me. I suppose that there could be some sort of grand allegorical meaning, but since the story doesn't work on the literal level, that potential is irrelevant to me. Although others may see it differently, the highest score I can give a narrative film with a zero for story is a 3 out of 10. I find it sadly amusing that after Birdman, with its examination of the perils of ego, Inarritu follows with an egomaniacal stunt of his own.
This padded-out feature would have made a very good short. There are good scenes, and ideas worth considering, but absolutely not enough of them for a feature. The stop-motion and design are great, but it has problems on the story/art/intellect side because of stretching the run time past what the story/themes can bear. Too many of the scenes (whether attempts at exploring the humdrum, or attempts at absurdist conflict) subtract more than they add to the whole. The main metaphor of a Fregoli delusion well-represents a kind of mid-life crisis, but it also loses quite a bit in flattening out the mid-life crisis into a general alienation (granted, with a mix of older existentialism issues, and newer ones such as 'personhood as illusory'). In a short film, this bare-bones metaphor would have enough of a poetic quality to work. But here, when the story is stretched out, we are constantly reminded of the lack of particulars. And at some point, not telling us more about the main character and his problems is just coy or frigid on Kaufman's part. I should note that I have no problem with the main character being unsympathetic, nor the attempt at exploring the humdrum side of life in many scenes, nor the film's plot/conclusions being flat/troubling/puzzling, nor scenes that aren't always "entertaining". But those scenes have to do something besides show you that dull dialogue imitates dull talk in life. And if Kaufman was interested in tone/lyricism, theme, and irony OVER human particulars (and therefore other things that art can do), he was obliged to take careful, un-self-indulgent account of what the story could sustain. For the second film in a row, he hasn't. I see why, on the the business side, this CAN'T be a $3M short when you can make a $10M feature instead. But this has no bearing on whether the feature has problems. And I understand why a lack of human particulars is fitting for puppets (and how from an ironic, existentialist and behaviorist point-of-view, we might be more puppets than we care to admit), but a few modern ideas don't automatically make 90 minutes worth of story.
The movie is admirable for being an indie production, especially a Western/horror with an unusual sub-genre (a lost tribe of 'people'). That said, I don't know what the director was trying to do, and I think it's bad regardless. Was he trying to make pulpy, tongue-in-cheek fare? It fails at the sort of humorous winks that would make that work. Was he trying to play it gritty and straight-ahead? It's ham-fisted. Was he trying for a weird mix of these two things? ...probably, but that isn't what jars me. What jars me is that every element in the movie is a mix of sometimes good, sometimes competently shrug-able, and sometimes incompetent. I will say that the lighting is generally good (with some conspicuously forced lighting here and there), and that the flat characterization is acceptable in a film of this genre. BUT, the story logic, the dialogue, the acting, the shot/edit/sequence decisions, the sound design-- they're often sub-par or terrible. If these were all good to great, the weird tone of the picture wouldn't bother me. As it is, the tone is just another semi-competent choice at best. I believe that the fan support for the film exists because the fans of the genre are starved for content. For this, and for executing an indie Western at all for $1.8M, I will give the director credit. But on its own merits, this is not a good or even fully competent movie.
I've seen this movie twice, both because I'm a PT Anderson fan, and because on first viewing, I came out scratching my head, and I thought that I might be missing its merits. As opposed to other films of its ilk that have an intricate, even deliberately convoluted plot (The Big Sleep, The Long Goodbye, The Big Lebowski, and maybe Kiss Me Deadly or other noir), Inherent Vice isn't wall-to-wall engaging scenes. A few of the scenes are, but far too many aren't sufficiently engaging. Half the scenes in this movie, right from the start, are highly skilled (the lighting, the acting, the composition), and otherwise wholly shruggable. There's plenty of brains and heart as the movie talks about squares vs subversives, or the abandoned values of the 60's being more human than the greed to follow, but if you've considered all this before, it might not add anything for you. It's skillfully made, smart, and challenging. But I'm still not sure I see what the artistic insights or merits are.
Pros: well-acted, subtle, simmering, never melodramatic. For a crime story set in 1981 NY, it sure doesn't come off as cliche. Con: it's a little slight or shruggable. This is the type of nuanced story (a guy tries to keep his nose clean in a dirty industry and kinda sorta succeeds) that needs perfect characterization and charm, and it doesn't quite have all that it needs.
On second viewing: The film's technical merits are without exception. Most predominant is that the whole movie feels like one long sequence shot, from about minute 2 until nearly the end. There are disguised cuts, and the movie finds moments to settle down the camera to contrast the movement. But the orchestration of actors, the re-framing of the camera, and the support of crew outside the frame, are nothing short of phenomenal. The film's artistic merits are easy to see in the performances, design and composition, but harder to puzzle out emotionally/intellectually. They rely partly on multiple ambiguities, and the audience will need to do some broad-view thinking about life and art to really crack open the movie. For all of this, I would not say that the merits are so rarified that they should push away anyone who wants to see a challenging movie. They are hard to crack, but not because you really have to understand all the references.
Very well shot, edited, acted and designed; with a fresh take on old ideas. The movie may have a very specific focus and be nothing **** on the intellectual side, but it's worth several Oscar nominations. The music is fantastic. See it on the big screen. As for the controversy around the abusive teacher, I would say that it's not necessary to feel that the teacher is justified or unjustified, good or evil, effective or hindering, in order to enjoy the movie and find interesting food for thought in it. If a semi-vicious teacher who, in the real world, would overstep the bounds of ethics and even effective technique, is a flaw in the movie, then it's not a damning one.
I am a fan of Linklater, but I am just not seeing the love for this movie. I will give this movie its due for not being about empty bs, but it's definitely a melodrama for most scenes, and with very performatory acting on top of it. There's not a lot of depth or nuance here.
Hamlet at 1 hour, 27 minutes is not Hamlet. If you want to do something like Hamlet, but its 87 minutes and set in the 1940's, write your own story, guy.
I'll admit that Jason Reitman is just not my guy. It does hit some odd tones along the way, which is something I generally enjoy. But there's an intense corniness to the melodrama of this movie that I find to be a strikeout, even if he was swinging for the fences by trying something offbeat.
I'll give this a 7 for now, and I think that I will need to see this a second time. But at the least, it's a movie that bears watching twice. I do like Finnes as a director so far. [He also did Coriolanus]. I'm not sure I know what the movie's after, but I know I'd like to see it go after it again, as it's quite well made.
For those of you who are considering seeing this movie, a few thoughts: -From my point of view, the user-reviewers who didn't like it missed out on the subtleties and complexities of character and tone. A movie's not obliged to follow the same form as most, or tell a story we've heard before. -There's odd, dry humor that percolates through it, as you might expect from the Coen brothers, but this is their more serious side. -Unlike many of their other movies, this has a more sincere warmth to go with the darkness, the oddness, and the intelligence. -It's a rich, sad, dark winter's tale. It's the kind of stiff drink of storytelling that would not be out of place in the Bible or Gilgamesh or other classic literature. It's about a man stuck in a time and place and manner of being, as he hits up against the limits of what is possible for him, and often is his own worst enemy. -See this when you are in the mood for more nutritious entertainment, and feel free to give yourself just enough distance from the main character that you can have a good look at what makes him human. -The music is great, and it's all live performances.
The World's End doesn't know if it's an ensemble R-rated comedy, a middle-age crisis movie or an action sci fi dystopia movie..... and you will be glad it doesn't. The movies sets out to create a weird blend of genres and succeeds. Some of the disagreement in the user reviews can be explained by noticing that the movie is something of a satire or farce, and what it does well does not require us to take the characters, tone or plot seriously. It uses its monstrous hybrid of genres and tones to unseriously bat around a few serious ideas. This rubs some people the wrong way. Too bad for them, really.
I found this movie to be great but not perfect. I read every yellow or red user review, and found nearly every claim or sentiment in them to be nonsense. I will comment on them as a whole here. solutions10: The movie is not unnecessary. The movie doesn't need to be plotted in the way that an action-thriller screenwriting 101 movie is. Not every movie needs to be "entertaining" in the way that some people demand. The various slave owners were different people with different personalities. A movie is not obliged to fit a genre. ErikTheRed: I find it absolutely stupefying that you would object to the movie as full of stereotypes, excessive brutality and sadism, and not made for a noble purpose; AND THEN suggest a Tarantino movie instead. EvanB: How does it 'go nowhere'? What message did you want it to have? What would happen if someone tried to make a movie that didn't have a message you could summarize in a short sentence? Did you notice zero changes in Solomon's character? GreatMartin: I agree that the out-of-order sequence or repetition of moments may have lost more than it gained, but it did serve to underline the thoughts and emotions of Solomon. I can't agree that some of the long takes and transitions "should have moved quicker". I thought they were quite right for this movie. twenty-twenty: You watched a movie about a free man sold into slavery for twelve years and you have a problem with the suffering in it? I don't see how the movie would have been better if they also included some of the joking around or dancing or Sunday naps or that the slaves took, to round out the picture. Not every single white character in this movie is evil; I think you may have forgotten at least 4 characters. 2thepoint: As *I* stood back and looked at this film objectively, I found it to be excellent. Part of that excellence was how it worked on my emotions, without manipulating them. I don't understand what was unintelligible. killingspree: I'm white and a centrist, and the movie did not make me feel guilty. I would guess that you watched this movie while imagining someone you hate watching this movie. I watched this movie imagining the life of a free man kidnapped and sold into slavery. It made me think and feel new things. Also, I'm a little bit worried about your screen-name. ramsaypalmer: For everything you said, it seems that you should have recommended a few of these movies that you had in mind. As far as the realism and acting, the whole movie struck me as having a 'heightened realism' tone, not pure realism, and not pure stylization. I think this 'heightened realism' is reflected through the movie, as in the long transitions in the middle of the movie where the sound from the previous scene affects our understanding of the new scene [a slave woman sobbing at night the next morning a slave owner reads scripture to all the slaves].
This is a moving chronicle of a semi-fictionalized White House butler as seen through the civil rights movement. It has a fantastic montage (or maybe more like a series of intercut scenes) of the black staff at the White House and the Freedom Riders in Alabama. It was one of the more amazing intercut sequences I've seen. I teared up twice during this movie. Whitaker is great. This movie is also an over-the-top melodrama. It is so melodramatic that, even given the subject matter, I'm calling it melodramatic. So I think a 6 is about right. The movie is a biopic/history series of events, with a few threads tying it together. But given the subject matter, I can't really fault it for not having a more traditional structure or conventional dramatic arc. If you're interested in the premise, go see it.
In an American film industry of recycled ideas, sequels and nostalgic **** over things men liked as kids [comic book movies, toy movies, etc], I have to give this a 7 for its importance, its freshness and its premise of looking at the man's life from several angles in 20-24 hours. Where I have to lower it to 7: some of the acting is mediocre at best, but that may very well stem from the main problem. That problem is the writing, which is sophomorically ironic in how it portrays everything the main character does that day. Everything is seen through a lens of "but he dies later!" in a forced or melodramatic way, such that it's hard to see the story as a true portrait. This major flaw aside, the movie's good and if you're interested in the subject matter, go see it. I'm looking forward to Coogler's next feature.
Without a strong overall opinion for or against WikiLeaks or Assange, and without much knowledge of the situation, I went into this film open to it as a piece of filmmaking and not as a fact-checker. As a film, it's quite mediocre. The worst part, in fact the single part I could point to in suggesting that you all stay away in droves is this: The film visually depicts some sort of virtual office space that Assange and Berg inhabit in parts of the movie dealing with some of their online interactions. It's something so hokey in 2013 that I'm more or less in disbelief that the director tried it.
All is Lost is a predominantly realistic movie about a lone sailor's struggle to stay alive on the Indian Ocean across multiple days, and through very plausible moments of good and bad luck. It is a far more unique foray into what a movie can do than most of us have seen in a long time. It's an antidote to both fluffy sentimentality and heartless, mindless effects movies. This is a one-character movie where we know very little about that one character's life on land, just enough to capture our imagination and curiosity as to who he is when he's not fighting for his life on a 39' sailboat, alone at sea, in a tempest. The metaphoric nature of those last phrases are brought out in the movie subtly enough for us to carry them with us through the movie, and never in a heavy-handed or sophomoric manner. Furthermore, the man's a good sailor but not a great one, which lends to both the realism and the subtle and assured storytelling virtues of the movie. Lastly, it's also one of the few movies where if you like the trailer, you will certainly like the movie.
Why they didn't make a full movie about what the first half of the movie is about.......... has "lost opportunity" written all over it. As it is, The Awakening seems like 3 different movies. You've seen 2 of them and you don't want to see them again. I'm obliged to blame the script, though plenty of people who could have turned the project down went ahead and made the script.
I don't think that this is a great movie, by any means. Nor do I love [or hate] Whedon. But I do think that the users giving this movie scores in the red are why we can't have nice things. Specifically, I think that they're the kind of movie fans who prevent American filmmakers [as a whole] from trying crazy stuff. Sure, some crazy stuff is going to fall flat on its face. So what? This movie isn't a normal horror movie. So what? That means it deserves a zero? This movie messes around with the horror movie genre and its clichés in a way that's far, far more interesting than the Scream movies. If more movies like this were appreciated, even when they're modest successes like this one, then we would have more risks taken by American filmmakers and studios. And as a consequence of that, we'd have more playing around with story types, and less of Hollywood making the same crap over and over and over. What really makes me shudder is the idea that some users who gave this a 0 or 1 may also complain about Hollywood recycling ideas. We need movies that tear apart genres in thoughtful ways, even if they're 'popcorn movies'.
Not at all bad, but not great or memorable. Given her talents and experience, it seems that Bell might have done better with her first feature if she'd made a sketch-driven comedy, and saved a comedy with a serious side for a later outing. As it is, there aren't enough of the funny bits, while more or less everything about the serious side falls flat. The dramatic elements, the depth of the character and writing, the framing and composition, the social satire; they're all pretty slight. The tone shifts back and forth between a sort of pure-laughs comedy [Anchorman etc] and a serious comedy or satire [some Woody Allen, Noah Baumbach etc]. The clash inherent in this tone shift undercuts the serious side rather forcefully. If that weren't enough, the serious elements in themselves are pretty sophomoric. However, it is enjoyable and warm-hearted, and Bell shows some chance of a better outing in the future.
Short version: awful acting. No--- unforgivable acting overall. Professional critics are criminally insane to give this a 76 on metacritic; like, crazed-despot insane. *** This movie is a failure on almost every major front, and most minor ones. Say whatever you like about these actors and this director in general; in this movie, the ensemble and their director have absolutely no ear for dialog. This is related to their problem in setting a comic tone [they don't], finding what's 'in play' at any given time, finding physical things to do, emoting believably [or at all], and finding the heart in the play. They fail line by line, moment by moment, almost every scene. Now imagine them proceeding confidently and professionally despite their cluelessness, and you can almost imagine how bad it is. At least a Turdsville Community Theater production would have emoted sometimes, and tugged on your heart a little. This is very arguably the single funniest Shakespeare play on the page. How can you miss, right? [Incidentally, if I thought that Whedon meant to re-interpret the first romantic comedy as a drama, I would have given it a zero.] Before I rant any further and you think I have an axe to grind with Whedon, let me say that I went opening weekend, and the rest of the opening weekend crowd did not laugh once for the first 45 minutes of the movie. These people were right not to laugh. Whedon starts the movie with a smart, wordless prologue that isn't present in the play and sets up Beatrice and **** relationship in the play. This good move, the lighting, and the sound are why I give this movie one point out of ten, instead of zero. Fran Kranz has a few moments, and was the first to get the audience to laugh. Whedon adapted the play poorly on at least two fronts: -the male leads as soliders/gangsters, as a modern adaptation choice, makes zero sense -also, he trims the play and gives it a [too] fast pace, but keeps some very dated lines that Shakespeare's ghost would have likely thrown out without a second thought, either because it's 410 years old, never hit well in the first place, or both. This is one of Shakespeare's least dated plays [in its language and sensibilities], and Whedon finds a way to put dust on it at times. There is some needless crotch-rubbing in a scene that seemed to need it to Joss, some dumb reframing of the camera, and a few jarringly artsy shots that don't fit the rest of the tone. This is among the worst 10% of movies I have seen, out of hundreds. This is tied for the single worst Shakespeare production I have ever seen [with a 1980's BBC Midsummer Night's Dream that was so artsy as to sterilize the play, and a community theater version of Henry IV, Part 1], out of approximately seventy-five. I like Shakespeare, I like it set in the here and now with American accents, I like black and white, I like weird choices, I like movies that are shot in a minimalist way, I like Whedon. This movie stinks. As for the critics, allow me to suggest that as a group they are a bunch of concubines. They don't think of themselves as ****, and they're right. Taking popcorn movies and tv, and making them smart, is Whedon's forte. Taking something smart and making it popcorn, I hope he never tries again. As George Bluth Sr. said to Buster Bluth about why he wouldn't let him play youth sports: "No, no, look, you were you were just a turd out there, you know? You couldn't kick, and you couldn't run, you know? You were just... a turd." Watch the 1993 Much Ado About Nothing. It's pretty darn good.
Before Midnight is the third of three movies, shot about a decade apart each, starring Ethan Hawke and Julie Delpy as lovers with a very push-pull dynamic. It's not necessary to see the first two movies to follow Before Midnight. The movie features long takes (sometimes not cutting for 10 minutes at a time) the story takes place over a day, and dialogue and naturalistic acting are paramount. There's a complexity to their characters and relationship that refuses to fully romanticize or demonize them. It's something of a realist romance in (deliberate) contrast the beautiful settings. Careful viewers will notice a handful of ironies that ground the romance in reality. I won't give examples here, or go into the details that keep me from giving this a 9 or 10 as many critics do. The movie is the proverbial breath of fresh air, though. I'd say that the main weakness of the movie stems from its strengths, in that when artists set out to make something so true to human nature (as opposed to fluffier rom coms or Nicholas Sparks movies) it's easy to hear the (few) false notes that are played. There are very few; and unless you're jonesing for a mere-nonsense 'entertainment' movie, this movie should appeal to practically anyone.
Short version: Upstream Color is a good-but-flawed, puzzling, poetical, unusual movie. It's not easy to watch or digest, but will give you plenty to think and feel. * * Users have noted how flawed this movie is while (unkindly- cruelly even) rating it 0. Some very good critics (Zacharek among them) have given it lukewarm reviews. There is some truth to what they say. It is hard to follow, artsy-fartsy, and pretentious (as in: intellectual ambition failed, as separate from artsy-fartsiness). How severely to penalize an American movie in 2013 for these three flaws is an open question. For me, not one of these flaws, or all of them together, is as ugly as any one of the flaws we get most often in our movies, whether big-budget or indie or in between. It's not based on a franchise, it's not a vehicle for celebrities, it's not a recycled-story excuse for special effects or tear-jerking, it's not quirky and too cute by half, there's no particular exploitation of sex or violence, and the relatively happy ending is probably too troubling (in my interpretation) to call tacked-on, facile or restorative. Upstream Color is a good, unusual movie with a lot of unusual flaws. Piecing the story together takes place across the entire movie. The characters are the sort of two-dimensional types that are necessary for an allegory, especially one that's puzzling, lyrical, metaphorical and maybe deliberately inscrutable. you might love this movie. You might hate it. You will not have the same old movie experience.
The story is so melodramatic that this movie is a failure, despite its technical and stunt strengths. It is a failure despite one's suspicions that the melodrama is deliberate. It's a failure despite reuniting the Cianfrance/Gosling team from Blue Valentine. You will probably like this movie if you like to look at Gosling and Cooper for 2 hours. You will probably like this movie if you thought that Haggis' Crash was a good movie and not a ham-fisted melodrama. Anyone else should really stay away, despite the PR/marketing hype that it's an artful indie movie.
How this movie gets an average that pushes it into the green scores from the 'professional' critics makes me question exactly how corrupt they are; more than I thought, apparently. Swag must be good.
I agree with JamesL that "Denzel has quit acting". I hope he gave his salary to charity. A-listers are responsible for what projects they choose, period. He's the most powerful person on this project, it's his fault.
Stupid movies make everyone stupider, and our eye-holes are chock-full of them since I don't know when.
Critics, I hope you soon join politicians and lawyers and wall street pirates as the most despised professionals, 'cause most of you are dirt.
