Movie Reviews (20)14: Modern Times Edition

[bono_212]

De Palma's "trash" >>> Nolan's "brainy blockbuster"

That's an interesting opinion.

 

[Lancemc]

Nolan is like low brow given a huge budget then masquerading as high brow, thus doesn't really nail the qualities of either (usually)

 

[bono_212]

He's had his moments of really hitting home for me, but I can kinda, KINDA get behind that opinion.

 

[Lancemc]

He certainly has his moments for me too, to be fair.

 

[LemonMelon]

Inception and Memento are just fun, I don't know.

 

[Lancemc]

Memento is a lot of fun. Actually funny as well. Parts of Inception has parts that are my favorite things from him, mainly the cross-cutting set-piece, but that film is soooooo fucking poorly written and tone deaf. The Prestige is easily my favorite of his post-breakout films though despite also being kind of annoying.

 

[LemonMelon]

Inception's dialogue is fucking painful. The visual trickery is something to behold though. I absolutely loved the score too, very effective and creative.

The Prestige is a blast. I wonder if I would enjoy it as much now that I know how it ends. Probably.

 

[Lancemc]

The Prestige turn into a pretty effective horror film by the end and I admire that about it. Hans Zimmer can die in a ditch though.

 

[bono_212]

It's really all about The Prestige for me. That movie checks just about all of my boxes.

 

[lazarus]

The Prestige is probably my favorite, followed pretty closely by Inception. Too much exposition in the dialogue, whatever. It was one of the more thrilling theatrical viewings I've had in the last 10 years.

Looking forward to seeing Interstellar again.

 

[LMP]

The Prestige turn into a pretty effective horror film by the end and I admire that about it. Hans Zimmer can die in a ditch though.

Zimmer apes the hell out of Philip Glass here.

The last 45 minutes of Inception are a blast and legitimately thrilling. J. Hoberman had an awesome comment about fusing that bit of Inception and the action scenes in TRON: Legacy to make the best B-picture. I'd buy that.

Nolan's a dramatic and intellectual charlatan. There's a smugness to the expression of "theme" through dialogue that constantly grounds his cinema before take-off for me. With Interstellar though, the earnestness pushes it forward.

 

[LMP]

Nolan is like low brow given a huge budget then masquerading as high brow, thus doesn't really nail the qualities of either (usually)

I should have quoted this earlier.

On another note, the whole '90s Mainstream Auteur Mt. Rushmore of QT-Fincher-Nolan-P.T. Anderson that I've heard floated around rings false for me. The same reasons that people laud Nolan (puzzle-box structure, precision, "braininess") are the same ways folks use to detract Wes Anderson.

The problem is that Nolan is Eli Cash and everyone thinks he's Richie.

 

[Lancemc]

More like the film jock Mt. Rushmore of kids who grew up in the 90s. Still seems odd those particular four are often lumped together.

 

[GirlsAloudFan]

I thought Interstellar was really beautiful. I completely bought into the story of McConaughey amd Murph and their separation, and I think that it consistently pays off throughout the entire running time. There were definitely a couple of moments involving those two characters' relationship that had my eyes watering.

I've criticized Nolan's movies in the past for being cold and heartless, or at least failing at times when the stories try to be, but this really worked for me. And a lot of that is the acting of course. What brilliant casting with young Murph and adult Murph. They look so much alike! Bravo.

Very, very suspenseful at times, too. And that first trip into the worm hole left the entire theater breathless.

Also, baseball! Yeah baseball! Baseball forever.

 

[LMP]

More like the film jock Mt. Rushmore of kids who grew up in the 90s. Still seems odd those particular four are often lumped together.

Soderbergh, Spike, and Wes are left spectating.

 

[lazarus]

I should have quoted this earlier.

On another note, the whole '90s Mainstream Auteur Mt. Rushmore of QT-Fincher-Nolan-P.T. Anderson that I've heard floated around rings false for me. The same reasons that people laud Nolan (puzzle-box structure, precision, "braininess") are the same ways folks use to detract Wes Anderson.

The problem is that Nolan is Eli Cash and everyone thinks he's Richie.

More like the film jock Mt. Rushmore of kids who grew up in the 90s. Still seems odd those particular four are often lumped together.

Soderbergh, Spike, and Wes are left spectating.

Soderbergh kind of blew past those guys in a way. Not in terms of quality per se, but in the way he was trying everything genre-wise as well as formally. Within 10 years he went from winning the Palme d'Or and being an indie breakout story to skirting on the edge of irrelevance to climbing his way back to making high-end mainstream entertainment, culminating in his Oscar win. Soderbergh is more a contemporary of Spike Lee the way I see it, as She's Gotta Have It is only 3 years before Sex, Lies.

The rest of those guys were still warming up by the end of the 90s, with Fincher and PTA really having their first "mature" works in 1999. Aside from QT, who obviously had hit his stride pretty early.

Spike Jonez hasn't been productive enough to be on the Rushmore of anything.

 

[LemonMelon]

I don't savor new Spike Jonze films the way that I would a new Lynch film, but I saw Her the moment I could and it delivered. His extremely small filmography is flawless and he's obviously a music video savant.

I wouldn't say that Wes Anderson is overlooked or underappreciated at this point. If he's not on some hypothetical consensus Mt. Rushmore, he's on enough of them to get close. Though he's not a Hot Topic staple, he appeals to a very middlebrow (upper middlebrow?) crowd, yet he has a recognizable style and is extremely earnest so it's hard to really bash the guy (the way Nolan gets shit on for taking a lot of shallow/indecipherable ideas and propping them up with a huge budget). Obviously he's not as mainstream as Nolan or Fincher, but there is a lot of audience overlap.

 

[LMP]

Wes is nichified and marginalized compared to the folks on the hypothetical monument. A large degree has to do with his specificity and the type of cult audience that it creates. His last two pictures have been profitable, but there was a three-picture wilderness (Life Aquatic, Darjeeling, Mr. Fox) that lost a large degree of his more populist audience. His shift toward a more European & outwardly cinephilic sensibility speaks to that disconnect from the more "American" statements made by QT, PT, or Fincher. Tarantino's swath of influences absorb more lower brow titles, making his stuff more "accessible."

The Bergh & Spike began a few years earlier, but as far as the audience that found them in the '90s & early '00s, they're contemporaries. Maybe even the Coens fit in there too, I don't know. This is all theoretical nonsense.

 

[bono_212]

His movies have made twice the money (overall) of PT's. His last movie is his most successful, thus far. Well, unadjusted. Adjusted, that's still Tenenbaums.

EDIT: And that's not to say that I don't get where you're coming from, but, anecdotally, I know way more "average Joes" familiar with Wes' work than PT's. There is just as large of a dearth in audience for PT, as well, but it's spattered throughout his career, instead of being a large, obvious gap, like Wes has.

 

[lazarus]

If you're including Soderbergh, then yes it makes sense to put the Coens there too, as well as Spike Lee. But I don't think those three belong with the others.

We should also be differentiating between the two Spikes, because I'm getting confused already.

 

[LMP]

If you're including Soderbergh, then yes it makes sense to put the Coens there too, as well as Spike Lee. But I don't think those three belong with the others.

We should also be differentiating between the two Spikes, because I'm getting confused already.

Right, it's a strange grouping to begin with.

In regards to PT, his more overt exploration of Americana, regionally & dialectically, are easier to swallow. Also, the idea of a "singular" artist doesn't connect one to the sea of imitators, where Wes has suffered more than any of the group -- besides maybe QT.

 

[bono_212]

I just have a hard time thinking of Wes as anything but the Vampire Weekend of film. He's incredibly prolific. He had a friggin' American Express commercial. I just don't really see a universe where he's much of a suffering artist, I guess. He's still making the "same" movies, and he's getting back to a level of success that only really momentarily dropped off (IMO, at the same time the quality of his films did. It doesn't seem like much of a coincidence to me that he's been back in the zone at the same time that his box office has gone back up as well), but he's clearly back to being successful.

Maybe I just don't follow the argument you're trying to make. If so, forgive me.

 

[LMP]

I guess my argument is more in terms of populist perception -- a tenuous one at best. A lot of it stems from being fascinated at the similarities between Wes and Nolan as obsessive controllers of puzzles and dioramas, why one works more for me than the other, why that is the inverse, and the tricky distance between cinematic distance & literalism.

Why is one a punchline and the other is some cinematic messiah? Again, this is probably me conflating opinions to make a straw man argument. But there is something strange to how Wes' success and persistence burrows him further into a corner less in line with the other cats on that Hypothetical Mountain.

 

[bono_212]

Ok, yeah, I was basically on the same page. I think that, perhaps, someone can be both a "punchline" and a success. Plenty of successes are parodied all the time. I think it's simply because Wes has such an obvious schtick, that he's easier to mock, in some regards. But, at the same time, someone like Paul Thomas Anderson not being so obvious doesn't give him any foothold anywhere. He's one of the greats, but his success doesn't rise up above anything the way Wes' appear to.

As for Nolan, it's definitely populist perception at work as to why he's not so easily mocked. With Michael Bay, it's very, very clear how he keeps making the same movie. Nolan keeps doing it, but he layers it fairly gently, and you don't notice it if film isn't something you delve more than skin deep into.

IMO, of course.

 

[LMP]

Bay's cynical, but at least he's honest.

 

[LMP]

Best thing to happen this week, maybe this century:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=QrGrOK8oZG8

 

[LemonMelon]

1. That's not a movie review.
2. It's already baffling random movie talk.

 

[LMP]

Not enough cooks.

6/10

 

[bono_212]

There definitely could have been at least five more minutes worth of cooks.

 

[lazarus]

"Smarf"


LOL.