Movie Reviews (20)14: Modern Times Edition

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
See posts with no answers
But can't say nearly some of the things that were said in Paper Moon. It was like looking at what the 30s could've been like without the censors coming on so strong. I loved it. Can't think of anything to complain about, just a really great experience. Also gave it a 9/10.
 
Whiplash

I could go on forever about what this movie meant to me, and I still wouldn't able to adequately explain how it made me feel watching it. When I was in high school, I was in Jazz Band, Pep Band, two Concert Bands and Marching Band. It was my entire life. If I hadn't had a selfish director, and if I had maybe pushed harder to do everything I needed to do, I would probably still be playing music, today. Instead, I never got my audition tapes sent in in time, and I ended up just playing saxophone in TCU's Marching Band my first two years of college before I hung it up for good. There are two things I've always wanted to see in film: 1) A realistic depiction of high school and 2) A decent movie about what it's really like to be in one of the above mentioned bands. I may still be waiting on the former, but by God, I certainly got the latter, here.

Nothing that happens in this film really mirrors any personal experiences I had, and yet, the passion and the dedication present still completely sent me back to those days of playing "Caravan" over and over and over again. I miss it so much, and it's one of those things I wish dearly I could have back.

If I can recapture those feelings for 115 minutes, then that will have to do for now.

10/10
 
Whiplash makes me want to play scales until my fingers bleed. That is one passionate movie. I love it. Looks great, feels great, great music, great performances. I have not one bad thing to say about it. The career of Miles Teller could be very interesting.
 
Selma 7/10: It's a bit of a mixed bag but Oyelowo carries the movie. It doesn't look like the definitive movie of Dr. King, and it's neither a movie that says "that black people could and should depend only on themselves" from TIME magazine. It's definitely worth seeing to get that reminder of "how will future generations view us?" Lyndon Johnson does look like a caricature at times but that's a typical flaw of composite characters in so many movies. A miniseries would do more justice to his life. The Gandhi style of non-violent protest is well portrayed, as well as the FBI spying.
 
Inherent Vice 4/10: Disappointed with this one. There are some funny parts and a really good score, but it's a pretentious mess. This is one like There will be blood that left me cold. P.T. Anderson has a bullshit artist quality about him at times almost like he's winking at the audience and we are supposed to give him a pass. Some people will like this no matter what but it's nowhere near the top 10 for me. I can't even imagine seeing it again to try and find more details. I just don't care.
 
How was it pretentious? Or are you just lazily using a term to criticize something by a respected artist?

Because I found this to be one of PTA's loosest works, and most of it was played for laughs. The deeper meanings, namely the disillusionment post-1960s and an increasing sense of paranoia, weren't things that the script or direction just paid lip service to or tried to be overly artsy about. I don't know what you're seeing in terms of some phony semblance of importance.
 
lazarus said:
How was it pretentious? Or are you just lazily using a term to criticize something by a respected artist?

Because I found this to be one of PTA's loosest works, and most of it was played for laughs. The deeper meanings, namely the disillusionment post-1960s and an increasing sense of paranoia, weren't things that the script or direction just paid lip service to or tried to be overly artsy about. I don't know what you're seeing in terms of some phony semblance of importance.
Click to expand...

I thought it was too loose and some of the jokes fell flat, especially at the end with Brolin. If I want to see 70s dilsillusionment and paranoia I could always watch The Conversation or Nashville or Apocalypse Now. The acting was often mumbling and confusing beyond any Big Sleep comparisons but it looked too "wink-wink nudge-nudge" and self-conscious. All the Owen Wilson scenes were boring and I didn't care about his character. Now I haven't read Pynchon before and that might make my review disqualified, but I'm getting the feeling that his work would torture me. :lol: It might actually be the best adaptation to screen possible for his works. I did like some of the sex and drugs jokes, the score, period details and photography, but that's about it. The entire core of the Golden Fang story wasn't all that interesting for me.

The movie is a must see just for the fact that others will like it a lot more than I did, and especially for those who already are experienced in reading Pynchon. I do want to see more Waterston in the future because she isn't just a pretty face but has acting range. I will always anticipate PT Anderson movies because some of them do resonate for me like The Master which was one of the best movies about religious disillusionment I've ever seen.

Oh well I excoriated people for not liking The Master so it's my turn for not liking this one :giggle:
 
Inherent Vice is a bad movie. It was hard to sit through. Easily PTA's worse film.

It sounds like the book is the reason the movie is so bad. Phoenix commits to the role ok. I found the Casey Afflect film, I'm Still Here more enjoyable than this. I rate all other PTA films between 7.5 and 9.

This is at best a 4.5, and it only rates that high for a few interest parts here and there between more flat or bad parts.
 
American Sniper 9/10: Wow! I normally don't like Eastwood directed movies but this one blew me away. Completely moved. This might be one of the best war movies I have ever seen. The depiction of PTSD, and Cooper's transformation was solid. The dilemma of whether or not to shoot and the consequences of getting it wrong, including legal consequences, ramps up the stress. Very happy with this one.
 
The Tale of Princess Kaguya 8.0/10: Fairy Tale story of how parents (despite good intentions) can mold their children into something other than who they are. It has a good lesson on the dangers of chasing status and ignoring happiness that's right in front of you. The animation isn't ultra detailed but more a watercolour style that is both simple and at times very beautiful.
The ending even has some weird complexity where the Buddha comes from the moon but Kaguya wants to embrace emotions and stay on Earth.
I guess that's a third lesson in not being afraid of your emotions.
 
Big Eyes 2/10: Obvious heavy-handed movie that's cringe inducing. To see Waltz ham it up like Nicholson in The Shining is embarrassing since how much esteem I usually put his work. The court scenes at the end look cartoonish partly because the real scammer was such an idiot but it's still painful to watch. The photography of San Francisco is nice and Amy Adams does a decent job but this is another sub-par Burton movie. Hopefully his next one will be better.
 
Fucking loved Birdman. If I have any minor complaint, it stems from the rather navel-gazing art vs. commerce conflict that is returned to again and again. It should function as subtext but instead it's rammed down our throats for 2 hours.

That's about it as far as complaints go. The cinematography will rightfully get a lot of love, it's a great looking film, but it's the editing that did it for me. That first preview was a thing of beauty. Wonderfully creative, fluid passage of time throughout and the one-take conceit (I refuse to call it a gimmick because it suits the Broadway setting so well; after all, how else does one watch a play?) is certainly admirable, but it's more than that. I never wanted to look away or blink in case I missed something. To me, any film that engages me to that degree is a successful one.

As far as performances go, Keaton was great, Norton might have been even better. I really liked the casting of Emma Stone, it was a nice change of pace for her. They were given a lot of great dialogue too; this rightfully won the screenplay golden globe.

All in all, this was great. Rock solid in its execution and imaginative enough to deserve a second look (or several). Deserves all of the acclaim it has received and despite high expectations I was left satisfied. 9/10
 
Last edited:
Buying this the day it comes out. I need to see it at least a time or two more.

But one thing you said I just wanted to second, I don't feel as though I've heard much mention of Norton at all, and he was really fantastic. Disappointed that he kinda disappears halfway through. EDIT: Apparently my perception about this is wrong, and he's getting a lot of love, whoops!

Since editing is kinda my thing, it always make me happy to have a film that's at the forefront of the category for me, and this one is easily that film for 2014.

I'm not 100% on Keaton as best actor, atm, but he's the best I've yet seen. Still waiting to catch as many movies as I can at AMC when they announce their Oscar lineup, and I think most of those will have the best actor nominees in them.

Tentative 8.5/10, but it might go up or down over time. Some aspects of the film left me a little hollow, but it was a great watch throughout. Worst trailer ever, btw. I mean, it got me to watch it, but it totally fucked up my perception of what this movie was going to be.
 
You're praising the editing because they were able to make it seem like there were no cuts?

Either way, it was still made up of mostly VERY long takes.
 
lazarus said:
You're praising the editing because they were able to make it seem like there were no cuts?

Either way, it was still made up of mostly VERY long takes.
Click to expand...

I thought about it for awhile, because I get where you're coming from. But, I do think it's an impressive effort to get the whole thing to go so smoothly, and there are so many shots where I find myself genuinely curious as to how they managed to get from one place to another. It's almost beautifully seamless, and I didn't find the transitions distracting at all for the most part (there's one that's done through a TV that I didn't care for at all). Have you seen it yet? There's another part to what I loved about it, but it's a spoiler, so I'll hold off if you haven't.

Honestly, it's pretty neck and neck for me with this movie and Boyhood. When I think back on Boyhood, I get more and more impressed by the knowledge of how much time that film covers, and yet it still looks so smooth. But I don't know if I should praise the cinematographer, director or editor for that...or all three.
 
I had a lot if fun with it as well... The moment I'm referring to is when

The tracking shot ends. The jerk into "reality" (if you follow that theory) or whatever you want to call the scene on the beach, startled me as much as any Horror movie jump-scare ever has. I realize that only one moment, but it was wonderfully unsettling, and it struck a very strong cord.
 
Oscar nominations come out Thursday:

I've seen a couple of the contenders and just by judging some of the other award nominations I'll make a prediction oon Best Picture Nominees. Usually the have about 9.

Boyhood
Theory of Everything
Birdman
The Imitation Game
Selma
Nightcrawler
Whiplash
The Grand Budapest Hotel
Gone Girl

Maybe American Sniper or Foxcatcher
 
As somebody who went on and on about Michael Keaton needing to make a true comeback and who thought his performances were almost always better than his respective films, I'm delighted not only to have Birdman as a comeback, but as a film that I truly consider to be great, not only due to Keaton's amazing performance.

The film is a remarkable mix of drama and comedy with some outrageous choices by Alejandro Iñarittu which are ideal for this fan of long takes. Basically, almost everything worked for me, some faults in the script notwithstanding. It's just a genuinely fun movie with excellent performances (Norton deserves a mention; I was pleasantly surprised at how good he is at being funny), and Keaton in the end makes the journey of his character authentic and oddly moving.

On the other side of the spectrum is Boyhood. I'm a Linklater enthusiast and a big fan of his experimental work. The Before trilogy is classic, Waking Life is a fascinating piece of cinema, Slacker is an interesting if somewhat slight take on Ulysses etc. I'm still stunned at how unmoved and even annoyed I was by this film.

What it comes down to is this - the kid never became an interesting character. More like an annoying Hayden Christensen lookalike as he got older. So much of it seemed groan-inducing and so little of it seemed authentic to me. Characters were flat and never rose above pure stereotype (the alcoholic stepfather or the religious, traditional family being primary examples), the dialogue never had the sharpness and edge to it like in the aforementioned Linklater efforts and most importantly - it was self-serious and humourless to the point where I was asking myself did this kid ever actually have fun in his "boyhood".

I'm honestly flabbergasted as to how much I didn't enjoy it, and my expectations were not so high after hearing some reactions from people whose opinions I very much respect. It's a fascinating, admirable effort at creating innovative cinema, but it's the one time in Linklater's filmography where I can say that the gimmick rose above things that are crucial, like (interesting) character development or any sense of momentum to the story.
 
I'm having such a hard time rating Boyhood, because there are parts of it I absolutely hate, but as a work of film, it so impressive. I'm torn between story and cinema, basically.
 
djerdap said:
On the other side of the spectrum is Boyhood. I'm a Linklater enthusiast and a big fan of his experimental work. The Before trilogy is classic, Waking Life is a fascinating piece of cinema, Slacker is an interesting if somewhat slight take on Ulysses etc. I'm still stunned at how unmoved and even annoyed I was by this film.

What it comes down to is this - the kid never became an interesting character. More like an annoying Hayden Christensen lookalike as he got older. So much of it seemed groan-inducing and so little of it seemed authentic to me. Characters were flat and never rose above pure stereotype (the alcoholic stepfather or the religious, traditional family being primary examples), the dialogue never had the sharpness and edge to it like in the aforementioned Linklater efforts and most importantly - it was self-serious and humourless to the point where I was asking myself did this kid ever actually have fun in his "boyhood".

I'm honestly flabbergasted as to how much I didn't enjoy it, and my expectations were not so high after hearing some reactions from people whose opinions I very much respect. It's a fascinating, admirable effort at creating innovative cinema, but it's the one time in Linklater's filmography where I can say that the gimmick rose above things that are crucial, like character development or any sense of momentum to the story.
Click to expand...

Agree with every word of this.
 
I think djerdap was so annoyed by Boyhood because the lead looks just like Cobbler.

Seriously though, I agree. It felt like a number of more tolerable characters were sacrificed in order to push a really uninteresting protagonist and hardly any of the film felt real to me because it held so tightly to tried-and-true formulas and stereotypes. The screenplay just isn't good.
 
Last edited:
I really don't see it to be honest. I did already mentioned who he reminded me of and that was a major factor in me wanting to slap him a couple of times. Those Facebook conversations were just terrible. Realistic? Sure, lots of teenagers talk that way. But do I need to see that in a Linklater movie? Not really.
 
The worst conversation by far was that back and forth with the high school douchebags in that basement or whatever it was. I was that age once, and I have friends who were that age once, and I don't remember anyone involved being that much of a tool.
 
Last edited:
Don't forget the scene with the bullies in the bathroom which not only was boringly on-the-nose (like so much of the movie... the scene you've mentioned... and remember the ultra-conservative guy with the Confederate flag?), but went absolutely nowhere as far as story is concerned. I realize the making of the film precluded certain subplots, but the execution of the scene itself was crap.

Has anybody seen the Michael Apted Up series? It seems now even more intriguing to me.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

Similar threads

N
  • Locked
NBA 2022-23 Thread
46 47 48
Replies
1K
Views
47K
U2inUtah
U2inUtah
N
  • Locked
NBA 2019-20 Thread
32 33 34
Replies
1K
Views
40K
Diemen
Diemen
LuckyNumber7
Desert Island Mini - LP Island - Rules & Sign Up Thread
2 3 4
Replies
96
Views
5K
Axver
Axver
LemonMelon
Desert Island XI - QUARANTINE ISLAND - Group 3 Listening Thread
3 4 5
Replies
133
Views
6K
iron yuppie
iron yuppie
LemonMelon
Desert Island XI - QUARANTINE ISLAND - Group 2 Listening Thread
4 5 6
Replies
175
Views
7K
namkcuR
N

Latest posts

Back
Top Bottom