Movie Reviews (20)14: Modern Times Edition

[lazarus]

You just register your email and then there's a date and time the free tickets are released and you just get them from the AFI website. Last year they put people into assigned groups and gave staggered 2-hour ticket windows to each one, but this year they did everybody at once and it was a massive clusterfuck. Hopefully they learned their lesson.

Anyway, a certain number of tix are available that first day, but you can keep checking back because they release more as time goes on. And there are also stand-by lines right before the show if you don't have a ticket at all.

It's difficult to get into the big gala premieres, but that's usually Hollywood stuff that's opening wide soon anyway. The next biggest group is "Special Screenings", which this year included Mommy, Clouds of Sils Maria, Mr. Turner, and Two Days, One Night. I was able to get tix to all of those (and wound up not even going to three of them).

Didn't see as much as in years past because I had my own film shoot that week, but I still managed to catch Cannes favorite The Wonders, Leviathan, the Orson Welles documentary, and Wild Tales, as well as the aforementioned Mommy.

 

[LMP]

That sounds surprisingly simple and effective.

Fantastic Fest here in Austin does a fan badge that guarantees you spots to 5 screenings a day for a week at a single venue. The catch is that you have to rank each movie in each screening block, and from there screens are calibrated to match demand as much as possible (ex: 300 people mark Movie A as their top choice, another screen is locked to that showing).

It's a strange roulette system of genre flicks with a good amount of rep showings. Mark Hartley's Cannon doc was followed by 35mm shows of Death Wish 3 and Ninja III: The Domination. The year prior showed the new print of The Devils (which I'm pissed to have missed). It's a bonkers festival where the venue, returning crew, events, and films merge into a massive week-long block party. Definitely worth a trip out, too.

 

[LemonMelon]

Alright, so I just watched The Babadook.

My first impression is that I loved the film as an experience but found it somewhat lazy in a few areas.

Spoiler

The good:

I haven't been so frightened by a horror film in many years. This is a terrifying, exhausting film that hardly ever loosens its grip on the viewer. The Conjuring and Insidious are often held up as great examples of modern mainstream horror, and don't get me wrong, they look great, but they really bore the shit out of me. I don't care about the characters or plots of those films and just want to get to the next scare. But there rarely is one. Great horror is built from the characters, antagonist and setting on out. The Babadook scales things back and builds up your investment, raising the stakes for the viewer. This film has a wonderful, allegorical narrative that entranced me from beginning to end.

Which isn't to say there weren't problematic areas in the screenplay. I'll get to those in a second.

The editor of this film gets a gold star from me. Holy shit, this is such a drab looking film with few memorable set pieces but it was psychologically arresting regardless thanks to the assortment of terrifying sounds and images that were lovingly meted out instead of being haphazardly chucked at the audience. The television scenes were very surreal, as was the depiction of the passage of time. By the end, I had no idea what day or hour it was. Lots of small details engross you in this film.

Really strong acting throughout, also. Some OTT reactions in spots, but perhaps excused by the exhaustion the characters experience (and bipolar disorder for the lead?)

The bad:

Despite some wonderful visual and aural details, there are fundamental problems here that I can't overlook. I left the film with a LOT of questions, which are begged by such lofty narrative ambitions.

There is a very...nebulous understanding of what the Babadook is. This is because he doesn't exist, sure enough, but he still impacts the plot. I don't know why he's powerful, what the limits to his powers are, what his weaknesses are, what his motivations are, etc. Hell, if it represents grief, why is it showing up now? Essentially, he's an enigmatic figure meant to personify grief. But if you're going to personify something, you have to find a way to relate it to others. It can't just be a strange, incomprehensible being if the protagonist is going to confront it and (somehow) defeat it. Allegory only goes so far. I found those confrontations near the end very choppy.

And sure, no genre cannibalizes itself more than horror, but this is an extremely derivative film. The antagonist is fresh, but there's no excuse for the third act being beat for beat the same as The Shining. I also found some similarities to Repulsion (the mother's insular paranoia) and Requiem for a Dream (the television scenes as background to insanity).

Also, I'm so tired of horror films with blue/grey color palettes. This is an ugly fucking movie. Thankfully, the art style for the villain himself is very attractive and, as previously mentioned, the editing is wonderful.

It's not perfect, but it broke through my cynicism towards mainstream horror. This film actually scared me. Bravo on that count. A bit more polish to the screenplay could have made this a modern classic. 8/10

 

[lazarus]

Almost checked it out yesterday myself but I read one negative thing too many.

I don't really give much of a fuck about horror films in general, so it really takes something special to get me to go out and see one, as well as to actually appreciate one. I consider myself a big Carpenter and Argento fan, and I love the Phantasm series, but that's roughly about as far as my interest lies.

One of the few recent ones I saw was The Conjuring and while fairly effective, it was far from essential viewing and still left me somewhat MEH. And something like The Strange Color... discussed above was creative and crazy enough to capture my attention as well.

 

[bono_212]

So, I took a night to think The Babadook over, after reading a few articles before bed and whatnot. I woke up this morning and decided I really liked it a lot. Maybe the story had been told before, and maybe some of the aesthetic choices/plot devices have been done before, but it felt more like a nice send-up to the genre, and not a rip-off.

The acting and visuals were worth it, in general, for me. Bonus was the fact that it was one of the scariest movies I've seen in quite some time, really just leaving me unnerved for the majority of the film and long after it was over.

I don't think it needs to be repeated that horror is my favorite genre, so I try not to throw praise arbitrarily to a film, because I know it's easy to see that and think that something must just be OK, if a fan loves it. As a movie, I would say it's worth the viewing. As a horror film, it's essential. But, if you're adamant that there is nothing more the genre can offer you, you're probably not going to get much out of it.

Pitchfork-worthy 7.75/10

 

[Lancemc]

Horror and classic Hollywood (primarily comedy) have taken up pretty much my entire focus for the last year and a half or so, and are currently my main cinema obsessions.

 

[bono_212]

Not to get up on my cross, or anything, but it sometimes feels really hard to be a horror fan and still want to have a serious conversation about cinema. It's my favorite genre because I think, besides perhaps Fantasy, it requires the most imagination. I love a well-crafted story and sometimes, when you look at Horror, it's just like, 'wow, what were they on when they came up with that?'.

The problem is, there's so much trash to wade through, that I don't know how worth it it is to some to get to the treasures. So, I get it, the genre is really repetitive, and everyone borrows from each other, but I think when you get an idea like Nightmare on Elm Street, and you look past the gore and the (occasionally) poor acting, the story itself and the mythos are some of the most rich I've ever dealt with in any movie. Unfortunately, then you get into the sequel territory and its just a disaster area.

So, when you take the horror of daily life and you craft a dark story around it, like, The Orphanage, which The Babadook reminded me quite a bit of, those movies stick with me far longer than a drama that tells the same story. Because the way its told is just so damn vivid. Not to say that the drama isn't powerful, nor that every horror-allegory does a good job. This is perfect storm material we're talking about here.

 

[LMP]

Horror and classic Hollywood (primarily comedy) have taken up pretty much my entire focus for the last year and a half or so, and are currently my main cinema obsessions.

Horror and exploitation for me, and a little dose of European sex/horror movies. Are you into Jess Franco or Jean Rollin at all?

 

[Lancemc]

I know their names but not their films sadly.

 

[LemonMelon]

Almost checked it out yesterday myself but I read one negative thing too many.

Just one man's opinion, but Friedkin put it on the same level as Psycho, Alien and Diabolique and called it the scariest movie he's ever seen.

That, I will say is hyperbolic.

 

[bono_212]

He probably just loved it because it paid homage to one of his more recent films

 

[LMP]

I know their names but not their films sadly.

Franco's Venus in Furs is a jazzy reworking of Vertigo with Klaus Kinski as a suave playboy vampire. One of the best.

Fulci, Franco, Rollin, Alfred Vohrer... that whole class of Italian/French/German directors in the '60s and '70s is a rabbit hole I've been hovering for a bit. The book Immoral Tales is an amazing entry point for Euro horror/sex films of the period. I think you and Laz (and your Mom) would be into it.

 

[Lancemc]

Very interesting suggestion, thanks.

 

[LemonMelon]

Under the Skin

I had been looking forward to seeing this one for a while. Any film this divisive has some inherent value to me as a curious viewer, but I suppose I empathize more with the naysayers on this one. Visually arresting in spots but not vivid enough even on that level to grab my attention, I suppose my favorite part of this was the soundtrack. Really disturbing shit that gave another layer to the "sex" scenes. Can't wait to hear it on its own.

I can sense some extremely relatable themes like loneliness, fear and intimacy hidden away in the narrative, but Glazer doesn't give me anywhere near enough to get into the characters here, nor the protagonist's subtle transformation from icy alien temptress to slightly more vulnerable icy alien temptress. The men are largely props (neurofibromatosis guy excepted), ScarJo is a nefarious blowup doll.

My biggest issue with the film is its repetition. She goes from one guy to the next with a similar routine and that routine only begins to subtly change nearly an hour into the film. It's tedious to watch and underlines the minimal effort that was put into fleshing any of the characters out. It begins to feel like a twisted, high budget porno after a while.

To be honest, I can't even say I found this film especially appealing on a visual level. Though the textures, score and overall atmosphere were extremely effective, I couldn't point out any specific shots that wowed me or moments of thrilling editing. Some shots went on far too long, in fact. But it was OK. We spent a lot of time at the Inky Lake of Destruction and that was interesting, but mostly all I got was a lot of dreary shit. The poster promised vivid accents of color, but it was mostly quite drab despite the river of phosphorescent cranberry blood.

There is a certain audience that will champion Under the Skin but I'm not part of it. I'm somewhat curious to read the novel that inspired the film because it doesn't employ this degree of minimalism. There's austere and then there's malnourished. 5/10

 

[LMP]

ScarJo touching the power cosmic twice with Lucy & Under the Skin is endlessly delightful to me.

She's gotta be in the running for 2014 MVPs.

 

[LemonMelon]

Her performance was fine. She did the best she could without much to work with. She's excellent in more minimalist settings.

Lucy looks absolutely isnane. I have no idea what to expect.

 

[LMP]

Lucy is a total blast. I plan on watching Under the Skin soon and presumably disagreeing with you. It's tops on my 2014 catch-up list.

 

[LemonMelon]

So our disagreeing is a given now?

There's something to love in Under the Skin for fans of Lynch and Kubrick (plus the intro's stark black and white w/ closeup motif brought Persona to mind). Thing is, those auteurs are more mindful of bringing their themes to the surface than Glazer is here without being blatantly populist.

 

[LMP]

So our disagreeing is a given now?

There's something to love in Under the Skin for fans of Lynch and Kubrick (plus the intro's stark black and white w/ closeup motif brought Persona to mind). Thing is, those auteurs are more mindful of bringing their themes to the surface than Glazer is here without being blatantly populist.

Our music tastes line up, film do not. Easiest way to put it is I don't dig in as much on theme as I do the sensory experience. Let's table this until I watch the damn thing.

 

[LemonMelon]

Fair enough.

Gone Girl was entertaining. Not great, probably the worst material Fincher has had at his disposal since The Game, but entertaining enough. The dialogue reminded me of a lot of the peer work I read in my graduate English courses, but I remained intrigued for 160 minutes.

The ending sucked hard though. If you're going to shovel us some unbelievable bullshit, at least deliver the expository monologue properly. Awful work from Affleck there, it sounds like something he mumbled in one take during the last day of filming.

I don't know what to give it...maybe a 7/10? It was competent. Pretty fun. Not a great deal of depth to the material, but reliably stylish. 10 times out of 10 I would rather watch Zodiac or Benjamin Button.

 

[lazarus]

Panic Room is the worst material Fincher has worked with, not The Game. Both are based around a plot gimmick, but The Game has considerably more thematic depth by comparison. Panic Room was obviously just an exercise to see how dynamic a camera can be in a limited space.

 

[LemonMelon]

Oh yeah, Panic Room is worse actually. I got the release dates mixed up on those and thought The Game was the more recent of the two.

I would say both are at the bottom of my Fincher rankings (haven't seen Alien 3 or Dragon Tattoo, granted), but The Game was extremely entertaining and had some emotion behind it.

 

[lazarus]

The Game certainly isn't as technically refined as later work, but it has a great cast and a clever script. I'd put it above Alien 3 and Panic Room, and maybe Dragon Tattoo, but I have a little more respect for the latter after listening to Fincher's commentary.

 

[Lancemc]

Loooooooove me some Dragon Tattoo

 

[bono_212]

I wrote a long post, but the Internet at work went out and ate it in the process, so I'll just say that I really like The Game, even if it twists a bit more than it should.

Gone Girl certainly felt like anyone could've directed it. There was really only one shot in the movie where I thought to myself, there! That's a great shot.

 

[LMP]

Dragon Tattoo is such a hyper-procedural that it breaks a boring-ass lurid story down into its essential elements. Had he transported the location to the States like The Departed, he'd have gotten less shit.

You know what else is pretty dope? The new Godzilla. One of the most elegantly-constructed, staged, and paced blockbusters in recent memory. When folks complain about character depth and story familiarity in a movie of that scale, what tree are they barking up? Give the movie credit for what it does well within its limitations.

That being said, if Aaron Paul plays Cranston's son you have a much better movie on your hands. Or Elizabeth Olsen is the lead instead of Kick-Ass.

 

[Lancemc]

Good man. The new Godzilla is one of my favorite films of the year bar none. It masters the game of scale better than any film I can think of this decade.

 

[LMP]

Scale, for sure, and Edwards finds inventive ways to keep his camera fluid and change POVs during each setpiece.

Ken Watanabe as Francois Truffaut in Close Encounters is a nice touch, too.

 

[Lancemc]

Aside from the lead actor my only other minor quibble with an otherwise perfectly deft film is a somewhat wasted Sally Hawkins. Her character is a joke, but I also wouldn't even care if they'd just cast a nobody in her place.

 

[LMP]

Aside from the lead actor my only other minor quibble with an otherwise perfectly deft film is a somewhat wasted Sally Hawkins. Her character is a joke, but I also wouldn't even care if they'd just cast a nobody in her place.

Same could be said for Binoche.