Movie Reviews part 13: How many movies will Jessica Chastain star in?

The friendliest place on the web for anyone that follows U2.
If you have answers, please help by responding to the unanswered posts.
Argo is a solid, well made film and highly enjoyable to boot. But the plethora of awards bestowed upon it baffles me. I suppose it's due to the fact that it's a film where Hollywood saves the day. To me it's just indicative of how 2012 wasn't a vintage year for them.

Judging by your preconceptions, neither of you will be disappointed if you enjoy it for what it is. Not essential though.

Having seen six of the nominees so far, I'll be rooting for Django when Best Picture comes around on Feb 24. Amour's not out here yet.
 
Argo and SLP are actually kind of an interesting comparison. In a way, Argo is the opposite of SLP in that the director Affleck wrings some nice tension out of the doomed embassy setpiece at the start and in the basic hiding setup, but the characters themselves (including actor-Affleck) are forgettable. But like SLP, there's not enough raw meat in Argo's script so they have to pad out the length some. There are two egregious examples; [GENERAL VAGUE SPOILERS FOLLOW] one of which is where a hostage strenuously objects to the plausibility of the movie plot, something the movie has already taken pains to establish is besides the point since time is running out. That's hanging the character out to dry, since no one in the audience will relate to his concern. We already watched that argument just to get the scheme approved in D.C. And there's an example of inventing tension near the end where the whole escape might fall apart because someone basically can't cross a sidewalk out of politeness. It's insulting.

Playbook starts at a higher level and then trails off, while Argo's at a more level quality throughout. Both are competent and entertaining, but you can see where they settled.
 
Argo and SLP are actually kind of an interesting comparison. In a way, Argo is the opposite of SLP in that the director Affleck wrings some nice tension out of the doomed embassy setpiece at the start and in the basic hiding setup, but the characters themselves (including actor-Affleck) are forgettable. But like SLP, there's not enough raw meat in Argo's script so they have to pad out the length some. There are two egregious examples; [GENERAL VAGUE SPOILERS FOLLOW] one of which is where a hostage strenuously objects to the plausibility of the movie plot, something the movie has already taken pains to establish is besides the point since time is running out. That's hanging the character out to dry, since no one in the audience will relate to his concern. We already watched that argument just to get the scheme approved in D.C. And there's an example of inventing tension near the end where the whole escape might fall apart because someone basically can't cross a sidewalk out of politeness. It's insulting.

Playbook starts at a higher level and then trails off, while Argo's at a more level quality throughout. Both are competent and entertaining, but you can see where they settled.

Were you ok with the blocking?
 
Wreck it Ralph:
Started out great, but once it got all Candyland it felt at times like I was watching a shitty Dreamworks movie against my will. The entire film is already based around a fresh and ripe videogame theme, so I have no idea why they mixed it up and crammed in all the jokes about sweets - it felt like it was trying to be two movies. Surely there are enough recognisable gags to be made from kart games. I can forgive all this for the inclusion of Root Beer Tapper, though. 7.737/10

The Hobbit:
Super long and I didn't really want to watch it in the slightest but the visuals were nice, at least. Unfortunately, the cinema was only showing it in 2D, so it was all a bit more cheap motion-cam than I was expecting.

Also, I know the book was written back in a time when people didn't know that they could eat eggs, but it looks a bit dodgy to have a single female character who appears in one scene for a three hour film. There are more trolls and giant birds than there are dames. I'm not going to start a Kickstarter project to get Peter Jackson to open a women's hospital or anything, or even continue caring about it after making this post, but I think it does highlight a problem with film adaptations of so-called classics in 2012ish.

I liked the bit with the big rock mountain giants.

Django Unchained:
Remarkably, it rarely feels like its length. Entertaining throughout, even if Christoph Waltz steals the show a little too much. Django himself could have stood out more as a character, too. There are some big problems with the film, but they have already been written in a thousand opinion pieces, so I'll spare the dead horse. Still not close to Tarantino's best, but great fun nonetheless.

United 93:

A generic flight disaster movie with a completely unbelievable plot and unrealistic characters. Typical Holly Wood nonsense!!

Mr Moto Takes A Chance:
Makes The Godfather look like Norbit. A bold and essential film.
 
The Hobbit

I went into the movie thinking, ok I better not expect it to be as good as the LotR trilogy (which I adore). Problem is though is that the movie just wasn't good, period. Initially, it felt genuinely thrilling to be back in Middle Earth, and I really enjoyed the prologue, but then the trouble started right after that with a totally unnecessary Frodo cameo and a discussion of the birthday party that's meant to be a tie to the original thrilogy but just feels like flab. The tone of the film was also wildly inconsistent - it's like they wanted to keep the book's lighter, more childish feel and also have the darker, epic feel of LoTR films and these two didn't gel well at all.

Martin Freeman was basically Martin Freeman, but I still liked his Bilbo a lot. It was good to see Ian McKellen as Gandalf again, though his supposedly younger Gandalf came off as far more tired and didn't quite have the same spark. Of the dwarf characters, Richard Armitage's Thorin was the only one with a real impact, even if I thought that they tried a bit too hard to make him into Aragorn MkII. At least with Aragorn, we got to see him work through his issues and become a real leader, whereas here I'm basically supposed to find Thorin awesome because the other characters and a flashback say so. Plus the whole revenge subplot with Azog was a bore. Riddles in the Dark sequence with Gollum was brilliant and really lifted the film for a while. Other than the mountain giants (which were very cool), the rest of the creatures were kinda meh and it was rather disappointing to see so many CGI goblins, orcs etc.

I'll still watch the second film, mostly because I'm a sucker for dragons, especially when they're voiced by Benedict Cumberbatch.
 
If they were set on using Frodo and bridging this with the LOTR trilogy, you think it would make more sense to have it at the end of this new series. But instead, you can smell the desperation of Jackson and Co. trying to get people on board by bringing in Elijah Wood right off the bat.

Really lame.
 
I saw Arbitrage this weekend and thought it was pretty freaking great.

I also watched Ted, which was pretty dumb but had two or three jokes that made me laugh really hard.
 
Yes, Arbitrage was very good.


Ted, mixed for me, but a huge box office so expect a lot more just like it

probably a Ted 2, cash grab is already in the can.
 
Just saw Amour. Brutal. Absolute junkpunch of a film. I spent the last 20 minutes in the fetal position.

Everyone knocks Heneke for being a manipulator, but I was awed by his mastery and control (related I suppose). Confining the film into one setting made it feel both claustrophobic but also intimate. The depiction of space was incredible; I could probably draw a blueprint of that flat from memory. Beautiful cinematography too. I can't say enough about the lead performances.
 
I watched Looper and Argo tonight. Looper was more fun and inventive, despite some egregious slow-mo and moronic "villains" who had no impact on the story whatsoever. Laughable that this was overlooked for best original screenplay. And best makeup. The Academy really blew that one.

Argo was just a waste. Competently shot, but the plot and cast were so fantastic that anything less than a 9/10 would have disappointed me. And it did. That was the moviest movie to ever movie. Stiff action movie dialogue, slow movie chase movie scenes, telephones and frowns. Affleck made sure that he was the coolest guy in town. I felt there was an American flag flying in the background for most of the ending (in one scene, there absolutely was). On the plus side, Cranston gave us some excellent Heisenberg action. An extra half a point for that.

7 for Looper, 6 for Argo.

I'm about to watch Beasts of the Southern Wild, which I fully expect to be terrible. There's a 5 year old black girl in it that uses a baby duck as a cell phone. It was written by a guy from Brooklyn. It will be embarrassing. The question is whether other positive qualities will outweigh the embarrassment.
 
I wish that had been the tagline. It popped up more often in the script than "a" and "the."

Beasts of the Southern Wild was fun in a dark, depressing way. Basically 90 minutes of liberal propaganda, but that's OK because I'm a liberal too. I felt like a real asshole for being white as I watched it, which means the film succeeded. I thought the little girl had some memorable lines and her father was amusingly hardheaded. Decent acting across the board. I liked the surreal dancing/alligator-cooking scene at the nearby Hooters. All in all a fun time, just don't expect to learn anything more about life in the bayou than you would from a Popeye's menu. 7/10
 
I wish that had been the tagline. It popped up more often in the script than "a" and "the."

Beasts of the Southern Wild was fun in a dark, depressing way. Basically 90 minutes of liberal propaganda, but that's OK because I'm a liberal too. I felt like a real asshole for being white as I watched it, which means the film succeeded. I thought the little girl had some memorable lines and her father was amusingly hardheaded. Decent acting across the board. I liked the surreal dancing/alligator-cooking scene at the nearby Hooters. All in all a fun time, just don't expect to learn anything more about life in the bayou than you would from a Popeye's menu. 7/10

Actually, as a white liberalish person, I felt I needed someone to tell me how to feel about Beasts of the Southern Wild. I felt like the movie skirted a very fine line and at some points it may have went over the line to portraying the characters as 'noble savages' or worse, the dreaded 'magical negro.' I give the movie credit for giving the characters enough complexity that they didn't totally devolve into caricature, but alot of that has to do with the lead performances, which I thought were great. I enjoyed it overall, but it was a bit problematic.
 
The film dehumanized poor cajun folks (not merely blacks) while at the same time placing them on a higher spiritual plane than that of the middle/upper class. It was nearly impossible to root for the white volunteers despite your better judgment, which is a sign of successful director manipulation. Whether or not he used this power wisely, however, is debatable. It was certainly a flawed film, though the dialogue and performances were intoxicating and the film itself looked great. I have mixed feelings about it, but I think I liked it.

When on a bit of a pre-Oscar movie bender tonight, watching Lincoln (8.5/10), Amour (8.5/10) and The Master (8/10). All fantastic movies, for completely different reasons. I realize that conservative films like Lincoln can be inadvertently polarizing, but that movie was so well crafted, I have no desire to defend my love for it. It's Great. Boring as a dog's ass, maybe, but Great. Amour was the same way. Not for everyone, but the performances breathed life into a screenplay rich with symbolism and nuance. Lovely.

The Master got boned by the Academy, straight up. Compared to distinctly average films like Argo and Silver Linings Playbook, The Master was edgy, ugly, and unique. It's far from Anderson's finest work (he's arguably my favorite director of the last 20 years, so it has a rich body of work to compete with), but it was a tense, uncomfortable buddy picture that completely redefines the way one imagines buddy pictures. The platonic love the two male leads have for one another is disarming and truly unexpected, but it becomes the lifeblood of the film. If anyone asks you what it's about, tell them it's a love story. Phoenix plays a quirky, pathetic loser in an engaging way, which isn't that hard to do, but Hoffman is truly special here. There is so much angst and measured resentment in his performance that the bile seemed to drip from his pores. If I have any real issue with the film, it's the rather draining midsection that focuses on Freddie Quell's treatment. It didn't engage me the way the rest of the film did. Otherwise, very good work. Again, it's better than at least two of the Best Picture nominees and probably a couple more.
 
If people didn't like the film (and it isn't easy to like), I understand ignoring it for its script, or even its direction (though the compositions are as brilliant as anything else PTA's done). But the cinematography was for me, by far the best of this year. There is a black mark of shame on the guild and the cinematographers in the Academy who failed to get it even a nomination.

Then there's the production design, which was almost as impressive.
 
The film dehumanized poor cajun folks (not merely blacks) while at the same time placing them on a higher spiritual plane than that of the middle/upper class. It was nearly impossible to root for the white volunteers despite your better judgment, which is a sign of successful director manipulation. Whether or not he used this power wisely, however, is debatable. It was certainly a flawed film, though the dialogue and performances were intoxicating and the film itself looked great. I have mixed feelings about it, but I think I liked it.

No argument here. I do believe I liked it, mainly for the performances and the visually stunning way it immerses the viewer into a world of magical realism. Great score as well.

Did not care for Lincoln at all; it was basically a C-SPAN cosplay. Great performance by DDL, he'll be polishing that bald head tonite.

But the cinematography was for me, by far the best of this year. There is a black mark of shame on the guild and the cinematographers in the Academy who failed to get it even a nomination.

OTMFM

It's easy to dismiss people who didn't love The Master as 'not getting it,' but it just didn't connect or resonate for me. I'll concede my own expectations probably played a part, as I was expecting something on the magnitude of There will be Blood. There is still a lot I'd commend about it. Also feel Jonny Greenwood got shafted, but I'm definitely biased there.
 
Half-assed my way to a finish of watching all the Best Picture nominees before tonight's broadcast, with back-to-back viewings of Django Unchained and Lincoln last night. Rankings!

Django Unchained
Silver Linings Playbook
Zero Dark Thirty
Lincoln
Argo

From front to back, I thoroughly enjoyed Django, and even its 2:30+ running time. Modern summer blockbusters use that length as an excuse for bloated story, but the way Django's structured there's a complete arc in the first 2 hours, and the last half hour is him really coming unto his own. Were the movie to finish at the point where people seem to think, his character would be just an adjunct of Waltz instead of being at least the co-lead. If the movie were to be shorter, it'd be cutting either the earlier bounty hunting scenes, or trimming down the tremendous dinner sequence, none of which felt redundant at all.

Anyway, the criticism that Tarantino was repeating himself with Django bugs me, particularly as long as Spielberg can paint giant glowing sunbeams and a sappy John Williams score on most movies and people nod their head about seriousness and quality craftsmanship. Lincoln's not a bad movie, but it felt designed to be shown during 11th grade US History classes.
 
I don't feel DDL deserves best actor. Lincoln was fine, but DDL did nothing groundbreaking. He acted, as he does and as he is meant to do.

Bradley Cooper, however, was a complete transformation and the most impressing lead role I have seen this year, save for...

Why the fuck is Phillip Seymore Hoffman nominated for best SUPPORTING actor?
 
I agree that DDL didn't exactly surprise like Cooper.

But for me Joaquin Phoenix is head and shoulders above both this year.

Hoffman is co-lead, I agree. As is Waltz. A shame, as DiCaprio and Jackson should both have made the Supporting category.
 
Did not care for Lincoln at all; it was basically a C-SPAN cosplay.

With, to me, a crackling script :shrug: I couldn't think of anything about the film that wasn't high quality, though the combination thereof didn't make for a groundbreaking work.

Cooper would get a Most Improved Actor award if it existed. Phoenix and DDL are both more deserving.
 
Back
Top Bottom