The Official Review Thread of 2014
-
The Original BJ
- Emeritus
- Posts: 4312
- Joined: Mon Apr 28, 2003 8:49 pm
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2014
Count me as one of those who finds it hard to see Robert Duvall NOT nominated for this -- by supporting standards, the part is big. He gets to be grumpy and diseased, and then his character finally bonds with his estranged son. In a year without many options, this would still be a lazy nominee, but it's a lazy nominee that nonetheless has a lot more meat to it than I expected. I'd much rather see a more exciting option on the ballot (count me as one of those hopeless Riz Ahmed supporters), but voters prone to default to a vet anyway (and in Supporting Actor that seems to happen more than in the other acting categories) will likely find that Duvall has plenty to do in the movie and give him the nod. Even if the work is in service of something so dumb.
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2014
Exodus: Gods and Kings
Kinda funny if you look at it as comedy, and if we're being honest, you can't look at it as anything serious. Ridley Scott really ought to have enough self-awareness to know that he can't do spiritual, but he seems to be less aware of his limitations as he ages. Which probably explains the bizarre decision to cast a 12 year-old boy as God here. He tends to work best when he's got a lot going on to keep him occupied--either a full-bodied, well-constructed plot (Thelma and Louise and, I'd argue, although few would agree, Hannibal) or not much plot and plenty of action (Black Hawk Down--his best film, in my opinion). The first hour or so is pretty tough going. The plot is the standard Moses narrative with a few alterations because Scott clearly wants to do a tougher and more realistic Biblical epic. Second hour, when Moses returns to Egypt is at least more intriguing, but much more absurd as well. When he comes back to Egypt there's a shot of Israelite bodies being burned as he comes back into town, followed by a sequence of Moses training the Israelites in 1300 BC guerrilla warfare. Apparently they just stepped away from their jobs building the pyramids for a few days to train. If you felt like Ridley Scott had a subtextual bone in his body anymore (and he did, once), you would think he was trying to evoke the Holocaust and the ghetto uprisings with this sequence, but it just registers as another excuse for some action sequences. Even his action scenes don't register the way they probably would have in an earlier Scott film--the crocodile freak-out that turns the Nile to blood is, like too many of the other plagues, kind of ridiculous (I think the death of the firstborns is very well done though); the Red Sea sequence is a (no pun intended) wash. The effects may be cheesy and outdated, but the Red Sea sequence in the DeMille film is one that most people still remember. It's kind of underwhelming here, maybe because it comes right after Scott stages another big action set-piece--a massive thirty-chariot pileup off the side of some mountain (it's a very narrow one-chariot road, and once one goes, the ones behind it go). The 3D here was not much more than a gimmick, and it made too much of the movie so visually dark it was hard to make things out on the screen at times.
Kinda funny if you look at it as comedy, and if we're being honest, you can't look at it as anything serious. Ridley Scott really ought to have enough self-awareness to know that he can't do spiritual, but he seems to be less aware of his limitations as he ages. Which probably explains the bizarre decision to cast a 12 year-old boy as God here. He tends to work best when he's got a lot going on to keep him occupied--either a full-bodied, well-constructed plot (Thelma and Louise and, I'd argue, although few would agree, Hannibal) or not much plot and plenty of action (Black Hawk Down--his best film, in my opinion). The first hour or so is pretty tough going. The plot is the standard Moses narrative with a few alterations because Scott clearly wants to do a tougher and more realistic Biblical epic. Second hour, when Moses returns to Egypt is at least more intriguing, but much more absurd as well. When he comes back to Egypt there's a shot of Israelite bodies being burned as he comes back into town, followed by a sequence of Moses training the Israelites in 1300 BC guerrilla warfare. Apparently they just stepped away from their jobs building the pyramids for a few days to train. If you felt like Ridley Scott had a subtextual bone in his body anymore (and he did, once), you would think he was trying to evoke the Holocaust and the ghetto uprisings with this sequence, but it just registers as another excuse for some action sequences. Even his action scenes don't register the way they probably would have in an earlier Scott film--the crocodile freak-out that turns the Nile to blood is, like too many of the other plagues, kind of ridiculous (I think the death of the firstborns is very well done though); the Red Sea sequence is a (no pun intended) wash. The effects may be cheesy and outdated, but the Red Sea sequence in the DeMille film is one that most people still remember. It's kind of underwhelming here, maybe because it comes right after Scott stages another big action set-piece--a massive thirty-chariot pileup off the side of some mountain (it's a very narrow one-chariot road, and once one goes, the ones behind it go). The 3D here was not much more than a gimmick, and it made too much of the movie so visually dark it was hard to make things out on the screen at times.
-
Mister Tee
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8648
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2014
A few thought on the fantasy arena:
I suppose How to Train Your Dragon 2 is pleasant enough, but its very existence strikes me as part of the rot in contemporary cinema. It's not like a second movie was necessary; the first was a respectable beginning-to-end tale. The idea that any movie that's a success has to be re-revved up/hopefully replicated until audiences turn on it (along the way diminishing their affection for the original) is part of why mainstream movies feel so decadent. And, note: the fact this is based on a second book is no defense. That simply means the publishing business suffers from the very same decadence.
There's not much to say about Maleficent, but two questions (probably giving the film more thought than it deserves):
The first, coming from someone who knew the Disney original backwards and forwards: the whole point of the third fairy not being able to get her gift out before Maleficent arrived was that she could offer some corrective to the curse. I get why, in this version, Maleficent gives the corrective herself -- she wants to express her cynical view that true love doesn't exist -- but in that case why have the fairy be cut off? Her not resuming feels like an egregiously dangling plot point.
Second: if Maleficent is such a sweet little fairy when the story begins...why the fuck is her name the Latin for evil-doer? They could have started her with a different name, or, I don't know, explained that Maleficent means something totally different in fairy language. To have just left it without comment seems contemptuous of viewers, and less than I'd have expected from the writer of Beauty and the Beast.
I suppose How to Train Your Dragon 2 is pleasant enough, but its very existence strikes me as part of the rot in contemporary cinema. It's not like a second movie was necessary; the first was a respectable beginning-to-end tale. The idea that any movie that's a success has to be re-revved up/hopefully replicated until audiences turn on it (along the way diminishing their affection for the original) is part of why mainstream movies feel so decadent. And, note: the fact this is based on a second book is no defense. That simply means the publishing business suffers from the very same decadence.
There's not much to say about Maleficent, but two questions (probably giving the film more thought than it deserves):
The first, coming from someone who knew the Disney original backwards and forwards: the whole point of the third fairy not being able to get her gift out before Maleficent arrived was that she could offer some corrective to the curse. I get why, in this version, Maleficent gives the corrective herself -- she wants to express her cynical view that true love doesn't exist -- but in that case why have the fairy be cut off? Her not resuming feels like an egregiously dangling plot point.
Second: if Maleficent is such a sweet little fairy when the story begins...why the fuck is her name the Latin for evil-doer? They could have started her with a different name, or, I don't know, explained that Maleficent means something totally different in fairy language. To have just left it without comment seems contemptuous of viewers, and less than I'd have expected from the writer of Beauty and the Beast.
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2014
Heh.ITALIANO wrote:It took me three nights to see The Judge. I gave up twice - but the last time I won, and I finished watching it. I had to - at this point it's very possible that it will be Oscar-nominated, and in an important category. (I will be VERY angry if it isn't - such a huge sacrifice for nothing?!). I've tried to think of a worse movie nominated in an acting category in the whole Academy Awards history - and before you say it, no, Jacqueline Susann's Once is not Enough was better, or at less was more entertaining, less boring. The only title I've found is North County, a now-forgotten Charlize Theron vehicle. There are problably a few others, but really, The Judge, if not the worst, it's one of the worst. Ir's a (weak) courtroom-drama, but it's actually the epitome of mawkish - a movie of such embarassing, predictable and banal sentimentalism (the last scenes especially must be seen to be believed) that at one point I realized that I was thinnking: couldn't all this money (it's not a cheaply-made film) have been spent, I don't know, for some honorable cause, like charity, or simply for a few GOOD low-budget movies? An absurd thought, I know - but then the movie isn't less absurd. (Movies like this are also one of the reasons why I and others are very careful today when it comes to American cinema).
The only good thing that I can say about Robert Duvall's performance is that other stars of his generation would have been almost grotesquely over-the-top in such a role. Not Duvall - he can be charismatic without resorting to artificial histrionics. He's not bad even in a thing like this - but nobody should be nominated for a thing like this.
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2014
I'm struggling to figure out the coherence of The Lego Movie's message. Emmett comes up with stupid ideas to defeat the conformist villain, stupid ideas that everybody thinks are stupid until the end up working, and the reason Emmett comes up with them is because he's a conformist dolt who's mind is clearer than those who have educated themselves in the way of revolutionary, so when he tells the conformist city that the only way to defeat the conformist villain is to all together create original ideas that can defeat them...y'know, never mind. I can't call The Lego Movie a satire because it's not a critique. Smartly, the tone of the film feels like a freewheeling riff with intentionally pre-adolescent commentary from the characters as they in some cases literally create the ride that we're participating in. It's both funny and it makes you feel like an idiot for trying to pick apart the most hyperactive lark you've ever seen.
The Lego Movie is not a great movie. It's also one of the more brazen ripoffs of Toy Story I've seen in my life. But it succeeds at maintaining a lunatic balance of silly and absurd for 100 minutes. It's possesses both inspired jokes like Vitruvius making a bunch of carrier pigeons that will fly to the nearest internet café and email for help (and then they fall out the window) as well as Benny the Spaceman finally at long last getting to make a spaceship, crying out "Spaceship!" every time the spaceship blasts through something. My girlfriend's two reactions sum up my two thoughts: 1) "Who is this movie for?", and 2) "Oh my God, the attention span of the children watching this!" Both said through our smiles.
It wouldn't be a bad choice for Best Animated Feature but I'm Team Big Hero 6.
The Lego Movie is not a great movie. It's also one of the more brazen ripoffs of Toy Story I've seen in my life. But it succeeds at maintaining a lunatic balance of silly and absurd for 100 minutes. It's possesses both inspired jokes like Vitruvius making a bunch of carrier pigeons that will fly to the nearest internet café and email for help (and then they fall out the window) as well as Benny the Spaceman finally at long last getting to make a spaceship, crying out "Spaceship!" every time the spaceship blasts through something. My girlfriend's two reactions sum up my two thoughts: 1) "Who is this movie for?", and 2) "Oh my God, the attention span of the children watching this!" Both said through our smiles.
It wouldn't be a bad choice for Best Animated Feature but I'm Team Big Hero 6.
"How's the despair?"
-
anonymous1980
- Laureate
- Posts: 6385
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
- Location: Manila
- Contact:
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2014
THE HOBBIT: THE BATTLE OF THE FIVE ARMIES
Cast: Martin Freeman, Ian McKellan, Richard Armitage, Orlando Bloom, Evangeline Lilly, Aidan Turner, Luke Evans, Lee Pace, Stephen Fry, Ken Stott, Benedict Cumberbatch, Cate Blanchett, Manu Bennett, Hugo Weaving, Christopher Lee, Billy Connolly, Ian Holm, Ryan Gage, John Bell.
Dir: Peter Jackson.
I saw this on 3D HFR. It looked very nice albeit a bit dark. That aside, this concluding chapter of an overlong, bloated stretched out adaptation of The Hobbit is pretty much all climax. Practically 2/3rds of the 2.5 hour (relatively short in Lord of the Rings movies running time) is pretty much non-stop battles and action sequences. It's director Peter Jackson showing off. You can practically hear him saying: LOOK WHAT I CAN DO!!! ISN'T THAT BADASS?!?! LOOK AT THAT!!! THAT'S AWESOME!!! I tried to be the grouchy, high-brow critic but I must admit I often agree with him. It is very entertaining and few people can do great battle scenes like Peter Jackson. However, he has already done this all before. I feel like he's regressing or something. It's not quite George Lucas-bad but I hope he leaves the Tolkien world soon. I count myself as a fan of the original trilogy and though The Hobbit films are nowhere near as great, it is still splendid entertainment. I enjoyed myself immensely despite my misgivings.
Oscar Prospects: Visual Effects, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Production Design and Original Song.
Grade: B.
Cast: Martin Freeman, Ian McKellan, Richard Armitage, Orlando Bloom, Evangeline Lilly, Aidan Turner, Luke Evans, Lee Pace, Stephen Fry, Ken Stott, Benedict Cumberbatch, Cate Blanchett, Manu Bennett, Hugo Weaving, Christopher Lee, Billy Connolly, Ian Holm, Ryan Gage, John Bell.
Dir: Peter Jackson.
I saw this on 3D HFR. It looked very nice albeit a bit dark. That aside, this concluding chapter of an overlong, bloated stretched out adaptation of The Hobbit is pretty much all climax. Practically 2/3rds of the 2.5 hour (relatively short in Lord of the Rings movies running time) is pretty much non-stop battles and action sequences. It's director Peter Jackson showing off. You can practically hear him saying: LOOK WHAT I CAN DO!!! ISN'T THAT BADASS?!?! LOOK AT THAT!!! THAT'S AWESOME!!! I tried to be the grouchy, high-brow critic but I must admit I often agree with him. It is very entertaining and few people can do great battle scenes like Peter Jackson. However, he has already done this all before. I feel like he's regressing or something. It's not quite George Lucas-bad but I hope he leaves the Tolkien world soon. I count myself as a fan of the original trilogy and though The Hobbit films are nowhere near as great, it is still splendid entertainment. I enjoyed myself immensely despite my misgivings.
Oscar Prospects: Visual Effects, Sound Mixing, Sound Editing, Production Design and Original Song.
Grade: B.
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2014
It took me three nights to see The Judge. I gave up twice - but the last time I won, and I finished watching it. I had to - at this point it's very possible that it will be Oscar-nominated, and in an important category. (I will be VERY angry if it isn't - such a huge sacrifice for nothing?!). I've tried to think of a worse movie nominated in an acting category in the whole Academy Awards history - and before you say it, no, Jacqueline Susann's Once is not Enough was better, or at less was more entertaining, less boring. The only title I've found is North County, a now-forgotten Charlize Theron vehicle. There are problably a few others, but really, The Judge, if not the worst, it's one of the worst. Ir's a (weak) courtroom-drama, but it's actually the epitome of mawkish - a movie of such embarassing, predictable and banal sentimentalism (the last scenes especially must be seen to be believed) that at one point I realized that I was thinnking: couldn't all this money (it's not a cheaply-made film) have been spent, I don't know, for some honorable cause, like charity, or simply for a few GOOD low-budget movies? An absurd thought, I know - but then the movie isn't less absurd. (Movies like this are also one of the reasons why I and others are very careful today when it comes to American cinema).
The only good thing that I can say about Robert Duvall's performance is that other stars of his generation would have been almost grotesquely over-the-top in such a role. Not Duvall - he can be charismatic without resorting to artificial histrionics. He's not bad even in a thing like this - but nobody should be nominated for a thing like this.
The only good thing that I can say about Robert Duvall's performance is that other stars of his generation would have been almost grotesquely over-the-top in such a role. Not Duvall - he can be charismatic without resorting to artificial histrionics. He's not bad even in a thing like this - but nobody should be nominated for a thing like this.
-
anonymous1980
- Laureate
- Posts: 6385
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
- Location: Manila
- Contact:
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2014
THE THEORY OF EVERYTHING
Cast: Eddie Redmayne, Felicity Jones, Charlie Cox, David Thewlis, Simon McBurney, Emily Watson, Maxine Peake, Harry Lloyd.
Dir: James Marsh.
I always dread seeing Oscar-bait biopics. They're either gonna be really good or really bad. Thankfully, this one is pretty good thanks largely to the two outstanding central performances of Eddie Redmayne and Felicity Jones. This one is about the marriage between Stephen Hawking and his first wife Jane as well as his struggle with motor neuron disease. Redmayne is absolutely convincing as Hawking, I almost forget I was watching an actor and not the real Stephen Hawking. The film also manages to make a relationship that ended in divorce (spoiler alert) into something actually sweet and special. I've heard complaints about it not being enough about Hawking's scientific achievements, a criticism I kind of don't understand. The film DOES focus on his personal life, his relationship with his wife and how he copes with his disability but I think you really get enough science to know he's a brilliant man and his work is important. It's no masterpiece but it's nowhere near as offensive and mawkish as say A Beautiful Mind.
Oscar Prospects: I wouldn't nominate it for Picture but I don't vote but it will most likely get in. Along with Actor, Actress, Adapted Screenplay and maybe Score.
Grade: B.
Cast: Eddie Redmayne, Felicity Jones, Charlie Cox, David Thewlis, Simon McBurney, Emily Watson, Maxine Peake, Harry Lloyd.
Dir: James Marsh.
I always dread seeing Oscar-bait biopics. They're either gonna be really good or really bad. Thankfully, this one is pretty good thanks largely to the two outstanding central performances of Eddie Redmayne and Felicity Jones. This one is about the marriage between Stephen Hawking and his first wife Jane as well as his struggle with motor neuron disease. Redmayne is absolutely convincing as Hawking, I almost forget I was watching an actor and not the real Stephen Hawking. The film also manages to make a relationship that ended in divorce (spoiler alert) into something actually sweet and special. I've heard complaints about it not being enough about Hawking's scientific achievements, a criticism I kind of don't understand. The film DOES focus on his personal life, his relationship with his wife and how he copes with his disability but I think you really get enough science to know he's a brilliant man and his work is important. It's no masterpiece but it's nowhere near as offensive and mawkish as say A Beautiful Mind.
Oscar Prospects: I wouldn't nominate it for Picture but I don't vote but it will most likely get in. Along with Actor, Actress, Adapted Screenplay and maybe Score.
Grade: B.
-
anonymous1980
- Laureate
- Posts: 6385
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
- Location: Manila
- Contact:
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2014
TWO DAYS, ONE NIGHT
Cast: Marion Cotillard, Fabrizio Rongione, Olivier Gourmet.
Dirs: Jean-Pierre Dardenne & Luc Dardenne.
A married woman with children, recovering from a bout of depression, fights to keep her job after her co-workers vote to get her laid off rather than give up their bonuses. I love the Dardenne brothers. The films I've seen from them are pretty much brilliant pieces of work. They're humanist filmmakers in every sense of the world. Their works don't contain big dramatic fireworks but they still manage to thrill and move me. This is no different. Although this is not quite my favorite film from them (Le Fils and The Kid with a Bike both reign supreme), it's still a remarkable piece. Marion Cotillard gives a fantastic central performance as the woman fighting for her employment and in a way, her sanity as well.
Oscar Prospects: It has decent shot at Best Foreign Language Film but Cotillard deserves a Best Actress nomination.
Grade: A-
Cast: Marion Cotillard, Fabrizio Rongione, Olivier Gourmet.
Dirs: Jean-Pierre Dardenne & Luc Dardenne.
A married woman with children, recovering from a bout of depression, fights to keep her job after her co-workers vote to get her laid off rather than give up their bonuses. I love the Dardenne brothers. The films I've seen from them are pretty much brilliant pieces of work. They're humanist filmmakers in every sense of the world. Their works don't contain big dramatic fireworks but they still manage to thrill and move me. This is no different. Although this is not quite my favorite film from them (Le Fils and The Kid with a Bike both reign supreme), it's still a remarkable piece. Marion Cotillard gives a fantastic central performance as the woman fighting for her employment and in a way, her sanity as well.
Oscar Prospects: It has decent shot at Best Foreign Language Film but Cotillard deserves a Best Actress nomination.
Grade: A-
-
Big Magilla
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19339
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2014
It's very much in the style of the 1960s, the time period in which it's set which puts it very much in the wheelhouse of the stereotypical senior Academy voter. I'll be shocked it doesn't win the Foreign Film Oscar.anonymous1980 wrote:The stunning black & white cinematography ups the austere themes. I've heard people say this is "Bergman-esque" but I think it's closer to Robert Bresson's minimalist dramas.
-
anonymous1980
- Laureate
- Posts: 6385
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
- Location: Manila
- Contact:
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2014
IDA
Cast: Agata Trzebuchowska, Agata Kulesza, Dawid Ogrodnik, Adam Szyszkowski, Jerzy Trela, Joanna Kulig.
Dir: Pawel Pawlikowski.
A novice nun from Poland about to take her vows discovers she is Jewish and goes on a journey discovering the dark history of her family. There have been tons of films about the Holocaust and World War II and a lot of them are classics. They've dealt with themes on every conceivable angle. I thought the well of potential great films and great stories from that era has been tapped. I was wrong. This is a beautiful film that tackles its weighty subjects with subtlety and grace. The stunning black & white cinematography ups the austere themes. I've heard people say this is "Bergman-esque" but I think it's closer to Robert Bresson's minimalist dramas.
Oscar Prospects: A nomination for Foreign Language Film should be an easy get.
Grade: A-
Cast: Agata Trzebuchowska, Agata Kulesza, Dawid Ogrodnik, Adam Szyszkowski, Jerzy Trela, Joanna Kulig.
Dir: Pawel Pawlikowski.
A novice nun from Poland about to take her vows discovers she is Jewish and goes on a journey discovering the dark history of her family. There have been tons of films about the Holocaust and World War II and a lot of them are classics. They've dealt with themes on every conceivable angle. I thought the well of potential great films and great stories from that era has been tapped. I was wrong. This is a beautiful film that tackles its weighty subjects with subtlety and grace. The stunning black & white cinematography ups the austere themes. I've heard people say this is "Bergman-esque" but I think it's closer to Robert Bresson's minimalist dramas.
Oscar Prospects: A nomination for Foreign Language Film should be an easy get.
Grade: A-
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2014
A film like The Skeleton Twins is stuck between something a little dumber and a lot stronger. Ostensibly the film's biggest set-piece, an impromptu lip-syncing to "Nothing's Gonna Stop Us Now", seems like something out of those MGM Home Video intros and in a film that's aiming for something a little different. As I write that, I realize writer/director Craig Johnson and co-writer Michael Heyman, who are good in the small strokes but have concocted a conventional journey for their characters to trek, might not. But Bill Hader and Kristen Wiig absolutely do. I'm not sure The Skeleton Twins has much to say about depression outside the notion that it's passed down, but it does strongly convey the sense of being stuck in a life that just didn't turn out. The movie wants you to hug these two. Again to Hader and Wiig's credit, they are playing characters that do not want to be touched right now.
The main reason to see this film is Bill Hader. He is fantastic, resisting turning Milo into a laughing through the tears part. He has Exhausted Resting Face. The only false note he hits is acknowledging the suicidal gay man to be a cliché, an awful first step forward that reminds me of Steve Carell standing in the rain in Crazy, Stupid, Love.. Even when the film calls for him to be very silly with Kristen Wiig gulping nitrus resulting in what can only be a lengthly ad lib series, it never feels outside of Milo's psychology. And while on paper, his relationship with the Ty Burrell character might seem rote, I had no idea the actor was in the film and thought it worked very well. The film is at its strongest when adding new shades to Milo. It works less well with Maggie, whose depression is a little less-defined and whose journey of cheating and birth control are just a little too familiar. I can't help but feel that Kristen Wiig is just more at home making bold comedic choices in smaller roles than inhabiting "normal" parts like these. Her best movie role to date is in Knocked Up as a brilliantly passive aggressive co-worker who is fearfully hugging onto her job for dear life.
One of Wiig's strongest moments is a sharp cut from succumbing to the wiles of her scuba instructor immediately to her car shouting "Bullshit" again and again. Kristen Wiig is good in here but I think the filmmakers might be better served giving her a little more to do.
This is the best work Luke Wilson has done in a minute too. As Maggie's cuckholded husband, he gives one of the more amusing takes on being well-adjusted to a fault.
The main reason to see this film is Bill Hader. He is fantastic, resisting turning Milo into a laughing through the tears part. He has Exhausted Resting Face. The only false note he hits is acknowledging the suicidal gay man to be a cliché, an awful first step forward that reminds me of Steve Carell standing in the rain in Crazy, Stupid, Love.. Even when the film calls for him to be very silly with Kristen Wiig gulping nitrus resulting in what can only be a lengthly ad lib series, it never feels outside of Milo's psychology. And while on paper, his relationship with the Ty Burrell character might seem rote, I had no idea the actor was in the film and thought it worked very well. The film is at its strongest when adding new shades to Milo. It works less well with Maggie, whose depression is a little less-defined and whose journey of cheating and birth control are just a little too familiar. I can't help but feel that Kristen Wiig is just more at home making bold comedic choices in smaller roles than inhabiting "normal" parts like these. Her best movie role to date is in Knocked Up as a brilliantly passive aggressive co-worker who is fearfully hugging onto her job for dear life.
One of Wiig's strongest moments is a sharp cut from succumbing to the wiles of her scuba instructor immediately to her car shouting "Bullshit" again and again. Kristen Wiig is good in here but I think the filmmakers might be better served giving her a little more to do.
This is the best work Luke Wilson has done in a minute too. As Maggie's cuckholded husband, he gives one of the more amusing takes on being well-adjusted to a fault.
"How's the despair?"
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2014
There is a moment in Citizenfour where Edward Snowden says that while he views it imperative to be revealed as the source of the leak it's equally important that his personality and views (which if memory serves he describes as unconventional) be kept unrevealed so they don't supersede the information he reveals. I held my breath and hoped that somehow Laura Poitras could get us something besides fleshing out Edward Snowden the single image into something more credibly human. And she does that, to the effect that I think it's going to be hard to come away from Citizenfour without thinking that Edward Snowden is a thoughtful, principled individual. Beyond that, the takeaways are 1) that, 2) a portrait of the depressingly unscrupulous atmosphere in which we now live, and 3) simply being in this incredible moment in time as it unfolds. That's...pretty cool.
What I'm going to remember more than anything else is when Edward Snowden talks about the days of the internet that he remembers when a child could talk to a specialist a world away and get information, a world where people didn't joke about being monitored or appearing on lists. There are some basic facts we're privy to about his life and at the end he's living in Moscow with his super hot girlfriend (not really a spoiler, this is known) but that's the only moment where I felt like I was in the room with Edward Snowden.
What I'm going to remember more than anything else is when Edward Snowden talks about the days of the internet that he remembers when a child could talk to a specialist a world away and get information, a world where people didn't joke about being monitored or appearing on lists. There are some basic facts we're privy to about his life and at the end he's living in Moscow with his super hot girlfriend (not really a spoiler, this is known) but that's the only moment where I felt like I was in the room with Edward Snowden.
"How's the despair?"
-
anonymous1980
- Laureate
- Posts: 6385
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
- Location: Manila
- Contact:
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2014
OBVIOUS CHILD
Cast: Jenny Slate, Jake Lacey, Gaby Hoffmann, Gabe Liedman, David Cross, Richard Kind, Polly Draper.
Dir: Gillian Robespierre.
This is the so-called abortion romantic-comedy about a stand-up comedienne who was just dumped by her boyfriend and gets pregnant by a nice guy she just met. Jenny Slate is excellent in the lead role. I hope she gets more acting work. I've known her as a really funny performer but she gets to show her range here. There are funny parts and the abortion storyline was handled fairly well (although it will do absolutely nothing to convince adamant pro-lifers). All in all though, it's just all right. It's still a romantic comedy, better made than most but nothing particularly outstanding.
Oscar Prospects: Jenny Slate might have a longshot chance at a Best Actress nom.
Grade: B-
Cast: Jenny Slate, Jake Lacey, Gaby Hoffmann, Gabe Liedman, David Cross, Richard Kind, Polly Draper.
Dir: Gillian Robespierre.
This is the so-called abortion romantic-comedy about a stand-up comedienne who was just dumped by her boyfriend and gets pregnant by a nice guy she just met. Jenny Slate is excellent in the lead role. I hope she gets more acting work. I've known her as a really funny performer but she gets to show her range here. There are funny parts and the abortion storyline was handled fairly well (although it will do absolutely nothing to convince adamant pro-lifers). All in all though, it's just all right. It's still a romantic comedy, better made than most but nothing particularly outstanding.
Oscar Prospects: Jenny Slate might have a longshot chance at a Best Actress nom.
Grade: B-
-
anonymous1980
- Laureate
- Posts: 6385
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
- Location: Manila
- Contact:
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2014
PENGUINS OF MADAGASCAR
Cast: Tom McGrath, Chris Miller, Conrad Vernon, Christopher Knights, John Malkovich, Benedict Cumberbatch, Ken Jeong, Peter Stormare, Annet Mahendru, Werner Herzog (voices).
Dirs: Simon J. Smith & Eric Darnell.
Okay. I've never seen any of the Madagascar films but I thought the trailer to this one actually looked funny and Dreamworks seemed to learned its lesson on laying off the celebrity voice cast-driven, pop-culture/snark-laded animated movies. So I gave this one a try because the penguins do seem to be funny based on the bits I've seen. The film is stronger when it's a joke/gag-driven comedy. There are a few good laughs in it. John Malkovich and Benedict Cumberbatch steal the show with their funny voice acting. Making Werner Herzog narrate the beginning of the movie was a nice touch (though I doubt anyone else in the theater knew who the voice was and why it's funny). However, this film also tries to incorporate an arc for the penguins in order to give this film some semblance of genuine heart and character development but unfortunately the two things don't mix well here. It is entertaining though.
Oscar Prospects: None.
Grade: C+
Cast: Tom McGrath, Chris Miller, Conrad Vernon, Christopher Knights, John Malkovich, Benedict Cumberbatch, Ken Jeong, Peter Stormare, Annet Mahendru, Werner Herzog (voices).
Dirs: Simon J. Smith & Eric Darnell.
Okay. I've never seen any of the Madagascar films but I thought the trailer to this one actually looked funny and Dreamworks seemed to learned its lesson on laying off the celebrity voice cast-driven, pop-culture/snark-laded animated movies. So I gave this one a try because the penguins do seem to be funny based on the bits I've seen. The film is stronger when it's a joke/gag-driven comedy. There are a few good laughs in it. John Malkovich and Benedict Cumberbatch steal the show with their funny voice acting. Making Werner Herzog narrate the beginning of the movie was a nice touch (though I doubt anyone else in the theater knew who the voice was and why it's funny). However, this film also tries to incorporate an arc for the penguins in order to give this film some semblance of genuine heart and character development but unfortunately the two things don't mix well here. It is entertaining though.
Oscar Prospects: None.
Grade: C+