The Official Review Thread of 2020
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2020
Tonight I watched The Mole Agent
SPOILERS...it's not a movie with a huge reveal or anything, but it might be more satisfying to watch the movie before you read my thoughts.
Found the opening scenes of this too cute by half, but after the first ten minutes or so, it's actually pretty compelling and pretty moving. It's about Sergio, a man who goes undercover into a nursing home to investigate allegations of elder abuse. While he's there, he becomes pretty popular, becomes pretty close to many of the residents, one of whom seems to fall in love with him. I have some issues with this on the basis of premise as it's laid out in the film. The premise is that this place may be engaging in elder abuse, but this is also not an undercover documentary. There are some shots that are undercover, but there are more that were clearly shot by a crew that knew what it was doing. So my question is, did these filmmakers really believe the premise that they're presenting? Let's assume that the premise is true, that the nursing home is engaging in some form of elder abuse. Why would they allow a documentary crew to come in and film? The film kind of sidesteps this issue, as it becomes clear to Sergio that there's no abuse going on, and that the real problem the residents are dealing with is much more mundane--loneliness due to children and grandchildren rarely coming to visit. Maybe the filmmakers suspected that there was no abuse and that it was mostly just loneliness and neglect from family all along, but it's presented pretty matter-of-factly and it's hard to get an idea of what the filmmakers think about the actual merits of the case that Sergio is investigating. There is a lot of good stuff in here about aging and loneliness, this is very much worth watching; I just wish I felt like I could believe some of what I was watching a little more.
SPOILERS...it's not a movie with a huge reveal or anything, but it might be more satisfying to watch the movie before you read my thoughts.
Found the opening scenes of this too cute by half, but after the first ten minutes or so, it's actually pretty compelling and pretty moving. It's about Sergio, a man who goes undercover into a nursing home to investigate allegations of elder abuse. While he's there, he becomes pretty popular, becomes pretty close to many of the residents, one of whom seems to fall in love with him. I have some issues with this on the basis of premise as it's laid out in the film. The premise is that this place may be engaging in elder abuse, but this is also not an undercover documentary. There are some shots that are undercover, but there are more that were clearly shot by a crew that knew what it was doing. So my question is, did these filmmakers really believe the premise that they're presenting? Let's assume that the premise is true, that the nursing home is engaging in some form of elder abuse. Why would they allow a documentary crew to come in and film? The film kind of sidesteps this issue, as it becomes clear to Sergio that there's no abuse going on, and that the real problem the residents are dealing with is much more mundane--loneliness due to children and grandchildren rarely coming to visit. Maybe the filmmakers suspected that there was no abuse and that it was mostly just loneliness and neglect from family all along, but it's presented pretty matter-of-factly and it's hard to get an idea of what the filmmakers think about the actual merits of the case that Sergio is investigating. There is a lot of good stuff in here about aging and loneliness, this is very much worth watching; I just wish I felt like I could believe some of what I was watching a little more.
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2020
Very funny.dws1982 wrote
I'm going to throw some cold water on its fellow Documentary nominee, My Octopus Teacher, aka Men will make a documentary about being in love with an octopus instead of going to therapy. It's 60% is unbearable interviews from Craig Foster, who seems really intent to find a metaphor for his own life in this experience with an octopus (which I think it's safe to say, existed almost entirely in Foster's mind). The other 40% is basically Blue Planet cut scenes, and if you like that, you'll like that part of this film, at least if you play it with the TV muted so you don't have to listen to Craig Foster's tedious narration. He's a deeply odd person and the movie has no interest in interrogating that oddness or pushing back against the idea that what Foster sees as a "connection" is really just brief curiosity on the part of the octopus. I guess it gives me some sympathy for the people in my life who have to put up with my odd obsessions.
How do you account for it being the only DGA nominee for Best Documentary Feature up for an Oscar? Doesn't that make it the odds-on favorite to win?
Well, "fringe" doesn't mean what it used to, Tee. I'm not in support of prison abolition but I'm perfectly fine having a conversation about it with an open mind. But I don't think this film advocates for it in a persuasive way.Mister Tee wrote
That was a thought I had, as well: this is some fringe idea that, once the right-wing-o-verse gets done with it, will appear to be the top of the Democratic agenda. It's "defund the police" on stilts.
I'm genuinely happy to know I'm not alone in my response to the film.
I am very, very happy that Fox Rich's family is back together. I am fine with her having a platform to speak her voice. I do not want Fox Rich to become the spokesperson for the Democratic party. I'm praying the fucking octopus movie wins. Or Collective! Which I also saw and find similarly overrated but would be a much stronger win. It's a remarkable achievement... and a pretty good movie.
"How's the despair?"
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2020
I'm going to throw some cold water on its fellow Documentary nominee, My Octopus Teacher, aka Men will literally make a documentary about being in love with an octopus instead of going to therapy. It's 60% is unbearable interviews from Craig Foster, who seems really intent to find a metaphor for his own life in this experience with an octopus (which I think it's safe to say, existed almost entirely in Foster's mind). The other 40% is basically Blue Planet cut scenes, and if you like that, you'll like that part of this film, at least if you play it with the TV muted so you don't have to listen to Craig Foster's tedious narration. He's a deeply odd person and the movie has no interest in interrogating that oddness or pushing back against the idea that what Foster sees as a "connection" is really just brief curiosity on the part of the octopus. I guess it gives me some sympathy for the people in my life who have to put up with my odd obsessions.
-
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8783
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2020
That was a thought I had, as well: this is some fringe idea that, once the right-wing-o-verse gets done with it, will appear to be the top of the Democratic agenda. It's "defund the police" on stilts.Sabin wrote: I'm dreading what Fox news can do with it.
I'm genuinely happy to know I'm not alone in my response to the film.
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2020
You're not. I thought I had reviewed it on this board. But I hadn't. I put a review up on Letterboxed and deleted it. To be honest, I've been wrestling with this documentary a lot. I'm assuming you know the background of the film that it was a short doc about Fox Rich and then the filmmakers at the end of filming were surprised by Fox Rich's home movie stockpile and created a narrative about it. Even still, I think it's stretched out as a feature.Mister Tee wrote
Has anyone else seen this film and had a reaction? I'm honestly curious, because I feel very alone in this take.
It's quite beautiful for a while, as its ideas of doing time as conveyed visually like few docs I've seen. But then the armed robbery was brought up, and I did something I hadn't done in a while. I rewound it to see if I missed anything. I hadn't. I watched the rest of the movie expecting it to be brought up again and it wasn't. Fox Rich's evolution from newlywed to prison abolitionist in theory is very powerful but there is a gaping hole in the film surrounding their crime. By not acknowledging the crime, the film is holding firm to its stance that prisons should be abolished and it's not interested in bending an inch in its conviction. But that also means it's not interested in preaching to the unconverted. The prison system is depicted as an unnatural otherworldly force that separates parents from family. Speaking for myself, I'll engage with a conversation about prison abolition. But I spent every moment afterwards asking myself "Wait, they did armed robbery?" And I couldn't pretend that didn't happen no matter how much the filmmakers wanted me to.
I think it's a beautiful piece of agitprop. I'm glad the family is reunited. I'm still here for a conversation about prison abolition. But I found their refusal to engage with that moment from their past really wild. As you say, the movie *FEELS* like watching an innocent person unjustly imprisoned. And I think the film wants us to believe anyone in prison is unjustly imprisoned. But the film clearly pretends that armed robbery doesn't warrant even being mentioned and that's a big leap for anyone to make. Again: it's preaching to the already-converted.
I desperately hope the film doesn't win the Oscar because I can't imagine it gives the cause a good name. I'm dreading what Fox news can do with it. I know a few people who are similarly reserved in praise. But then you have critics like David Ehrlich who call it the best film of the year.
"How's the despair?"
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19608
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2020
I haven't seen it but I did (just now) read the IMDb. reviews which differ quite a bit from the professional reviews.
Unlike the professional reviewers who seem to have taken what they saw at face value, the IMDb. reviewers researched the facts.
Left out of the film and the professional reviews are the following:
SPOILERS
They don't use the couple's real names.
It wasn't an attempted bank robbery, it was an actual robbery.
The accomplice, the nephew of the perpetrator, received a 45-year sentence.
One reviewer was taken aback by the wife's use of the "r" word in relation to children.
Unlike the professional reviewers who seem to have taken what they saw at face value, the IMDb. reviewers researched the facts.
Left out of the film and the professional reviews are the following:
SPOILERS
They don't use the couple's real names.
It wasn't an attempted bank robbery, it was an actual robbery.
The accomplice, the nephew of the perpetrator, received a 45-year sentence.
One reviewer was taken aback by the wife's use of the "r" word in relation to children.
-
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8783
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2020
The critics -- and possibly AMPAS to come -- have enshrined Time as some kind of great documentary. And it's not as if there aren't impressive elements: the film, more than any other I've seen, conveys the existential part of waiting for time to pass when one is separated from a loved one (pointing out the multiple meanings of the word "time" when describing a prison sentence). And the final moments are unquestionably moving, as we see what are demonstrably nice people finally being reunited.
SPOILERS IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE
But there's a huge elephant in the room that the film (and many critics) seem determined to ignore. Fox Rich spends the entire film crusading for her incarcerated husband as a victim of an unfair LA justice and prison system, and, for quite a while, I presumed I was watching one of those classic black-person-given-outrageous-sentence stories. And then it's revealed, almost in throwaway, that her husband is in jail because of ARMED BANK ROBBERY! Not innocent-bystander-drawn-in, but actual perpetrator (with his crusading wife as getaway accomplice). I waited for the film to give me some reason why this still represented a huge miscarriage of justice -- perhaps stats on how a white person would have been given a far less strenuous sentence. The closest we get is a reveal that he was offered a plea deal that would have meant less time, which we seem meant to view as an insult. But that's how pleas work: you agree to serve some time, to avoid the possibility of much more. Her husband gambled and lost. And the further question never seems to get raised, why wouldn't he plead guilty when he was, in fact, guilty?
Almost worse, Fox's explanation for the robbery is, they were running a business and it was failing, they didn't want to fail, and desperate situations make you do desperate things. Good god -- I've been down to it, financially, at more than one time in my life; armed bank robbery as solution never crossed my mind. I'm at a loss to understand why I'm supposed to look at these people as particular victims. I guess it could be the film wants me to feel that anyone, even demonstrably guilty people, can be injured by the prison system. That would be an interesting, challenging take. But I don't get that here. I feel I'm being asked to see Fox's crusade as purely righteous, and her husband's plight no different from those innocent men who spent decades in jail.
Honestly, more than from the film, I feel alienated from the critics who've heaped praise on the film without, to my knowledge, dealing with this enormous issue. Their failure to even address it makes me feel like they think only a reactionary would mention it. Which I think strays dangerously close to ignoring the evidence of our senses because it interferes with a political point we'd prefer be made.
Has anyone else seen this film and had a reaction? I'm honestly curious, because I feel very alone in this take.
SPOILERS IF YOU HAVEN'T SEEN THE MOVIE
But there's a huge elephant in the room that the film (and many critics) seem determined to ignore. Fox Rich spends the entire film crusading for her incarcerated husband as a victim of an unfair LA justice and prison system, and, for quite a while, I presumed I was watching one of those classic black-person-given-outrageous-sentence stories. And then it's revealed, almost in throwaway, that her husband is in jail because of ARMED BANK ROBBERY! Not innocent-bystander-drawn-in, but actual perpetrator (with his crusading wife as getaway accomplice). I waited for the film to give me some reason why this still represented a huge miscarriage of justice -- perhaps stats on how a white person would have been given a far less strenuous sentence. The closest we get is a reveal that he was offered a plea deal that would have meant less time, which we seem meant to view as an insult. But that's how pleas work: you agree to serve some time, to avoid the possibility of much more. Her husband gambled and lost. And the further question never seems to get raised, why wouldn't he plead guilty when he was, in fact, guilty?
Almost worse, Fox's explanation for the robbery is, they were running a business and it was failing, they didn't want to fail, and desperate situations make you do desperate things. Good god -- I've been down to it, financially, at more than one time in my life; armed bank robbery as solution never crossed my mind. I'm at a loss to understand why I'm supposed to look at these people as particular victims. I guess it could be the film wants me to feel that anyone, even demonstrably guilty people, can be injured by the prison system. That would be an interesting, challenging take. But I don't get that here. I feel I'm being asked to see Fox's crusade as purely righteous, and her husband's plight no different from those innocent men who spent decades in jail.
Honestly, more than from the film, I feel alienated from the critics who've heaped praise on the film without, to my knowledge, dealing with this enormous issue. Their failure to even address it makes me feel like they think only a reactionary would mention it. Which I think strays dangerously close to ignoring the evidence of our senses because it interferes with a political point we'd prefer be made.
Has anyone else seen this film and had a reaction? I'm honestly curious, because I feel very alone in this take.
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19608
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2020
You're right. I forgot that.MaxWilder wrote:Mank was always intended to be a Netflix-only film. Chicago 7, on the other hand, was sold to Netflix once theatrical was a non-starter.Big Magilla wrote:More realistically it would have been held for this year after theatres hopefully go back to normal.
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2020
Mank was always intended to be a Netflix-only film. Chicago 7, on the other hand, was sold to Netflix once theatrical was a non-starter.Big Magilla wrote:More realistically it would have been held for this year after theatres hopefully go back to normal.
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2020
It would definitely be my choice if "Soul" wasn't out this year!Okri wrote:Wolfwalkers was really enjoyable. I would have loved to see this on the big screen. Not really a whole lot to say about it, though. It feels more kiddie than Cartoon Saloon's previous films, so it's thematically rote in the way kid's movies can be. But it's just so gorgeous to watch (and to listen to). It hit's it's stride in the middle third, when we're done with all the exposition and it's just rising action. But again, it's never not beautiful to watch. The colours and textures of this Irish world are a delight to behold.
"Because here’s the thing about life: There’s no accounting for what fate will deal you. Some days when you need a hand. There are other days when we’re called to lend a hand." -- President Joe Biden, 01/20/2021
-
- Laureate
- Posts: 6420
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
- Location: Manila
- Contact:
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2020
NEVER RARELY SOMETIMES ALWAYS
Cast: Sidney Flanagan, Talia Ryder, Theodore Pellerin, Ryan Eggold, Sharon van Etten.
Dir: Eliza Hittman.
A teenage girl with an unwanted pregnancy along with her young cousin go to New York from Pennsylvania in order to get an abortion. I was not the biggest fan of writer-director Eliza Hittman's previous film, Beach Rats, I thought it was well-acted, good-but-not-great film with some glaring flaws. So I was a bit guarded coming into this. But lo and behold, this is a better film. Yes, it is about the very touchy subject of abortion but it turns out to be a bit more than that. No matter where you stand on the issue, the film doesn't scream at you either way. It uses the realistic non-judgmental approach where it's all about the lead character's dilemma. Sidney Flanagan gives a stunning performance especially in that particular scene (people who have seen know what I'm talking) which blew me away. It may not be a perfect film but it's a solid, beautifully mounted drama.
Oscar Prospects: Sidney Flanagan should be getting nominated.
Grade: B+
Cast: Sidney Flanagan, Talia Ryder, Theodore Pellerin, Ryan Eggold, Sharon van Etten.
Dir: Eliza Hittman.
A teenage girl with an unwanted pregnancy along with her young cousin go to New York from Pennsylvania in order to get an abortion. I was not the biggest fan of writer-director Eliza Hittman's previous film, Beach Rats, I thought it was well-acted, good-but-not-great film with some glaring flaws. So I was a bit guarded coming into this. But lo and behold, this is a better film. Yes, it is about the very touchy subject of abortion but it turns out to be a bit more than that. No matter where you stand on the issue, the film doesn't scream at you either way. It uses the realistic non-judgmental approach where it's all about the lead character's dilemma. Sidney Flanagan gives a stunning performance especially in that particular scene (people who have seen know what I'm talking) which blew me away. It may not be a perfect film but it's a solid, beautifully mounted drama.
Oscar Prospects: Sidney Flanagan should be getting nominated.
Grade: B+
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2020
Wolfwalkers was really enjoyable. I would have loved to see this on the big screen. Not really a whole lot to say about it, though. It feels more kiddie than Cartoon Saloon's previous films, so it's thematically rote in the way kid's movies can be. But it's just so gorgeous to watch (and to listen to). It hit's it's stride in the middle third, when we're done with all the exposition and it's just rising action. But again, it's never not beautiful to watch. The colours and textures of this Irish world are a delight to behold.
-
- Site Admin
- Posts: 19608
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 3:22 pm
- Location: Jersey Shore
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2020
More realistically it would have been held for this year after theatres hopefully go back to normal. A year from now we can do a comparison between the films that were streamed in order to qualify for this year's awards vs. the films that held back.
My gut feeling is that the bigger, showier films that were held back might grab some of the best picture nods and dominate the technical awards but the acting, writing and maybe the directing awards would be dominated by this year's contenders.
My gut feeling is that the bigger, showier films that were held back might grab some of the best picture nods and dominate the technical awards but the acting, writing and maybe the directing awards would be dominated by this year's contenders.
-
- Tenured Laureate
- Posts: 8783
- Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
- Location: NYC
- Contact:
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2020
That's opening quite a big can of worms. Apart from Nomadland, I doubt any of the films about to be best picture-nominated would have made last year's list. And a good many of the nominated performers would have been long-shots, at best.Sabin wrote: If this film was released last year, how many nods would it get? Best Production Design?
Re: The Official Review Thread of 2020
Saw Mank again. No change. A bit more entertaining knowing what is and what it won't be.
Jack Fincher's career as a reporter is telling. Top-notch craft in service of what feels like notes on a subject. By the end, that's all we're left with; excellent notes, and a meandering story that takes far too long to arrive at what we're supposed to care about: The Story of a Disillusioned Idealist (I think Tee pointed this out). I think the biggest problem is that the Citizen Kane structure serves Heart better than Mank because, y'know, Hearst did more interesting things.
I really am amazed at the prospect of Academy voters really falling for this meandering thing. If this film was released last year, how many nods would it get? Best Production Design? Gary Oldman over Pryce or Banderas? Cinematography over The Lighthouse?
Jack Fincher's career as a reporter is telling. Top-notch craft in service of what feels like notes on a subject. By the end, that's all we're left with; excellent notes, and a meandering story that takes far too long to arrive at what we're supposed to care about: The Story of a Disillusioned Idealist (I think Tee pointed this out). I think the biggest problem is that the Citizen Kane structure serves Heart better than Mank because, y'know, Hearst did more interesting things.
I really am amazed at the prospect of Academy voters really falling for this meandering thing. If this film was released last year, how many nods would it get? Best Production Design? Gary Oldman over Pryce or Banderas? Cinematography over The Lighthouse?
"How's the despair?"