The Movie Review and Discussion Thread

[Romulus]

To The Wonder

Like Danny Boyle, Terrence Malick is another name I blurt out when naming my favorite directors. So it seemed like April would be the perfect month because I would be getting a film by both of them.

Early reviews for this film weren't that great, so I had very low expectations going in. Needless to say, it did exceed them--but it isn't on par with his other films.

First and foremost, Malick is known for his unconventional plots. In To The Wonder, this is taken to the extreme. There is hardly any dialogue between the characters for the entire film. In fact, Ben Affleck might have 10 lines from start to finish. It should be noted though that Affleck isn't the focus here, it's more on Olga Kurylenko and even to an extent Rachel McAdams--on their relationship with this man and how it affected their life. More than any other film that he's done, I feel that To The Wonder requires experience from the viewer in order to fully appreciate it. We've all had somebody that we've loved, but the relationship was anything but smooth. There are many small moments that Malick captures that directly connect with the viewer's own life and experiences. It's here that Malick hits his stride. Unfortunately, if these small moments have no impact on the viewer then the whole film is lost.

Malick has always had incredible cinematography in his films, and that trend only continues here. Now, I may be a little biased here because this film was shot 40 minutes north of where I live, but you could probably argue that this is his best shot film yet. Landscapes and color are absolutely perfect, and the contrast he creates between France and Oklahoma is mesmerizing.

That said, I just don't know how memorable this film will be compared to Badlands, Days of Heaven, The Tree of Life or other works. If I had to rank his films at the moment:

1) The Tree of Life
2) The Thin Red Line
3) Days of Heaven
4) Badlands
5) To The Wonder
6) The New World

Malick is always going to be a controversial filmmaker. Somebody pointed out that even "no two Malick fans are alike". He's probably the most spiritual filmmaker I've ever seen, and the only other filmmaker that comes even remotely close for me is Tarkovsky. To The Wonder is a loose cannon when it comes to plot, but if you're able to connect on an emotional and spiritual level then you'll find much to gain from it.

3.5/5

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

Yeah, I think I was in the wrong mood when I saw Miami Vice.

I must have been in the same mood.

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by surfdude12

Squid and the boys laughed at me. I believe Squid's entire response to my painstaking review was "LOL, trying to understand a Lynch film." Meanie

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

God, I don't know how to reccomend inland Empire, do you go in inebriated or do you go in with a notepad?.

Surf, prepare properly before watching Inland Empire. IF you try to figure it out while watching it, you will be very fatigued by the end. Thats what I did and I was exhausted. It's three hours long. That's three hours of what is arguably Lynch's least coherent work. Eveytime you connect a couple things, something crazy or non sequencial is tossed in and it trips you up. I recommend doing what Abdrewes said, just watch it. Don't think while watching it. Let it stew for a couple days and see where you land. That is, of course, IF you survive at all.

[legendarymatt92]

"Suicide is like...the ultimate f*ck you."

The Good Points: Interesting approach to a conventional idea. Heaps and heaps of dark humour, balanced well with the horror aspect. Wonderful performances (especially from Katharine Isabelle) and well-written characters. Great cinematography. Reminiscent of early Cronenberg at times, which is always a bonus.

The Bad Points: Heavy-handed delivery of the metaphor. Too many meandering scenes, with awkward, expositional dialogue. Loses its indie-edge in the final third and the end is just too generic.

Whilst Ginger Snaps is incredibly brave and original in its idea, and contains some entertaining and memorable scenes, it unfortunately cannot compress its unwieldly metaphor into something subtle or subversive -- but its great performances and giddy atmosphere may just be enough to save it for the horror aficionado.

6/10

[legendarymatt92]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Surf, prepare properly before watching Inland Empire. IF you try to figure it out while watching it, you will be very fatigued by the end. Thats what I did and I was exhausted. It's three hours long. That's three hours of what is arguably Lynch's least coherent work. Eveytime you connect a couple things, something crazy or non sequencial is tossed in and it trips you up. I recommend doing what Abdrewes said, just watch it. Don't think while watching it. Let it stew for a couple days and see where you land. That is, of course, IF you survive at all.

This is pretty much the best summary of how to watch Inland Empire I've ever seen. It's just so frustrating and incoherent.

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

Surf, prepare properly before watching Inland Empire. IF you try to figure it out while watching it, you will be very fatigued by the end. Thats what I did and I was exhausted. It's three hours long. That's three hours of what is arguably Lynch's least coherent work. Eveytime you connect a couple things, something crazy or non sequencial is tossed in and it trips you up. I recommend doing what Abdrewes said, just watch it. Don't think while watching it. Let it stew for a couple days and see where you land. That is, of course, IF you survive at all.

Good god!

[SquidPuppet]

Originally Posted by Mahatma

Good god!

I was spent. I foolishly labored and labored in an effort to piece it all together. And I have NO excuse because I had previously seen ALL his other films. No one to blame but myself.

[Abdrewes]

42 (2013)

The first superhero film of 2013.

A clear line between good and evil, a damsel in distress, crowds of people to be fought for, and a man with incredible physical prowess yet a few hidden weaknesses; this sounds a hell of a lot like a superhero film. In effect, it's an experience more than it is enlightening, but that's not all bad.

To an adult, a superhero film provides little thought, but if done well, one can forgive the shortcomings and accept it as a ride. However, 42 proves that superhero narratives are a worthy form of entertainment for a child. Considering it operates on manipulation, it is fine to subject them to this story as it's core themes (de-segregation, patience, humility) are vital ones. A child accepts the images without much bias. They are unable to untangle and make sense of the underlying racial politics and oversimplifications. Normally this would be a problem, but for a film whose heart is in the right place, it's more than forgiveable.

Take into account one of the best scenes: the lingering on a fellow Dodger's emotional reaction (and final redemption) when he witnesses Jackie at the plate all the while while verbal abuse is inflicted upon him by the Phillies manager. It exemplifies both the strengths and weaknesses of the film. Its very effective, it quickens your pulse as you feel the need to clench the armrest, but it doesnt place you in Jackie's shoes. His trials (at one point likened to the forty days Jesus spent in the desert) are too great for us to understand, much less relate too. He's rendered in a mythic way. At best it's an experiential sort of relationship the audience has to the real Jackie Robinson as opposed to a personal one.

The 2009 film, Sugar, maybe not as incident heavy and fast paced, nor does it have a generic, bombastic, melancholic/uplifting orchestral score as this one does; but it does convey a dark skinned baseball player's tension derived from the challenges of integration (in this case culture and language barriers).

Warts and all, I recommend seeing 42. It's a slick piece of crowd pleasing entertainment. The performances are undeniable splendid across the board. Harrison Ford disappears into the role of executive Branch Rickey. Alan Tudyk and John C. McGinley both effectively play against type. The underutilized Nicole Behaie provides a luminous sensuality to the role of Jackie's wife. Most importantly Jackie Robinson as portrayed by Chadwick Boseman is not only believable on the field, but intensely charismatic as any superhero should be.

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by SquidPuppet

I was spent. I foolishly labored and labored in an effort to piece it all together. And I have NO excuse because I had previously seen ALL his other films. No one to blame but myself.

lmao.I saw 30 minutes of that movie when I waved the white flag.Haven't seen all his movies-fell off after Straight story,but heard good things about that movie so decided to check it out.

Your well deserved purple heart is in the mail

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by Mahatma

lmao.I saw 30 minutes of that movie when I waved the white flag.Haven't seen all his movies-fell off after Straight story,but heard good things about that movie so decided to check it out.

Your well deserved purple heart is in the mail

So you haven't Seen Mulholland Drive? (That came after Straight Story)

[jvince]

Fallen Angels (1995)
dir. Wong Kar-Wai

The Good: Scene-stealing performance by Takeshi Kaneshiro as a crazy, mute, escaped convict who lives with his dad and makes money by breaking into other people's shops after hours catering to night owls; Dude's freaking hilarious (I especially love his scenes with that poor guy who keeps running into him). Crazy camera work by master cinematographer Christopher Doyle. F*cking gorgeous. Super cool and eccentric (in a good way). Michelle Reis, holy hot damn...

The Bad: Nothing major.

The Bottom Line: An electric, offbeat, stylish feast for the senses, Fallen Angels makes the perfect double bill along with Wong's equally impressive Chungking Express.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by jvince

Fallen Angels (1995)
dir. Wong Kar-Wai

The Good: Scene-stealing performance by Takeshi Kaneshiro as a crazy, mute, escaped convict who lives with his dad and makes money by breaking into other people's shops after hours catering to night owls; Dude's freaking hilarious (I especially love his scenes with that poor guy who keeps running into him). Crazy camera work by master cinematographer Christopher Doyle. F*cking gorgeous. Super cool and eccentric (in a good way). Michelle Reis, holy hot damn...

The Bad: Nothing major.

The Bottom Line: An electric, offbeat, stylish feast for the senses, Fallen Angels makes the perfect double bill along with Wong's equally impressive Chungking Express.

Hell Yes

[Abdrewes]

On podcast episode #16 of the Cinephiliacs they are talk about Miami Vice. I'm currently listening to it right now, but so far so good

[jvince]

Originally Posted by jhiggy23

The Circus:

4 (out of 4)

Loved it. This was the last of the Chaplin Tramp movies for me to see and I thought it was great. I still think The Gold Rush is Chaplin's best and funniest film, with City Lights following closely behind. I think The Circus is his second funniest film though.

My favorite Chaplin film and one of the funniest comedies I've ever seen. Love it.

Originally Posted by Al_The_Strange

This one was on TV, so I let it play for a while. My opinion for it hasn't changed since I last saw it.

Man on Fire

You would think this movie would be something awesome and badass. The film tries its hardest to be. The main character does march around, cause some carnage, kills and tortures some people in cold blood, all for the sake of rescuing a little girl.

The film is successfully awesome for many viewers, but not for me personally. What action and violence is here is very brief and strangely unremarkable. The biggest standout to this film is its style, which is annoying beyond belief. The frame flashes and throbs incessantly. Cuts are quick. Camera moves range from being perfectly steady to being erratic as hell. Combined with a super-hot color scheme, constant NIN riffs (oddly contrasted with occasional Lisa Gerrard music), and some free-floating subtitles, the film just assaults the eyes for no good effect. Considering this film runs for two-and-a-half hours, with maybe ten minutes of actual action and a whole hour of character building, the film proves to be long and tedious.

The story for this is as basic as it can get. With the first hour devoted to building up the main character and his relationship with the little girl he's charged to protect, the film tries its best to add depth and emotion. Plus, the film does tackle the pressing issue of kidnappings in Mexico. However, I never really felt fully engaged with the characters or the particulars of the plot. Maybe the film's style gets in the way, but ultimately, I never felt this film was all that deep. If anything, half of this film could have been cut, and it still would have worked the way it does now.

As described above, the film uses a lot of flashy and erratic camera movements and editing effects. Acting is generally not bad. Writing is okay. This production does have slick-looking sets, props, costumes, and locales. Music is pretty cool, even if it does constantly repeat the same NIN tune over and over again.

I'm personally baffled as to the praise and acclaim this film continues to get. For a revenge film, there's little vengeance involved. What remains is covered in a gaudy veneer of excessive visual noise and distraction. I might have liked it better with a more toned-down style, but even then, I would have liked it best if it was tighter or meatier.

3/5 (Entertainment: Average | Story: Average | Film: Poor)

Recommendation: Since this film does have a following, I'd say it's worth seeing at least once.

I think Man on Fire is the only movie by Tony Scott that I liked. Yeah, it's over-stylish with a super thin plot, but I'd choose MoF over something like Taken anyday.

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

Hell Yes

I think I appreciate Chungking Express even more now after seeing Fallen Angels.

If only Wong scrapped the first half of Chungking and fused the two films into one, he'd have a bonafide masterpiece, imo.

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by jvince

I think I appreciate Chungking Express even more now after seeing Fallen Angels.

If only Wong scrapped the first half of Chungking and fused the two films into one, he'd have a bonafide masterpiece, imo.

I know I'm a Criterion fanboy, but I really do prefer the two Wong Kar Wai Kinos (Fallen Angels, Happy Together) over the two Criterions (Chungking Express and In the Mood For Love). They're all exceptional, though

[Abdrewes]

Okay, I spent a bit of time tweaking the second rough draft of my Miami Vice review:

[Show spoiler]


Michael Mann's New World

After reaching the pinnacle of commercial and critical success in 1995 with Heat, Michael Mann's next two features found difficulty garnering an audience: The Insider (1999), although warmly received by critics and Ali (2001), whose reception was more mixed. His subsequent film, Collateral (2004) finally broke ground with audiences. More importantly, its groundbreaking cinematography by Dion Beebe paved the way for the innovation of Miami Vice. Filmed on the Viper FilmStream High-Definition Camera, it was the first major Hollywood film to embrace the digital look. Los Angeles nightlife had never looked more dangerous.

Loosely based on the colorful 80's TV series, Miami Vice (2006) was a critical and commercial disappointment. Promotional trailers, set to "Numb/Encore" by Linkin Park & Jay-Z promised audiences a taught, twisty, colorful thriller drenched with sex appeal. Colin Farrell and Jamie Foxx were expected to embody the great cop duo of the 2000's. Upon release, audiences reacted with indifference and hate, labeling the film a boring, muddled and risible affair. What could have gone so wrong?

The opening scenes of Miami Vice give the audience little set up as it thrusts the viewer straight into an undercover prostitution ring investigation. As police detectives "Sonny" Crocket and "Rico" Tubbs close in on Neptune, the pimp, they receive a call from a former informant on a concurrent case, Alonzo Stevens. His identity has been compromised and he believes his family to be in danger. Upon meeting with him, he appears destitute and distraught, "Sonny" and "Rico" try to calm him down, and discretely inform him of his wife's murder. Alonzo then sacrifices himself into the oncoming interstate traffic. The blood stained skid marks of the eighteen-wheeler is a haunting illustration of the fragility of existence. This pained encounter complicates and foreshadows the moral stakes to come.

A synopsis of the opening act of Miami Vice promises a nail-biting thriller, but that would be misleading. The incoherent plot, though functional, serves as the entry point into some of Michael Mann's most thought provoking and indelible images. Characters are shot in wide angle close up, reminiscent of Wong Kar Wai. Medium wide shots, often takes inspiration from the work of Terrence Malick (made especially more apparent when coupled with impressionistic cutting), Michelangelo Antonioni (through contrast and mood) and Andrei Tarkovsky (through movement). In the second act, detailing "Sonny" and "Rico's" infiltration into the drug cartel, their subsequent operation as drug runners and Crocket's affair with Isabella (Gong Li), Mann eschews nimble plotting in favor of impressionistic, high contrast images of bodies reacting to each other against an open canvas. The open Colombian beaches provide the overwhelming backdrop for their tryst. Dion Beebe's expressionistic cinematography engages our senses as they seek sensual relief. The confident compositions magnify the surrounding space and their temporary dislocation from the drug running business. It might as well be a romance set in the lobby of a panoramic space station.

Another facet of Miami Vice’s success lies in its refusal to flesh out characters in a traditional sense: a few back stories are haphazardly laid on us in an expository fashion, process and movement are favored over traditional drama. Details never coalesce into an intelligible whole as incoherence is not an incidental by product of Mann’s most impressionistic filmmaking but a desired outcome. In the world Mann sketches, sporadically just as cynical as the future Alfonso Cuarón detailed for us in Children of Men (also 2006), we can only hope his aimless characters inadvertently stumble upon any semblance of functional humanity. Their lines of work have corroded any sense of hope.

Mann isn't seeking to duplicate the high drama or genre thrills of his mid to late nineties masterworks, Heat and The Insider, (though impressive blockbuster stimuli is to be found in the form of plane flights to and from South Florida, speeding boats, stash house raids & Mexican standoffs) but rather focus our attention on the prevailing systems, international crime and an ethically compromised law enforcement, that threaten to rob us of our humanity and identity. Both sides are equally ruthless, taxing on their adherents and fractured in ideology as Mann composes encounters with both the mob bosses and Federal superiors in a detached and impersonal way hinting at brooding documentary realism. Criminals don't display colorful personalities akin to Hans Gruber in Die Hard. “Crockett” and “Tubbs” do not resemble Lethal Weapon’s multiracial detective duo Martin Riggs (Mel Gibson) and Roger Murtaugh (Danny Glover). Their speech contains no element of the theatrical (except for when “Crockett reveals to Isabella he is a “fiend for Mojitos).

As they negotiate, third world countries are stripped of their lustre. The intended buyers of the drugs are never seen, only the harrowing byproducts on the other side of the equator. No junkies histrionically communicating the need to satiate their addiction, no drug peddlers trying to locate them either. Mann paints this sick network with fearless economy. The sole image of dozens of Colombian commoners occupying a littered street, specifically Styrofoam, communicates more than an entire Stephen Gaghan screenplay. These byproducts of hyper-capitalism and international commerce laid bare.

The simplest images convey the moral complexity at the heart of the film. Textured, high contrast, environs threaten to engulf the characters, Maroon night skies and opulent day skies vie over dominance of the frame, Crocket in particular. These images beg us to consider our role in this data centric and globally interconnected age. Can our intrinsic link to the prevailing winds be broken, at least for a moment, to exist on our own terms? As Isabella asks Crocket, during the cold, abstract realist final shootout, "Who are you?" it seems fate has claimed another victim.

[Mahatma]

Originally Posted by Abdrewes

So you haven't Seen Mulholland Drive? (That came after Straight Story)

No.Maybe I should get a DVD of it and check it out...Guess that's what you are saying

[Abdrewes]

Originally Posted by Mahatma

No.Maybe I should get a DVD of it and check it out...Guess that's what you are saying

It's well worth seeing.

[KilloWertz]

Originally Posted by Mahatma

No.Maybe I should get a DVD of it and check it out...Guess that's what you are saying

I really want to see Mulholland Drive as well, but I've been trying to wait for them to release it on Blu-ray here. I know there's a German boxset with it in it, but with no English subtitles on the discs, I've never bothered to get it since I sometimes need subtitles.

Maybe I'll just have to get a region free player one of these days if they don't release it soon.

[jvince]

Sin City (2005)
dir. Robert Rodriguez, Frank Miller, Quentin Tarantino

The Good: Visually arresting; There's nothing quite like it.

The Bad: Pretty much everything else -- Dull stories, unengaging characters, cringeworthy dialogue, plot holes galore, and contrived as hell.

The Bottom Line: All style, no substance. At least it looks great.