I have a lot of opinions about films, especially since I was required to dissect every aspect of every film I watched for many years and was graded on my ability to discuss them critically. I try to not be a wanker about it (I've been watching some Australian videos, so I use the term "wanker" a lot now). Anyway, here are some films I have seen lately with my quick reviews. Some of my reviews might upset people, but again, I'm not trying to be a wanker about it. There might be some minor spoilers in my reviews, so you've been warned.
Mad Max: Fury Road
I thought the film was shot beautifully and the stunts were amazing. However, I was hoping for a little more story. I understand there may be more new Mad Max films (but maybe not?), so perhaps I just have to be patient, but I kept wanting to know more about the characters' backstories. I have seen the original Mel Gibson trilogy, so I know that history, but this is a new Max with a new history. The story also started getting all kinds of holes poked in it if you analyzed the details. For example, it was suggested that three main things that were rare, but critical to survival, were gasoline, water, and bullets. Then everybody drove gas-guzzling cars that literally spewed out fireballs from gas, and the guitar player dude shot flames from his guitar. I get that they worshipped the V8 engine and gasoline, but at some points they treated gas like it was rare, and at other points they completely wasted it. I'm not saying Immortan Joe should have driven a Prius, but it bumped me. They could get more gas from Gastown, but it was implied that it was still rare, because Furiosa later bargained with it. Water was also very rare, but when the brides were first introduced, they were spraying it around like a cheerleading fundraiser carwash. Bullets were another rare necessity, yet Max shot six warning shots at Furiosa and a bride upon first meeting them, when he really didn't need to.
Another major bump was that the war boys all had major radiation-born diseases that required blood transfusions. They found Max, who was a universal donor. At one point, the "doctor" character said, "be careful, he's a universal donor." Then Hux got the doctor (without any pushback) to tie Max, completely unprotected, to the front of a car during a chase/fight where cars were flipping and blowing up like crazy.
I did enjoy how much character development they were able to convey with little dialogue and little story arc. I also enjoyed that they purposefully shot a post-apocalyptic film to be bright and colorful, instead of dark and bleak. I think the main thing that made me have a bit of a negative reaction overall, though, was all the outside bullshit from other reviewers. I had read so much about sexism, and how Max wasn't the hero and Furiosa was - apparently some men were upset that Furiosa "upstaged" Max, and apparently some women were upset that it was still billed as Mad Max when Furiosa was the "main" protagonist, and that she wasn't given enough credit. The fact of the matter is, the story was a dual-protagonist story. They were both important to what happened to the other characters, and they both had strengths and weaknesses that complimented each other. Why does it have to be a gender fight? Ugh. Also, if they would have called the film Furiosa: Fury Road, nobody would have known that it was part of an established series, and the name would have been awkward. Also, the "Fury Road" part hints at Furiosa. At the end of the day, it is an enjoyable action film, but I don't know that it is worthy of a Best Picture nomination.
The Hateful Eight
I enjoy Tarantino films, and I think he is a brilliant (sometimes arrogant) person, but I think this film is an example of giving a lot of praise to the components of a less-than-stellar whole. Don't get me wrong, I thoroughly enjoyed it, but it was a big drop from his previous efforts. For starters, it was basically a theatre production on film (kind of like Les Miserables). There was one basic setting, and the characters mostly just sat and talked, with occasional flashes of incredible violence and blood. Tarantino also did this with Reservoir Dogs, but the difference is Reservoir Dogs was an incredibly low-budget film with a first-time director and budding actors. This film, on the other hand, was incredibly expensive and had an ensemble of highly acclaimed actors (I assume the main cost was the actors' salaries, because there wasn't much else that should have cost so much). The characters were acted brilliantly, were very three-dimensional, and had very in-depth backstories, but this was a case where it was the other end of the spectrum from Mad Max. They spent too much time on backstory. Tarantino was trying to show the connections among all the seemingly random characters - and even connections to other characters in the Tarantino universe - but it came at the price of very slow and uneven pacing, and an unnecessarily long runtime. I think it could have been about 45 minutes shorter, and the viewer wouldn't have missed out on much. I am usually fine with slow-paced films, but I felt like this film could have been much tighter overall. Also, I am not one to be too upset by excessive violence, but I thought it was gratuitous, even for Tarantino. On the subject of awards, I think The Hateful Eight will probably win for its original score - it was very distinctive and really set the mood for the film.
The Revenant
Leo is going to get his long-deserved Best Actor award for this film, and it is going to be because of how much crazy shit in the film he actually did for real. I don't think this was his best performance as a character actor, but he went to crazy lengths to portray real survival in insane conditions. I don't know that The Revenant should win Best Picture (maybe, I haven't seen all the nominated films), but it should definitely win several awards. In addition to Best Actor for DiCaprio, and possibly Best Supporting Actor for Tom Hardy, I think it should definitely win Best Cinematography. The opening scene alone had me convinced. Much like Iñárritu's Best Picture winner, Birdman, the opening scene was orchestrated in a way that would be insanely hard to pull off, but was executed perfectly. Most people probably wouldn't even notice because of how smooth everything was, but there were very long takes with incredibly complex camera movements and action that came together beautifully. I also think it is amazing that they shot the entire film using only natural light, which only allowed for 2 hours of filming per day, stretching the production into nine months of principle photography. My biggest criticism of the film was the "Hollywood" aspect of an otherwise true story. Without giving away spoilers, I will just say that a few things were added to "punch up" the revenge aspect of the film. Whether or not The Revenant wins Best Picture, Iñárritu has solidified his status as an auteur, and he very well could win Best Director, even without winning Best Picture.
The Big Short
I think everyone needs to see this film to see why we are in the mess we are currently pulling ourselves out of as a country. It is about the lead up to the financial crisis that hit around 2008-2009. It focuses on the big banks that basically destroyed the economy, and the few people who saw it coming and bet against the system. This film will make you hate most of the Wall Street banks, and for good reason, but I think it didn't go far enough in putting some of the blame on all the idiots who lived well beyond their means for years and didn't expect any consequences. I saw this happening starting in the late '90s, and I kept saying that it was all going to come crashing down someday. I also specifically remember a trip to Las Vegas in 2006 when the housing market was insane, and I kept telling people that it wasn't sustainable. They were building so many houses and selling them to anyone with a pulse, and I knew the crash was imminent. The only individual this film really scoffed at was a stripper who said she owned five houses and a condo, and didn't understand the contracts she had signed. That's an easy target to make fun of, but there were tons of people in all walks of life who really only have themselves to blame now for buying houses (and expensive toys) without reading the contracts and without having the means to pay for them in the first place. Ultimately, though, the entire system had become so corrupt, and mass fraud was so rampant, that there was only one way to go - down. Even though it hadn't happened since the Great Depression, some very rich people noticed the trends and bet against a system that was never supposed to fail.
This film was highly stylized, especially with the directing and editing. The actors broke the fourth wall on several occasions, and the editing was a very "in your face" style. It reminded me of some of Martin Scorsese's films, especially The Wolf of Wall Street. They weren't trying to be subtle at all. They wanted the viewer to know they were speaking directly to them. They also broke the fourth wall by having cameos of actors who had nothing to do with the rest of the film explain the more technical aspects of the financial terms as themselves, i.e., not in character (Margot Robbie in a hot tub explaining financial systems). I had read several criticisms of this film before watching it that said people would get lost in all the financial crap and wouldn't be able to follow it, but I didn't feel that way at all. I felt like the parts where they broke the fourth wall explained things in a way that were entertaining and easy to understand - basically, making boring things fun. In that regard, I felt a very distinctive imprint from the director. Adam McKay very well could win Best Director, and The Big Short could win Best Picture, but Iñárritu has a more prestigious track record and the academy doesn't usually choose comedies. In my mind, it is kind of a toss up between this and The Revenant for Best Picture and Best Director.
Star Wars: The Force Awakens
Okay, there were several plot points, settings, and characters that were very similar to A New Hope, but that was kind of the point. Abrams even said he wasn't very concerned about that stuff because he was trying to re-capture the feeling of A New Hope in a way that created nostalgia for older viewers, and introduced new viewers to Star Wars with the same excitement that A New Hope did for the older viewers. It was also a way of introducing the next generation of characters with a strong connection to the previous generation of characters, which Episodes 1, 2, and 3 completely failed to do. Episodes 1-3 did not feel like they were in the same universe as Episodes 4-6. The Force Awakens, however, felt very much like the same universe.
I am more forgiving of shortcomings in The Force Awakens because it fulfilled its purpose without pretending to be something else. It was billed as a fun action movie for all audiences, both young and old. If it had been nominated for Best Picture, I would be more critical. Mad Max was a fun action movie, but as soon as it was nominated for Best Picture and people started talking it up more, I became more critical. The Force Awakens had cinematography and practical effects that were amazing, much like Mad Max, but they didn't try to pass it off as an art film. It could, and probably should, win a few technical awards for visual effects and sound. Anyway, I enjoyed it immensely, and it reminded me of my childhood, thus accomplishing exactly what Abrams was going for.
Bridge of Spies
This film was pretty classic Spielberg. He has a way of creating period pieces that feel real, with very detailed production design - sets, locations, costumes, cars, etc. Even though it was one of his lowest grossing films, I think Munich was Spielberg's greatest masterpiece, and Bridge of Spies felt very similar to Munich (it was also his lowest grossing since Munich). The main difference in the feel of the two is Munich didn't have a typical Spielberg feel-good ending, where this film did. One of the biggest criticisms I hear over and over about Spielberg is that he does typical Hollywood feel-good endings, but I don't find anything wrong with that, especially if they are based on true stories like this film.
Another criticism I hear often about Spielberg is that he slants history to make Americans look better. I can kind of understand that criticism, but in Bridge of Spies, much of the dialogue was taken verbatim from court records. It's also a hard argument to make when the US has records of how spies were treated and represented in court, where many historical accounts point to very poor treatment of spies captured by Soviets in East Berlin. When people are constantly trying to escape from East to West Berlin, and Soviets are gunning them down, it's hard to argue that Americans are just trying to make Russia look bad. I'm not saying the US didn't do some shady stuff, but we weren't gunning down normal citizens in the streets.
As far as awards go, Bridge of Spies should probably win for production design and writing. It was nominated for Best Picture, but if Saving Private Ryan and Munich couldn't win it for Spielberg, I don't think this will.
Spotlight
This film is about the true story of The Boston Globe's "Spotlight" team uncovering the child rape/molestation scandal in the Catholic church. They started looking into claims in the Boston area, thinking it was just a handful of priests, but they soon discovered a very large-scale cover up involving people high up in the church, the courts, police, etc.
As far as the film elements go, I was impressed with the acting - the cast was great and they went to great lengths to portray the actual people involved. However, the directing, editing, cinematography, etc., were all very average. I didn't really think anything other than the acting was particularly great, which is why I am kind of surprised that it is considered to be the favorite to win Best Picture. I didn't feel the director's unique touch that is usually a big part of Best Picture films. I think this could be a case of the academy feeling like this was an important story that needed to be told, so they gave the nomination based on that fact alone. I will watch it again and see if anything stands out more than just the acting, but for now, I wouldn't vote for it for Best Picture.
The Martian
There were several aspects of this film that reminded me of Ridley Scott's early films, especially Alien and Blade Runner. Obviously, there are the plot elements (futuristic, in space), but the set design and cinematography were also somewhat similar. Ridley Scott also has a way of making epic-scale films still seem personal by helping the viewer connect to the characters on a deeper level. This is partly due to the acting, but also because Scott takes a grand-scale idea and focuses on one person, and one small group that obviously are very tightly-knit. Similar to The Revenant and Room, the survival aspect of the story made me start thinking about what I would do in a similar situation.
Even though this film was nominated for Best Picture, I don't think it will win simply because it had too many things the academy would see as somewhat cliché, especially the very predictable ending.
Brooklyn
Maybe I missed something, but I felt like this film didn't really deserve to be nominated for Best Picture. I enjoyed the story, and the production design was amazing. Much like Bridge of Spies, the art director did a phenomenal job recreating the look of the era. Interestingly, though, Brooklyn wasn't even nominated for production design, or makeup and hairstyling, or costumes, and I thought those were the best parts. The acting was pretty good overall, and Saoirse Ronan was great as the lead, but she won't beat the other nominees for Best Actress. If you enjoy period films, you will enjoy this film. If you have Irish ancestors who came to New York as immigrants, you will enjoy this film. I just didn't think anything was very worthy of awards.
Room
This film will affect you emotionally in ways the other films I've mentioned won't. I can't really discuss it without giving away the plot, but the synopsis and trailer for it give away the plot anyway, and it's not really a twist or anything. Still, spoiler warning. A mother and son have been prisoners living in a shed for seven years (well, five years for the son born in the shed), they finally escape, but they discover the real world is hard to adjust to. It kind of surprised me that they dealt with very dark subjects without making the film feel too dark. There was a feeling of "everything is going to be okay" throughout the film. The relationship between the mother and son was so intimate that I sometimes lost a feeling for how incredibly messed up their situation was. I was also kind of getting caught up in thinking about ways I would have figured out how to escape, which I let go of after the mom explained that she tried and failed, and that she suffered so much for it that she kind of gave up trying. There was also some kind of Stockholm Syndrome thing going on, which I think is hard to understand if you haven't been through it. From an outside perspective, I kept thinking, "come on, just get your shit together", but it's very obviously not that simple.
The normal world seemed more dangerous and difficult than in captivity. I found myself hating a lot of people in the normal world. I obviously hated the captor too, but the captor was clearly evil, whereas the people in the normal world who were being bastards were supposedly good people. It was pretty true to life, though - reporters are assholes who seem to only care about a sensational story, mobs of people are idiots with no situational awareness or regard to privacy, some family member are infuriating, etc. One family member in particular angered me so much I wanted to punch the screen, which doesn't happen very often for me. I think a lot of my reaction was because of how connected I felt to the characters. Brie Larson should definitely win Best Actress based on her performance. It is a shame, though, that the boy who played the son, Jacob Tremblay, wasn't nominated for anything. His performance was great, too.
Anyway, I also know I have slightly different tastes in films than most people, so take what I say with a grain of salt.
No comments:
Post a Comment