A German film with a predominantly Irish/UK cast. I liked this one very much. Although it didn’t avoid the cliches from this type of film, I thought it did manage to avoid much of the treacle that often accompanies them. Great performances by the two young leads and Andy Serkis. (I fully expect to see Aisling Loftus do some wonderful work in the future.) IMDB gives it a 6.5. I say 7. (running time 1:37)
So, okay–I’ve been watching movies, but been falling down on the job of reviewing them. I thought that in order to keep things moving here, I’d post some of the old Facebook reviews I did, as they come up in my history. In most cases, they’re not as long as my usual ones, and I don’t think I always give them a number rating, either. I’d do so now, but I don’t even remember some of them that well anymore. Take the case of this one. I obviously liked it, but can barely remember it.
“The Wonder Years” meets an “Afterschool Special.” It was a little syrupy, and a couple of times I wondered which of those two it wanted to be. But I thoroughly enjoyed it. We’ve all had our Mary Clears, Mr. Simons, and Big G’s, I suppose. It’s not terribly deep or complicated, and the lessons presented are done so in fairly broad strokes, but it’s a good movie for a weekend afternoon…and you can watch it with your kids! (Middle-school age or above, I would think.) IMDB puts it at a 6.8, which is right about where I’d put it, too. (running time 1:41)
This film makes me really miss Debbie Reynolds. Damien Chazelle (Whiplash) functions here like Tarantino—patching together scenes and nods to the great films of the genre, hoping that those who aren’t familiar with them will find them fresh and charming, and those who are familiar will revel in the nostalgia. Unfortunately, it ends up feeling like a pastiche of clichés. I found it to be nearly devoid of charm, with the exception of two numbers—the couple’s first dance together, and Stone’s audition song. Continue reading
Unfortunately, the best performance by an actress in a motion picture this year probably won’t get the Academy Award. It probably won’t be nominated, even. Hell, you likely won’t even see it, unless you take my advice and seek out Rebecca Hall’s performance as tragic news reporter Christine Chubbuck in 2016’s Christine. The film itself is well made, if low-budget, but what elevates it above the crowd is Hall. She is magnificent, giving as strong a portrayal of depression as I’ve seen, in that it doesn’t play into convenient scenes and stereotypes; the illness insinuates itself into every scene, every aspect of her life, from dealing with her mother, whom she lives with, to obsessively analyzing a video of herself, and wondering if she nods too much. Even her gait makes her seem that she’s uncomfortable in her own skin. It’s a heartbreaking portrayal, and often difficult to watch. Continue reading
I guess I should start by saying that I didn’t care for the novel the film is based on. But it’s still a damn sight better than the film. The internal monologues present in the book at least give some measure of breath (and breadth) to the lives of these characters. Those who have read it will, no doubt, recognize the wisps of backstory left intact that made the novel readable, if somewhat predictable. They also should be able to follow the convoluted plot a lot better. The compression from novel to screenplay didn’t do this story any favors. Continue reading
When is a “talkie” not a “talkie”? When it’s done completely in Ukrainian Sign Language. And I mean completely. No talking. No translation. No subtitles. On the one hand, it feels like a gimmick, and keeps the audience from getting to know much about these characters, but on the other it forces us to become a much more active audience. Even paying attention, though, you’re still not going to get everything. Continue reading
So I’ve been trying to work my way through all of the “brand name” films, trying to put together my end of the year list, and I thought I’d take a break and slide this film in as a sort of “palate cleanser” with no hope of it being anything more than that. Wow, was I wrong. This might be one of my favorite film experiences this year. It’s no secret that I have a soft spot for films from Down Under, and although this one might benefit from my bias, I feel comfortable recommending it to anyone. It’s not a film filled, like so many others this year, with heroic action sequences, stylistic camerawork, witty dialogue, or over-the-top violence. It’s a film about believable, real characters dealing with an, unfortunately, all-to-real situation. And I can tell you, as I sit here writing this with a tear still on my cheek and a smile on my face, it will make you care about these people. Continue reading
I’m not sure how to describe this film, except maybe to say imagine if Logan’s Run was written by Woody Allen and directed by Terry Gilliam (or maybe Wes Anderson). Colin Farrell, who I normally don’t think much of, gives a nice, understated performance here as David, a newly-single man from a mildly Orwellian future, who is shipped off to stay at a hotel (Room 101!) where denizens are all single, and must find a mate within 45 days or be turned into an animal of their choosing (in David’s case, a lobster) and released into the forest. He’s got nerdy glasses and a paunch, and (perhaps because he’s relying less on his looks) I don’t think I’ve seen him better. Continue reading
I’m not a big fan of Leo’s. Maybe I’ve just chosen the wrong titles, but I’ve never thought he had the range for many of the roles he plays. He always seems so one-note. He’s good here, but once again, it’s one note: angry. To be fair, he has to make do with very little dialogue, about half of it in the Pawnee dialect, which he uses to converse with Hawk, his son by a Pawnee woman. And he has plenty of reason to be angry. Continue reading
Michael Haneke seems to be another one of those “love him or hate him” directors. His films are frustratingly slow and this, his feature debut, is no different. I don’t mind the slow pace, as I think there’s usually a method to his madness, but I could see those used to more mainstream films finding his work “boring.” Here, he also takes great pains to avoid addressing the characters with the camera. (It’s been a while since I’ve seen any of his other films, but I seem to recall that being a common thing with him.) For example, at the breakfast table we see the table laid out, but only see the hands of the family as they reach for the various items. It denies us a connection with them, but little by little, he lets us become closer, just as the camera does. I think I know the reason he does that, but to explain it here would ruin your experience. Continue reading
Who Cares What You Think? 