It's Only A Movie

176. Moonrise Kingdom

As far as the design and cinematography goes the film is pretty much perfect, which is not surprising given Anderson’s other movies, but it falls short of what I felt it was aiming for in the end. It’s quite frustrating actually, because after I was getting into the pace and tone at the beginning I started to really enjoy it. The handling of the young romance was great, and the two young actors are fantastic (especially Kara Hayward), but the third act just felt like a lot of.. stuff happening. The first half was great, and the ending was sweet, but the way they were linked felt quite random - and wasn’t particularly emotional, funny or interesting. It’s a shame really, because it’s lowered my opinion of the whole thing, despite how great certain parts of it are. I guess the best parts were when the two characters were given the spotlight on their own, and their time together spent alone. It came close to some rewarding truth about growing up, being an outcast etc. but it fell short and didn’t really get back to that point again. Although there could be something I’m missing out on since this has been getting good reviews and I didn’t like Bottle Rocket or Rushmore that much when to some they’re the best of his filmography. Some of the shots are the best I’ve seen in any of his films, which is saying something, it’s 2/3 of a great movie. The music is good as always with Anderson, but it doesn’t compare to his previous soundtracks. Also, Willis and Norton are pretty darn good here too.

B

175. All The President’s Men

First of all I have to say that this is one of those acclaimed films that do live up to the hype. The script is key, there’s so many details being thrown around every line counts, because you can’t just skip out the minor moments and wait for the conclusions like other movies. The film actually lost me right at the beginning, and I had to try really hard to figure out what had happened whilst constantly taking in new information. I handled it in the end, and felt handsomely rewarded. The explosive start of the movie is fantastic, but the sudden end is something I don’t quite get. I had heard about it before but was still surprised when it did end. In a film so finely crafted and deliberate there must be a reason for it to be done this way but I don’t know why. Hoffman and Redford are brilliant. They aren’t given any backstory or sub-plots or character arcs or anything, they’re just given a scandal and are propelled onwards by their relentless investigation. It’s in these reactions that we glimpse at who they are, or at their professional identities. Pakula is inventive with his directing in a film that is so heavily focused on the sound of talking and phones and typewriters and not on aesthetics, there were moments I was wowed by the dexterity in which he used the camera to convey emotion or just provide fascinating images.

A-

174. The Raid

I went to see the Raid for two main reasons - because of the hype the action scenes had garnered and the concept. A SWAT team caught in a 15-story apartment block full of criminals, with their option being to fight their way to the top - that’s interesting, now give me good action. It does, but that’s not to say that the story or characters are thin or anything, they’re just kind of irrelevant. There’s a few good lines (and that’s good well-written lines of dialogue, not witty one-liners) and convincing acting, but the spotlight is definitely on the expertise both Iko Uwais and Gareth Evans display in constructing the fight scenes. It’s been commended for structuring these scenes so that they’re understandable and realistic without losing any weight or thrill but I think it’s more of a how-to for directors who seem to think that fast-cutting and shaky cam is enough to let the audience know that there’s physical conflict going on. Not everyone can be Paul Greengrass. It’s also noteworthy that the music and slow panning shots are interesting, and it’s pretty short so it doesn’t pad out the story unnecessarily. My experience in seeing this was interesting - aside from dealing with limited staff, slow service and a broken projector (not manned, of course) - it was my first trip to the cinema on my own. It just so happened that it was the last day the film was showing and no one I knew was interested. It’s a very bizarre experience having an entire screening to yourself.

C+

173. Into The Abyss

Unfortunately this didn’t live up to Grizzly Man, which was the best documentary I’ve ever seen, but still has some merit. Although I know some people who dislike Herzog philosophical intrusion into Treadwell’s life in that film I felt it added a perspective that had it’s own weight yet amplified the meaning of Treadwell’s. That intrusion is significantly absent here, and I felt a little more direction into the conclusions drawn from the film other than the obvious anti-death penalty stance. It wasn’t quite edgy enough to fit with Herzog’s usual nihilistic outlook for me. I’ve heard him talk about the film in interviews and there’s a certain optimism to it which I think affected the film - but considering both the subject matter and the director’s tendency to take a darker route it sort of cancels itself out tonally and loses some of the impact that could’ve been achieved. There are a few great moments, but they are too far spaced-out for any of the emotion evoked to last. Herzog still knows the right (difficult, but with results) questions to ask, but as he takes a back seat it feels far too objective to be dealing with the subject. That’s what I liked about him in his other films, he’s always been biased enough to give the picture some guidance.

C+

172. The Dictator

I saw the trailer in the cinema a month or two back and was insanely put off of it, but reviews started coming in and I thought it might be a little more clever than it looked. The main reason I watched it though was because of the glimpse of a careful balance in Sacha Baron Cohen’s comedic sense in his role in Hugo. He managed to be very funny, yet retain a likeability and tone that made him feel more real as a character. Learning the direction the story took made me think the character’s lesson in humility would be a chance for Cohen to prove he’s not all about controversy. Unfortunately my first assumption about the movie was mostly right. The sad thing is that 80% of the best jokes are in the trailer, and most of the movie is populated by lazy sex and stereotype jokes. There’s an instance in which they make a joke out of the Munich Olympics Massacre, which is in as bad taste as it sounds, but overall the humour wasn’t too offensive. There is a fantastic moment near the end, however, in which Cohen explains why a dictatorship is good and lists problem after problem of things that are wrong with western democracies (particularly America), and though it was a cleverly written and hilarious moment I felt it was a little lost on the general demographic that went to see it.

C-

171. Batman: Year One

A successful adaptation of the brilliant graphic novel, but in its toned-down form the bleak atmosphere in Gotham isn’t felt as much here, and so the victory feels a little flat. It works, sure, but not well enough to warrant an hour of your time. Just read the book.

C-

170. Monsters (2nd Viewing)

note: I’m counting 170 twice because I somehow missed out or deleted my 6th post, and this is easier than retitling all 170 posts

There’s a lot of interesting things about Monsters that elevates it before the actual quality of the movie can be brought under consideration. It’s a metaphor for the problems of illegal immigration from Mexico to the US and the demonization of those who do attempt or get away with it. It’s inspired by the idea of most alien/monster movies being 9/11, whilst this is the war in Afghanistan. Gareth Edwards wrote, directed and did the special effects himself, with a ridiculously small budget of $500,000. The locations filmed on were used with consent, but the extras were entirely made up of locals, the dialogue is improvised, the two leads are married in real life to provide chemistry and are untrained actors. Is the film actually any good though? Yes. It’s not perfect, but it’s pretty darn good.

There are times during the film that the ad-lib approach can stretch out how long the time passes, but in the end it contributes to a slow, unlikely but nevertheless convincing relationship between the two characters. There are hints throughout that lead to a better understanding of the creatures, but if you watch closely and allow yourself to be truly taken in by the encounter at the end there’s some revelations that again elevate the already well-made film to another level. The ending is what made the film for me, moments that could otherwise have been inconsequential are summed up in a beautiful display that (I can’t stress this enough) looks so good that it evokes awe and emotion that I rarely feel due to aesthetic beauty in film. It was definitely better to see in the cinema, it’s so cinematic throughout - I swear any frame can be framed and would look great on your wall. Tragically underrated, it seems that the critics were luke-warm towards it and most of the audience were disappointed that the ‘monsters’ only took up about 15% of the run-time. But fuck those guys go see this movie.

B+

170. Me Without You

I had this film recommended to me and sought it out online, only to find that all the links were either incomplete or were in French or Russian. So since it was cheap I just bought it, and on the extras there’s some production notes written by the director Sandra Goldbacher that sums up the film better than I ever could:

I’d always wanted to make an unsentimental film about the complicatedness of women’s friendship. I had a furiously intense ‘best friendship’ from the age of 11 to 17. It has always haunted me like a specter, and I still dream about this girl after twenty years. I’ve spoken to so many women who’ve had the same, almost addictively over-close friendships, which, if you try and sustain them beyond childhood, can be quite suffocating. The thrill of that siamese twin-like bond can be so seductive that it’s hard to relinquish it as you grow apart. Your insecurities and neuroses seem to project themselves back and forth and grow like orchids in a hot house. The film tells the story of how claustrophobic and obsessive a bond – one that is originally so exhilarating — can become.  I’ve often wondered how our friendship might have continued.

Both Michelle Williams and Anna Friel are really great, and the script does a great job of giving you reasons to pity both Holly and Marina. It’s very easy for Marina to be the antagonist for most of the movie, and though she does do some nasty things it just made me like her more, her insecurities are more subtly apparent than with Holly. There’s a lot of charm and a lot of despair but it never feels like either of these aspects are over-mined, it feels completely natural throughout. Even after seeing Michelle Williams take the role of larger-than-life Marilyn Monroe last year I was thoroughly convinced that she was a normal girl with an obsessive friendship that’s common to women (so I’ve heard). It’s also interesting to note how convincing their age difference is throughout the film, as I never doubted the age of either of the actresses despite at the beginning of the film they’re playing 16-year-olds and at the end they’re 40. I hate to be so lazy as to quote another person, but here’s what Roger Ebert said about it:

The screenplay, by Goldbacher and Laurence Coriat, plays as if the authors have based it on their observations of life, not of movies. There is ultimately a species of happy ending, although you realize it represents maturity and weariness more than victory. The struggles of the teens and 20s are so fraught, so passionate, so seemingly desperate, that when you grow older and learn balance and perspective, there’s a bittersweet sense of loss. In years to come, Marina and Holly may reflect that they were never happier than when they were making each other miserable.

B+

169. Frost/Nixon

It’s strange how Ron Howard made some of my favourite films such as Parenthood, The Grinch and A Beautiful Mind, yet has made some awfully dull ones like The Da Vinci Code and the Dilemma. And a few years back he made a movie called Frost/Nixon, which despite it not reaching the standards of some of Howard’s other work, is one of the good ones. There’s not much to say about the film other than the historical inaccuracies (of which I won’t go into, because this is a dramatisation after all) and the two central performances. Langella is great as Nixon, but I felt a crucial late-night phone call to him was where most of the Oscar-nominated performance found its footing, and though it was a fantastic scene Sheen managed to be brilliant in every frame. It’s great seeing a film show you the outer layers of a character, let them give a few hints to who they truly are through a few of their own words, and then other course of the story bring the audience closer and closer to this true persona. That’s what happens with Michael Sheen’s take on David Frost, and though I know very little about the real man I can say for sure that the Sheen did a fantastic job of revealing himself with so many subtle differences in his smile and composure. The supporting cast are good but not really important, though Sam Rockwell is predictably entertaining to watch. I felt that it lost a lot of momentum towards the end, which is a shame since the first hour is so tense it was difficult to watch at times.

B

168. Badlands

Didn’t go in the direction I assumed it would from the synopsis, it instead paints a realistic portrait of a couple leaving the confines of society for something else, and feeling a yearning to return to it. Malick skilfully shows the effect this withdrawal has on the characters, Holly is taken away from a conservative home where she studies hard and will hopefully meet a nice wealthy boy who’ll marry her at a crucial stage in her development. They leave only to find that the only place that’ll have them is the badlands, and the life they once led seems like a completely different plane of existence. Even when they make a brief entry into the world again when they hole up in a rich man’s house there’s a feeling like they are ghosts wandering the living world, like they are there in one way, and in another they aren’t. Sheen is brilliantly charismatic as a criminal who is one for little reason, and sees murder as a convenience rather than a crime. It’s really odd to see romantic scenes in such a destructive relationship just as it’s strange to see Sheen’s politeness come into play before he kills, the message if there is one is that if there is such a thing as evil it’s not as clear-cut as we might think. But that’s the interesting thing about Badlands - it doesn’t have any definite message, it shows these people in the most detached way without losing any character.

B