The 10 Best Movies of 2016
Honorable Mentions
Captain Fantastic
A Bigger Splash
The Lobster
The Edge of Seventeen
Arrival
10. Hell or High Water - David Mackenzie’s wonderfully propulsive and smart crime drama is a refreshing blend of effective genre filmmaking, complex characterization and understated socioeconomic contextualization. Ben Foster’s manic yet moving performance was among the most overlooked of 2016.
9. American Honey - Andrea Arnold is one of the most perceptive currently active filmmakers, and she’s at the peak of her artistic powers here—creating a deliberately aimless, meandering and ultimately insightful journey through the soul of impoverished America and its troubled youth through the perspective of an impressionable, reckless, but good-natured young woman struggling to find something, someone, or somewhere worth the internal and external struggle itself.
8. Silence - Martin Scorsese’s much under-appreciated latest is a masterful examination of the power of faith and one’s relative willingness to sacrifice it—and how demoralizing, inscrutable, yet essentially liberating—that can be.
7. Don’t Think Twice - This lovely movie deserved a larger audience. Mike Birbiglia’s film is one of warm empathy, even as it lets none of its characters’ off the hook for their occasionally inappropriate self-indulgences. It understands what separates them as artists with varying levels of talent, but also what binds them together as human beings trying to be there for each other as they struggle to for themselves.
6. Paterson - A hypnotic visual poem about the poetry of everyday life. It also could conceivably be looked at as Jim Jarmusch’s Speed. Adam Driver is perfect.
5. Hail, Caesar! - The Coen Brothers’ underrated 17th feature film was almost too smart for its own good; some viewers may have found its audacious structural mechanics too distracting. I was delighted, however, from beginning to end: this is a meta movie that plays like a series of movies-within-movies, whilst never getting so caught up in itself that you forget you're watching a single film. Its genius is impossible to reconcile with its apparent incoherence, so I’m not so sure that retrospective reassessments will prove to be more appreciative. It’ll probably have to stand as a mere personal favorite of mine. I take no issue with that.
4. La La Land - Debates over this one were not much fun. Man did this bring out my uglier side. Discussed below.
3. Manchester by the Sea - Someone described watching this film as being like a continuous, brutal punch in the gut for 2+ hours. Granted, this is not inaccurate, but the film is still powerful, moving, and (thankfully) funny enough to redeem that. Affleck’s performance was the best of an already sensational year, and Lonergan’s script is as sharp and economical as anything he’s done.
2. Moonlight - This lush, aesthetically innovative independent drama from Barry Jenkins is a masterwork of atmospherically intimate filmmaking: it closely studies the expressions written over each character’s face and body with vibrant, sometimes intimidating close-ups... and by extension, it emphasizes the palpable dissonance felt within its protagonist. It is only ‘socially conscious’ in that it's always intensely aware of Chiron’s social environment, his perception of it, and how it shapes his manhood--to the point where his sexuality almost feels incidental (even as we recognize that it's not). Does the film victimize Chiron? In a sense, yes. But does it trivialize his struggles? No, and the result is both a character and film that—as A.O Scott so beautifully put it—is a privilege to know and be a part of.
1. Everybody Wants Some!!! - Richard Linklater’s latest coming of age comedy has plenty of stoners in it, but is in no sense another one of his ‘stoner’ movies. Watching Everybody Wants Some!!! in theaters was, without a doubt, one of the best and most pleasurable moviegoing experiences I’ve ever had. It vibrates with the constant energy of its characters: young, hormonal college athletes on the brink of a new season, a new semester, and a new stage of life. It paints them as a group of varying competitive, masculine archetypes, but never betrays their individual idiosyncrasies. And perhaps most delightfully, the film places a decent amount of time actually showcasing their athletic talents and how they operate and interact as a team, rather than going the easy route and getting all mixed up in stereotypically rowdy, party-oriented college antics (though there’s plenty of that too). What a wonderful time--to be these kids; to be that young; to watch this movie. Everybody wants some of that.
Captain Fantastic
A Bigger Splash
The Lobster
The Edge of Seventeen
Arrival
10. Hell or High Water - David Mackenzie’s wonderfully propulsive and smart crime drama is a refreshing blend of effective genre filmmaking, complex characterization and understated socioeconomic contextualization. Ben Foster’s manic yet moving performance was among the most overlooked of 2016.
9. American Honey - Andrea Arnold is one of the most perceptive currently active filmmakers, and she’s at the peak of her artistic powers here—creating a deliberately aimless, meandering and ultimately insightful journey through the soul of impoverished America and its troubled youth through the perspective of an impressionable, reckless, but good-natured young woman struggling to find something, someone, or somewhere worth the internal and external struggle itself.
8. Silence - Martin Scorsese’s much under-appreciated latest is a masterful examination of the power of faith and one’s relative willingness to sacrifice it—and how demoralizing, inscrutable, yet essentially liberating—that can be.
7. Don’t Think Twice - This lovely movie deserved a larger audience. Mike Birbiglia’s film is one of warm empathy, even as it lets none of its characters’ off the hook for their occasionally inappropriate self-indulgences. It understands what separates them as artists with varying levels of talent, but also what binds them together as human beings trying to be there for each other as they struggle to for themselves.
6. Paterson - A hypnotic visual poem about the poetry of everyday life. It also could conceivably be looked at as Jim Jarmusch’s Speed. Adam Driver is perfect.
5. Hail, Caesar! - The Coen Brothers’ underrated 17th feature film was almost too smart for its own good; some viewers may have found its audacious structural mechanics too distracting. I was delighted, however, from beginning to end: this is a meta movie that plays like a series of movies-within-movies, whilst never getting so caught up in itself that you forget you're watching a single film. Its genius is impossible to reconcile with its apparent incoherence, so I’m not so sure that retrospective reassessments will prove to be more appreciative. It’ll probably have to stand as a mere personal favorite of mine. I take no issue with that.
4. La La Land - Debates over this one were not much fun. Man did this bring out my uglier side. Discussed below.
3. Manchester by the Sea - Someone described watching this film as being like a continuous, brutal punch in the gut for 2+ hours. Granted, this is not inaccurate, but the film is still powerful, moving, and (thankfully) funny enough to redeem that. Affleck’s performance was the best of an already sensational year, and Lonergan’s script is as sharp and economical as anything he’s done.
2. Moonlight - This lush, aesthetically innovative independent drama from Barry Jenkins is a masterwork of atmospherically intimate filmmaking: it closely studies the expressions written over each character’s face and body with vibrant, sometimes intimidating close-ups... and by extension, it emphasizes the palpable dissonance felt within its protagonist. It is only ‘socially conscious’ in that it's always intensely aware of Chiron’s social environment, his perception of it, and how it shapes his manhood--to the point where his sexuality almost feels incidental (even as we recognize that it's not). Does the film victimize Chiron? In a sense, yes. But does it trivialize his struggles? No, and the result is both a character and film that—as A.O Scott so beautifully put it—is a privilege to know and be a part of.
1. Everybody Wants Some!!! - Richard Linklater’s latest coming of age comedy has plenty of stoners in it, but is in no sense another one of his ‘stoner’ movies. Watching Everybody Wants Some!!! in theaters was, without a doubt, one of the best and most pleasurable moviegoing experiences I’ve ever had. It vibrates with the constant energy of its characters: young, hormonal college athletes on the brink of a new season, a new semester, and a new stage of life. It paints them as a group of varying competitive, masculine archetypes, but never betrays their individual idiosyncrasies. And perhaps most delightfully, the film places a decent amount of time actually showcasing their athletic talents and how they operate and interact as a team, rather than going the easy route and getting all mixed up in stereotypically rowdy, party-oriented college antics (though there’s plenty of that too). What a wonderful time--to be these kids; to be that young; to watch this movie. Everybody wants some of that.
In Defense of "La La Land"
“I wasn’t on set thinking, ‘I’m going to make a film that can take down the ‘white, fascist musical,’ just like I’m sure Damien wasn’t on set thinking, ‘I’m going to make a movie that can take down the gay, black, hood love story told in an art-house way,’” said Jenkins. “It just doesn’t work that way. Just like all these movies [like Moonlight, Fences, and Hidden Figures] are being framed as a response to #OscarsSoWhite — I think they all arose in a vacuum, and they just arrived at this moment. It’s great for people out there who need a narrative, but we’re just trying to make art.” - Barry Jenkins, Director of Moonlight.
I am seriously sick of people acting as if this film presents Sebastian (Ryan Gosling) as a "savior" of Jazz and John Legend as a sell-out. It doesn't. It presents him as a passionate, if somewhat cynical and self-involved, Jazz lover. John Legend's character, whose name is Keith, (every audience keeps identifying him as "the black guy", unfortunately) is the one who pushes him out of his self-righteous attitude, allowing him to build a career for himself and eventually have the jazz club he'd always dreamed of. It does not, in any way, celebrate white people and demonize, or even ignore, black people. Is the cast of major characters diverse? No. But nothing in the film's story has anything to do with race-relations or modern sociopolitical dynamics. It is simply a modernized classical musical, and a love story about two people who fall for each other at the wrong time.
All of the supposed cultural appropriations and racist (or even "fascist", as one article has stated) elements of the film are wrongheaded preconceived notions generated by consistent recognition from awards ceremonies that are, nowadays, constantly associated with whitewashing. No film is "too white" or "too black" if it doesn't inherently have anything to do with race-relations. A lot of people who seem to be driving this (not unexpected) backlash--or at least taking part in it--that are comparing the subject matter of La La Land with that of Moonlight and bashing the former for not being anything like the latter (as a response to it getting more awards) are viewing cinema through a purely racial and sociopolitical lens.
This approach to art, film, and critical thinking is so detrimental and antithetical to what filmmaking, stories, and inspiration are all about. La La Land is not concerned with racism and issues of diversity at a time when everyone is. Why is that Chazelle’s problem? He’s a filmmaker, not a politician or activist. Is he not allowed to tell the story he wants to tell simply due to the values of our pseudo-progressive culture? If the film actually dealt with Jazz as a subject, maybe I could see where some of the skeptics are coming from, but it doesn't. It just has a major character in it who loves Jazz.
The film's real concerns are not so different from Whiplash, but expressed with far more ambition, as well as narrative and thematic scope: ambition, dreams of romance and success in show business juxtaposed with the reality of artistic struggle and the hardships of building an ideal life with someone else whilst trying to do it for yourself, etc. The film is also fairly overt in how it draws from classic hollywood musicals of the past, and in this sense it also works as a meta movie about its own genre being a hopelessly fantastical land of dreams and romance. As David Ehrlich put it, "...it disintegrates from the technicolor to the quotidian, from a romance about movies to a movie about romance."
None of these ideas are necessarily original, but Chazelle finds consistently stunning and clever ways to exhibit them: the thrilling opening number that starts and inevitably ends as just a traffic jam; the record player that stops once Mia and Sebastian fight at dinner--their relationship having reached a harsh, unavoidable turning point; and of course the ending... a bittersweet summation of what the film is: a fantasia that ironically, yet poignantly, plays on cliches of past musicals and ideas about hollywood and romance as a dream factory, all built into the reality of a failed relationship that had to end for its participants to achieve their individual goals. The nod shared by Sebastian and Mia at the end--a note of acknowledgement regarding their eternal love for one another and a moment of recognition for what they ultimately did for each other, is as devastating as it is romantic.
I am so sick of people bashing this film for poorly addressing subjects that it doesn't try to address in the first place. I am tired of people judging films for what they are not. I am tired of people having fixed ideas of what certain films are before they see them, built off of the widely publicized praise--and opinions in general--of others that hold no real significance. Film critiques should come from individual experiences, not from larger cultural perceptions. This generational approach to judging film and entertainment is robbing cinema of its artistry and intimacy. Ditch your supposed disillusionment just for a couple hours, please. Watch a movie for what it is. Especially this one. I don't think you'll be disappointed.
COMMENT?
I am seriously sick of people acting as if this film presents Sebastian (Ryan Gosling) as a "savior" of Jazz and John Legend as a sell-out. It doesn't. It presents him as a passionate, if somewhat cynical and self-involved, Jazz lover. John Legend's character, whose name is Keith, (every audience keeps identifying him as "the black guy", unfortunately) is the one who pushes him out of his self-righteous attitude, allowing him to build a career for himself and eventually have the jazz club he'd always dreamed of. It does not, in any way, celebrate white people and demonize, or even ignore, black people. Is the cast of major characters diverse? No. But nothing in the film's story has anything to do with race-relations or modern sociopolitical dynamics. It is simply a modernized classical musical, and a love story about two people who fall for each other at the wrong time.
All of the supposed cultural appropriations and racist (or even "fascist", as one article has stated) elements of the film are wrongheaded preconceived notions generated by consistent recognition from awards ceremonies that are, nowadays, constantly associated with whitewashing. No film is "too white" or "too black" if it doesn't inherently have anything to do with race-relations. A lot of people who seem to be driving this (not unexpected) backlash--or at least taking part in it--that are comparing the subject matter of La La Land with that of Moonlight and bashing the former for not being anything like the latter (as a response to it getting more awards) are viewing cinema through a purely racial and sociopolitical lens.
This approach to art, film, and critical thinking is so detrimental and antithetical to what filmmaking, stories, and inspiration are all about. La La Land is not concerned with racism and issues of diversity at a time when everyone is. Why is that Chazelle’s problem? He’s a filmmaker, not a politician or activist. Is he not allowed to tell the story he wants to tell simply due to the values of our pseudo-progressive culture? If the film actually dealt with Jazz as a subject, maybe I could see where some of the skeptics are coming from, but it doesn't. It just has a major character in it who loves Jazz.
The film's real concerns are not so different from Whiplash, but expressed with far more ambition, as well as narrative and thematic scope: ambition, dreams of romance and success in show business juxtaposed with the reality of artistic struggle and the hardships of building an ideal life with someone else whilst trying to do it for yourself, etc. The film is also fairly overt in how it draws from classic hollywood musicals of the past, and in this sense it also works as a meta movie about its own genre being a hopelessly fantastical land of dreams and romance. As David Ehrlich put it, "...it disintegrates from the technicolor to the quotidian, from a romance about movies to a movie about romance."
None of these ideas are necessarily original, but Chazelle finds consistently stunning and clever ways to exhibit them: the thrilling opening number that starts and inevitably ends as just a traffic jam; the record player that stops once Mia and Sebastian fight at dinner--their relationship having reached a harsh, unavoidable turning point; and of course the ending... a bittersweet summation of what the film is: a fantasia that ironically, yet poignantly, plays on cliches of past musicals and ideas about hollywood and romance as a dream factory, all built into the reality of a failed relationship that had to end for its participants to achieve their individual goals. The nod shared by Sebastian and Mia at the end--a note of acknowledgement regarding their eternal love for one another and a moment of recognition for what they ultimately did for each other, is as devastating as it is romantic.
I am so sick of people bashing this film for poorly addressing subjects that it doesn't try to address in the first place. I am tired of people judging films for what they are not. I am tired of people having fixed ideas of what certain films are before they see them, built off of the widely publicized praise--and opinions in general--of others that hold no real significance. Film critiques should come from individual experiences, not from larger cultural perceptions. This generational approach to judging film and entertainment is robbing cinema of its artistry and intimacy. Ditch your supposed disillusionment just for a couple hours, please. Watch a movie for what it is. Especially this one. I don't think you'll be disappointed.
COMMENT?
Problems: My Problem With Terry Gilliam's Problem With Steven Spielberg
There is an interview with Terry Gilliam (by Turner Classic Movies) in which he discusses his issues with Steven Spielberg, and by extension, the difference between movies like 2001: A Space Odyssey and Schindler's List (as well as Spielberg and "great" filmmakers such as Stanley Kubrick). Watch it here:
I find his perspective to be problematic for several reasons, but my main issues boil down to this:
Beyond how an audience member reacts to a film, movies are what their creators intend them to be, and just because Spielberg's vision differs from Kubrick's doesn't make it worse or better. It may be better for Terry Gilliam, who personally prefers films that are more provocative and open-ended, but Spielberg didn't intend for Schindler's List to be enigmatic in any way, and that's not a flaw. Gilliam is asking Spielberg to make a different movie, not a better version of the one he made.
It's not fair of him to criticize cinema in general when mentioning how some filmmakers prefer closure rather than ambiguity. Some films are fit to have the former, some the latter. Not EVERY movie has to be open-ended and ambiguous. That's a silly criticism and only a personal preference of Gilliam. And I love movies that are dense and can be interpreted many ways! But the beauty of movies (and art) are their diversity and versatility. Sometimes a filmmaker will make a film that intends to simply entertain, and if it is greatly effective, then it is a great film in its own right. I'm surprised that Terry Gilliam, the imaginative filmmaker that he is, would put a ceiling on what movies can do; I'm surprised he'd set such limitations.
Schindler's List was a great film in its own right. It wasn't trying to be Kubrickian and doesn't have to try. I love Spielberg AND Kubrick for different reasons. Sue me. Spielberg is not a manipulator, he's a humanist. Kubrick is too, but he's much more unconventional, which is also fine. They're great filmmakers for different reasons with different visions and if Gilliam can't see that and thinks a movie only has ONE job then that's unfair judgement.
Beyond how an audience member reacts to a film, movies are what their creators intend them to be, and just because Spielberg's vision differs from Kubrick's doesn't make it worse or better. It may be better for Terry Gilliam, who personally prefers films that are more provocative and open-ended, but Spielberg didn't intend for Schindler's List to be enigmatic in any way, and that's not a flaw. Gilliam is asking Spielberg to make a different movie, not a better version of the one he made.
It's not fair of him to criticize cinema in general when mentioning how some filmmakers prefer closure rather than ambiguity. Some films are fit to have the former, some the latter. Not EVERY movie has to be open-ended and ambiguous. That's a silly criticism and only a personal preference of Gilliam. And I love movies that are dense and can be interpreted many ways! But the beauty of movies (and art) are their diversity and versatility. Sometimes a filmmaker will make a film that intends to simply entertain, and if it is greatly effective, then it is a great film in its own right. I'm surprised that Terry Gilliam, the imaginative filmmaker that he is, would put a ceiling on what movies can do; I'm surprised he'd set such limitations.
Schindler's List was a great film in its own right. It wasn't trying to be Kubrickian and doesn't have to try. I love Spielberg AND Kubrick for different reasons. Sue me. Spielberg is not a manipulator, he's a humanist. Kubrick is too, but he's much more unconventional, which is also fine. They're great filmmakers for different reasons with different visions and if Gilliam can't see that and thinks a movie only has ONE job then that's unfair judgement.
The 10 Best Movies of 2015
I will eventually see The Martian. But I could not wait any longer. Finally, here are my 10 best from last year:
Honorable Mentions
Ex Machina
Star Wars: The Force Awakens
It Follows
99 Homes
Phoenix
10. The Big Short - A bold, unique blend of rapidly paced comic entertainment along with gradually built tension. It's fun, enlightening, and then suddenly (and ultimately) tragic.
9. Anomalisa - Discussed below.
8. The Hateful Eight - A movie that is both spellbinding and utterly joyous in its inconceivable messiness.
7. The Diary of a Teenage Girl - Sensational and uncomfortably realistic in its daring, uncompromising consistency of tone, structure and character action from start to finish. One of the best coming of age movies I've seen in recent memory.
6. About Elly - Technically a movie from 2009, Asghar Farhadi's wrenching Iranian drama finally got released in the U.S last year and did not disappoint. A tragic story of lies, consequences and ultimate human helplessness amidst that which is beyond our control. In other words, just another Asghar Farhadi film.
5. Spotlight - Tonally and narratively much dryer than The Big Short, but just as informative and powerful. A gripping retelling of the Boston Globe's 2002 investigation into the Catholic Church sexual abuse cases, as well as a sharp and truthful depiction of the process of investigative journalism.
4. 45 Years - This one floored me. A quietly devastating movie about age that gracefully demonstrates and understands--through its complex central relationship--the ageless internal contradictions and anxieties within us all. It's brought to life by two magnificent performances, most notably from Charlotte Rampling (who probably should have won the oscar for Best Actress).
3. Mad Max: Fury Road - Thrillingly following its own established logic throughout, Miller's film is a wonder. One of those visionary movies that creates a world so intensely of its own, it practically transports you. You have to take a step back to recognize the complexity and poetry of its visual storytelling and the exactness of its pacing. Virtually flawless (and the best of the 8 nominated films this year for Best Picture).
2. Carol - Words cannot do it justice, but I'll try: one of the most beautiful films I have ever seen. I saw it on the weekend it came out and saw it again the next weekend, and then again the weekend after. I'll be revisiting this one for god knows how long, and not only to catch new subtleties, but to bask in all its glorious elegance and beauty once more.
1. Inside Out - Endlessly inventive, emotionally resonant, wildly entertaining, and psychologically challenging, Pixar's latest masterpiece is a comforting and exciting return to form, as well as everything I could ever want from a movie. I cried twice, which I had never done before, so not only does it intellectually push the bar for future animated films, but it breaks new personal ground for me as a moviegoer.
Honorable Mentions
Ex Machina
Star Wars: The Force Awakens
It Follows
99 Homes
Phoenix
10. The Big Short - A bold, unique blend of rapidly paced comic entertainment along with gradually built tension. It's fun, enlightening, and then suddenly (and ultimately) tragic.
9. Anomalisa - Discussed below.
8. The Hateful Eight - A movie that is both spellbinding and utterly joyous in its inconceivable messiness.
7. The Diary of a Teenage Girl - Sensational and uncomfortably realistic in its daring, uncompromising consistency of tone, structure and character action from start to finish. One of the best coming of age movies I've seen in recent memory.
6. About Elly - Technically a movie from 2009, Asghar Farhadi's wrenching Iranian drama finally got released in the U.S last year and did not disappoint. A tragic story of lies, consequences and ultimate human helplessness amidst that which is beyond our control. In other words, just another Asghar Farhadi film.
5. Spotlight - Tonally and narratively much dryer than The Big Short, but just as informative and powerful. A gripping retelling of the Boston Globe's 2002 investigation into the Catholic Church sexual abuse cases, as well as a sharp and truthful depiction of the process of investigative journalism.
4. 45 Years - This one floored me. A quietly devastating movie about age that gracefully demonstrates and understands--through its complex central relationship--the ageless internal contradictions and anxieties within us all. It's brought to life by two magnificent performances, most notably from Charlotte Rampling (who probably should have won the oscar for Best Actress).
3. Mad Max: Fury Road - Thrillingly following its own established logic throughout, Miller's film is a wonder. One of those visionary movies that creates a world so intensely of its own, it practically transports you. You have to take a step back to recognize the complexity and poetry of its visual storytelling and the exactness of its pacing. Virtually flawless (and the best of the 8 nominated films this year for Best Picture).
2. Carol - Words cannot do it justice, but I'll try: one of the most beautiful films I have ever seen. I saw it on the weekend it came out and saw it again the next weekend, and then again the weekend after. I'll be revisiting this one for god knows how long, and not only to catch new subtleties, but to bask in all its glorious elegance and beauty once more.
1. Inside Out - Endlessly inventive, emotionally resonant, wildly entertaining, and psychologically challenging, Pixar's latest masterpiece is a comforting and exciting return to form, as well as everything I could ever want from a movie. I cried twice, which I had never done before, so not only does it intellectually push the bar for future animated films, but it breaks new personal ground for me as a moviegoer.
Some Thoughts on Anomalisa : Charlie Kaufman Lite, Whatever That Means
Anomalisa is not utterly enthralling in the way that some of Kaufman's other films are (this may have to do with its length, which is forgivable considering everything Kaufman and his crew must've gone through just to get this made), but there isn't really a false note here anywhere. It contains all of the pain and humor--and humor in said pain and vice versa--that Kaufman's greatest work generally does. On first viewing, it appears to be, thematically, one of his more accessible movies, but that's not really saying anything when you think about how endlessly detailed most of his other stuff is--I'm sure there's plenty more to unpack on a second viewing; It's themes are visually built into the world it inhabits, which is a major part of why it seems to be fairly accessible... although said world it inhabits is that of Michael's perspective, so it makes sense. It certainly comments on how we're all ironically united by the fact that we're all fundamentally alone (or by the fact that we all, deep down, feel alone), and how sad and disappointingly predictable people can become--to an individual, such as Michael--with age. Yet the movie does not proclaim Michael's perspective as objectively true or false, which is the main reason why, I think, the film achieves its depth. I need to stop measuring this up to Kaufman's other movies. This is definitely everything one would want (and should expect) from a Kaufman movie: satisfyingly distinctive (its visual nature speaks for itself), deeply felt, and honest. Also, it includes one of the most astonishing and moving sex scenes I've ever seen. So there.
Thoughts on Steve Jobs
1st Viewing: Need a second viewing, but right now the film strikes me as almost too Sorkin-y for its own good; its heady, walk-and-talk dialogue is so constant that it runs the risk of suffocation, outweighing the movie's characterizations. However, the movie is still marvelously entertaining despite itself; funny, powerfully acted and cleverly crafted. Very good, but not the stuff of greatness (it doesn't hold a candle to The Social Network). With all that in mind, I was in a particularly bad mood when I was watching it, so a re-watch could prove more satisfying.
2nd Viewing: There will be minor spoilers here.
Issues that still stand:
- Relationships with important supporting characters (and these characters themselves) such as John Scully, Wozniak, and Andy Hertzfeldt still felt underdeveloped--the movie attempts to ground said relationships and characters in just a few lengthy dramatic scenes of intense conversation/arguing (with some flashbacks), and while these scenes are undeniably powerfully acted and well-written, they still felt shoehorned in (but that's just me). Wozniak, Scully, and Hertzfeldt rarely interact with anyone else in the movie other than Jobs.
- It still feels like a better three-act stage play than a movie (this kind of ties into my issue above). For those who say that this is intentional, I understand, but I would argue that even if it is intentionally structured like this--which it obviously is, its changing film format is a pretty strong indication, albeit a clever one--It should still work equally well as a film in its own right. Films that also feel like plays (or are plays) but still work as films include: Network, Doubt & Glengarry Glen Ross (which both were plays before they became movies), Rear Window, The Breakfast Club, etc. It's still a little too Sorkin-y, and this is coming from someone who looooves Sorkin.
Things that improved:
- Jobs's relationship with his daughter (the film's core relationship) felt much more fleshed out because she stood as a strong singular character this time around. The moment where she hugs Jobs and tells him she wants to live with him was something I didn't quite buy the first time, but this time, it killed me. The ending too, especially the final shot, felt more earned and poetic rather than sappy. And while this relationship also mostly consists of lengthy (or short) conversations, it works because Jobs's daughter is the one other character that is as central to the movie as Jobs himself; she is the one thing that's more important to him than any of his inventions, and ultimately, she is what gives his character,-- and the movie--its emotional and thematic complexity.
- Due to the above, the movie's themes (and the subtleties of Fassbender's performance) stood out more this time: personal growth/change contrasted with technological/generational evolution; even as he is changing the world we live in, Jobs cannot change himself. This all stems from his fear of connecting with others (most especially his daughter) due to his fear of rejection or betrayal (him being adopted deepens his psychological subtext), all of which felt much more understated this time. It also made his embracement of fatherhood at the end all the more moving. I could have done without some of the over-obvious dialogue during their reconciliation (i.e from Jobs to his daughter: "I'm poorly made") but it didn't bother me too much.
2nd Viewing: There will be minor spoilers here.
Issues that still stand:
- Relationships with important supporting characters (and these characters themselves) such as John Scully, Wozniak, and Andy Hertzfeldt still felt underdeveloped--the movie attempts to ground said relationships and characters in just a few lengthy dramatic scenes of intense conversation/arguing (with some flashbacks), and while these scenes are undeniably powerfully acted and well-written, they still felt shoehorned in (but that's just me). Wozniak, Scully, and Hertzfeldt rarely interact with anyone else in the movie other than Jobs.
- It still feels like a better three-act stage play than a movie (this kind of ties into my issue above). For those who say that this is intentional, I understand, but I would argue that even if it is intentionally structured like this--which it obviously is, its changing film format is a pretty strong indication, albeit a clever one--It should still work equally well as a film in its own right. Films that also feel like plays (or are plays) but still work as films include: Network, Doubt & Glengarry Glen Ross (which both were plays before they became movies), Rear Window, The Breakfast Club, etc. It's still a little too Sorkin-y, and this is coming from someone who looooves Sorkin.
Things that improved:
- Jobs's relationship with his daughter (the film's core relationship) felt much more fleshed out because she stood as a strong singular character this time around. The moment where she hugs Jobs and tells him she wants to live with him was something I didn't quite buy the first time, but this time, it killed me. The ending too, especially the final shot, felt more earned and poetic rather than sappy. And while this relationship also mostly consists of lengthy (or short) conversations, it works because Jobs's daughter is the one other character that is as central to the movie as Jobs himself; she is the one thing that's more important to him than any of his inventions, and ultimately, she is what gives his character,-- and the movie--its emotional and thematic complexity.
- Due to the above, the movie's themes (and the subtleties of Fassbender's performance) stood out more this time: personal growth/change contrasted with technological/generational evolution; even as he is changing the world we live in, Jobs cannot change himself. This all stems from his fear of connecting with others (most especially his daughter) due to his fear of rejection or betrayal (him being adopted deepens his psychological subtext), all of which felt much more understated this time. It also made his embracement of fatherhood at the end all the more moving. I could have done without some of the over-obvious dialogue during their reconciliation (i.e from Jobs to his daughter: "I'm poorly made") but it didn't bother me too much.
The Year's Most Joyfully Bad Movie
I laughed throughout Guy Ritchie's spy drama/action adventure, and it's not a comedy... even though it does occasionally try to be funny; and those, ironically, were the only moments in which I wasn't laughing. I don't remember much about the plot, but Henry Cavill and Armie Hammer's performances are both so cartoon-ishly over the top that they both become--in their own ways--insufferable. Cavill's character (and Cavill himself) tries so hard to come off as slick, suave and quick-witted, but, in nearly every scene--some of which are pivotal--he is constantly mocking and/or one-upping anyone else that is on the screen without actually doing much of anything, which in turn makes him come off as more of a useless hipster doofus than a world-class agent (granted, this is the script's fault as much as it is Cavill's, but I remain equally unforgiving towards his character and his performance, both of which are so annoyingly self-pleased). Hammer, on the other hand, is so self-serious that his character is never in the least bit intimidating or badass. Performances aside, the way the movie's action sequences are edited are so aggravating; various rapid punches and kicks are thrown at the screen in close-up, it was nearly impossible for me to follow, and not the least bit enjoyable (I felt as if I was the one getting my ass kicked). The pacing is uneven; there are long sequences of exhaustively constant action--all of which don't sustain much tension due to my lack of investment in any of the characters as well as my confusion in regards to the film's convoluted plot-- which are followed by lengthy scenes of uninteresting conversation. In short, it's a mess, and more importantly a failure in both execution and concept; it's a mere (and poor) replication of the 60s TV Show that it's based on, rather than a re-imagination. That, at the very least, might have gained my respect.
The Series-Defining, QUESTION-RAISING, Open-ended "Mad Men" Finale.
The series finale of AMC's all-time great drama "Mad Men" was tremendously satisfying in every way possible. All of the character's send-off's were definitive of who they were and what they represented from the beginning, and the final scene is series-defining and chillingly, ingenuously existential.
Joan: Joan turning down Richard after seeing- even though he's not a terrible guy -that he's not willing to be supportive of her professional independence because he wants her all to himself was perfect. It not only added a layer to Richard's character, but was so true to how Joan has evolved, and showed that she finally gained the strength to not succumb to what a man, however significant, expects of her, or wants her to be. It also perfectly ties into her character representing a kind of feminist-revolution, which she (more so than Peggy) does.
Peggy (Peggy/Stan): Peggy's storyline, while a bit rushed and incredibly cheesy, conceptually worked. Peggy and Stan ending up together was earned, and it ties into Peggy's (and every other character's) central conflict: the inability to balance one's professional and personal desires. Peggy telling Stan (and herself): "You're never here" is her projecting her previous notions of the kind of man she always thought she needed onto Stan. Her realizing "you're always here" shortly after has a double meaning: She realizes Stan has not only been there for her when she's emotionally needed him, but he's always there professionally as well because he's her co-worker. Metaphorically-and-literally speaking, they're in the same place (Peggy coming to this realization in one phone call was kind of unconvincing, but Elisabeth Moss's performance was so great that I can forgive it). Peggy has always been striving for some life outside of her office, some guy who differs from her, could enlighten her, and bring to her a world in which advertising isn't "all there is" (nod to Peggy Lee's song which plays during this last-half season's premiere). However, in the end, Peggy, like Don (just maybe; more on that soon), seems to accept herself for who she is, and the world she lives in for what it is, at least for now (Stan putting his hands on her shoulders as she types on her typewriter is a cliche'd shot, yet beautifully emblematic of all this).
Roger: Roger's ending was short and sweet. He got a couple of great one-liners: "All I got was 'suitcase'... yell at me slower, or in English!" and (when referring to Marie) "Nah. I met her through Megan Draper. She's old enough to be her mother... actually, she is her mother." That, along with Roger seemingly finally coming to terms and acceptance of his own mortality; finding a woman his own age who seems to be at level with him, was a perfectly hopeful ending for his character.
Pete: Who better than Pete, the snarky-est, whiniest, most consistently irritating, yet complex and somehow very sympathetic character on Mad Men to be the one who seemed to have learned most from his mistakes, attempting to start over in Wichita with Trudy.
Betty: Betty is seen smoking, which is consistent with her stating that she wants to face the inevitable on her own terms, and live her life the way she chooses, a choice she could have never considered when married to Don.
Sally: Sally is seen washing the dishes and teaching Bobby how to cook, implying that she's stepping up as the mother/general parental figure she has come to be, truly revealing how much she has grown; as she's learned the ways in which to follow and not follow in her mother's footsteps after Betty finally tells her that she has full confidence in her and loves her... which is all Sally ever needed to hear.
Don: There are many ways to interpret the show's final scene, which is the key to understanding Don's storyline in this episode, and by extension his character in general, and perhaps by further extension, the series itself... since it revolves around its protagonist.
The ending could be looked at as Don coming up with the Coke Ad, an implication that he eventually goes back to McCan and pitches the idea. This could represent somewhat of a reconciliation of Don Draper and Dick Whitman, a statement on how he has finally found "harmony" (nod to the Coke ad) within himself, and, like the rest of the characters for the time being, acceptance of who he is at heart: an ad man. Basically, he finds truth in advertising (this is the interpretation I would lean towards the most, if there actually is a definitive answer as to what happens.).
However, since this is an endlessly complex, open-ended series, that may not be all there is to it:
Perhaps Don didn't come up with the ad, and all of the previous subtle nods to the coke ad were just red herrings to that theory (Don fixing the coke machine in the previous episode, as well as the people he sees in the Esalen institute looking like the people in the actual coke ad... we know that Mad Men is not shy when it comes to red herrings) and the ending is him finding himself at Esalen and the Coke Ad is just a parting thought--a metaphor for the Utopia he and all of the characters revolving around him have been searching for all along, and he's found it--.
OR maybe he hasn't, and the Coke Ad represents the Utiopia he's still searching for but will never find because the nature of Don Draper (and by extension, advertising/consumerism) is farcical.
OR, he did come up with the Coke Ad, and it shows that Don, no matter how hard he tries to change, will always be a man built on lies; a man who looks at everything through the lends of advertising and salesmanship, and all he got out of this supposed transformative journey is merely another great idea for an ad... that's all that really makes him smile/happy. Perhaps that's all he's ever really been searching for, even if he doesn't always acknowledge it and thinks he's looking for something else, something true (or maybe he actually does try to search for something true, but always just ends up finding another idea for an ad).
The point is, the brilliance of the ambiguity--the question of whether Don changes, or whether the Coke Ad is genuine or not--- is that it raises the questions that have defined Don Draper, and Mad Men in general, to begin with. And however you perceive it reveals much about who you are, as does every other perception of any work of art, but its especially fitting for this show, because Mad Men has always been about human nature/the human condition, pitted against the evolution of American culture/history/time in general, which has defined who we were then, who we are now, and perhaps who we will be.
Larger questions the ending scene, and the series, raises:
What is the truth? Where does it lie? (no pun intended...but it kinda works....more on this later) What is happiness? (and since Matt Weiner has described Draper as being a representation of American society, the question is beyond just one individual). Is it consumerism? Spirituality? Capitalism? The past? The present? The future? Where can one find it? (I believe it answers that last question, more on that later).
"Person To Person" is a title that relates to human connection (which is apparent in this episode with Don, whether it's with the phone calls to Peggy, Betty, and Sally, or the hug he gives to the man in his therapy group, Leaonard, who he identifies with) but it's also a title that recalls Don's farcical nature, which makes one question if that connection he finds, even if momentarily sincere, can really last within him. And maybe it can, as the title could very well refer to his facade yet simultaneously point to how he finally finds truth and acceptance in it. Who knows, really. And even if Weiner was thinking of a specific meaning when he wrote it, we know that all great, profound art like Mad Men takes on a life of its own, its outcome offering further possible interpretations depending on who you are. And since the entire series, and all of the characters, revolve around Don Draper, the questions about him extend to the rest of the characters as well. Because even though they're different, they are also more or less the same (as is the case with people/society in general).
Weiner said that he didn't want a necessarily "happy" ending for the series... he just wanted his characters to be "a little happier than they were in the beginning". Yes, the Coke Ad is about "Harmony" and "The Real Thing" but then again... it's an advertisement. And if the series was firm about anything, it's that life goes on; time unceasingly persists. And as it does so, will these characters fall back into their old selves and make the same mistakes all over again? Can they change? Can we? I'm not sure Mad Men gives an answer to any of these questions. It doesn't try to; it never has. We can't know what the future holds, what would've been, or what is, really, because as Peggy says, "You're not supposed to know. Or you can't go on with your life." (emphasis on the "your" because this connects to the maddening, curiosity-filled relationship between the individual and the universal; one can't go on with their life wondering about the place, because what's important for the individual is their place ). The universe, time, is much bigger than us, obviously, and to quote Don twice: "The universe... is indifferent." and "That's part of the job. Living, in the not knowing." Those words ring true from a man that doesn't believe in fate.
And not knowing is scary and discomforting. Yet it can also be hopeful, sad, happy, optimistic, pessimistic, what have you. And all of those adjectives can also be applied to the Mad Men finale (and the series overall).
Another thing that the finale and the series set forth is that "Happiness", (which Don defines in the series more than once) generally speaking, may not exist, but one's own happiness does. And it is this truth that advertising /consumerism prevents one from realizing. The real question is not "what is happiness?", it's "what is happiness to an individual?" It seems as if the characters on Mad Men may have finally found this truth, but whether they can hold onto it (whether they've really definitively changed for the better) is what's unknown. In time, will they once again fall prey to the general definition of "happiness" that consumerism/advertising sets forth? I'm repeating myself here, because this all is just a more specific way of asking the original question regarding whether or not anyone has really changed. Again, it's open-ended, but Matthew Weiner himself said that "People don't change." However, there are different ways one can change: the characters might change behaviorally, and not repeat their old mistakes, yet remain the same at heart. The coke ad raises the question of not only if the characters have changed, but if so, how? What is change to a person?
The finale, through all of this, establishes the tagline for the show's first season (really the tagline for the series): "where the truth lies." This tagline (with a double meaning of the word "lies") is true of Mad Men , because the series itself speaks many truths about life and human psychology, so therefore truth does lie within the show. But the tagline is also true because in the world that Mad Men inhabits, the one where Don Draper, not Dick Whitman, lives (advertising), is one where the supposed "truth" is always to some extent a lie. Is the coke ad at the end the happiness that Don has found within himself? Or is it really just another ad; just another great idea of happiness that Don has come up with? And if it is his ad (which I'm pretty sure it is) it would be his masterpiece (its definitely the most legendary real ad presented on the show), therefore the ending could be presenting the ultimate "truth" to the audience (individual happiness that Don has found), or the ultimate "lie" (the most celebrated, legendary idea of happiness). Either way, in advertising, they're one and the same, aren't they? The question is (I know, too many questions) in the finale's case, which one overrides the other?
Oh yeah, so what's my personal interpretation on what actually happens? First off, as you can see, I just love its open-ended-ness; that it gives way to all of these interpretations and ties back into the central themes and universal questions that the show raises, which further brings out more specific questions within those larger ones. It's a testament to what a profound series Mad Men has been, and how profoundly affecting as well. Anyways, I think that Don gets the idea for the coke ad, goes back to New York and successfully pitches it, and has found, along with all of the other characters, momentary personal acceptance and happiness, and has stopped searching for the general definition of it which his business sets forth. The irony, however, is that he finds happiness and self-acceptance through advertising (accepting that he is an ad man), which is kind of twisted, and while the coke ad could be harmonic and happy for the moment, it could represent how consumerism/advertising will only continue to grow and become more threatening and create a larger, more manipulative false sense of security, and will in time consume all of the other characters, dragging them back down to where they started, revealing how they only momentarily changed (this also ties into the classic nature v. nurture question: are people born being unable to change, or does society and consumerism manipulate them into acting a certain way so they can feel "safe", or as Don says in the pilot, "okay"?). Consumerism/advertising certainly has only gotten more manipulative and toxic today, so if the implications of the coke ad at the end are ominously foreshadowing how advertising will just continue to flourish and consume everyone (thanks to men like Don Draper, buying into his false identity) it's accurately depicting American society (Don), in terms of both the past, and the present. So in the end, my personal take is that Mad Men 's finale is hopeful about the present (for its characters), yet ominous about the future (for American society).
Am I over-thinking all of this? If this is the case, is the finale too unclear? No, because endless amounts of specific questions like these are rooted in the larger, more universal questions that the finale and show raises, and can all be boiled down to said larger questions and themes that are prominent throughout the series. I'm not alone in thinking this way, and I honestly don't care if it's a stretch. The point is, the sign of a truly great TV series is one that makes us think this deeply. Like life, the finale, and pretty much Mad Men itself, is not about the answers. It's about the questions, and our individual answers. It's less about whether my interpretation is "right" or "wrong", because it's my interpretation. Period.
I'm not gonna turn this into a semi-diary entry where I start to blabber about what my future may or may not hold, but I will say this: A future without anymore Mad Men will be tough, but like I've said before, this is an immortal, timeless series, one that is a new experience with every re-watch. So if I can't make any more predictions about the future of this series, and whether or not any of these characters will change, I'll make a solid prediction about my own future: A part of me that'll never change will be that, no matter what other series' I may be watching at a certain point, I'll always be watching Mad Men. It will continue to stay with me. Forever.
To quote one more beloved character, the great Bert Cooper, "Bravo" Matthew Weiner.
Joan: Joan turning down Richard after seeing- even though he's not a terrible guy -that he's not willing to be supportive of her professional independence because he wants her all to himself was perfect. It not only added a layer to Richard's character, but was so true to how Joan has evolved, and showed that she finally gained the strength to not succumb to what a man, however significant, expects of her, or wants her to be. It also perfectly ties into her character representing a kind of feminist-revolution, which she (more so than Peggy) does.
Peggy (Peggy/Stan): Peggy's storyline, while a bit rushed and incredibly cheesy, conceptually worked. Peggy and Stan ending up together was earned, and it ties into Peggy's (and every other character's) central conflict: the inability to balance one's professional and personal desires. Peggy telling Stan (and herself): "You're never here" is her projecting her previous notions of the kind of man she always thought she needed onto Stan. Her realizing "you're always here" shortly after has a double meaning: She realizes Stan has not only been there for her when she's emotionally needed him, but he's always there professionally as well because he's her co-worker. Metaphorically-and-literally speaking, they're in the same place (Peggy coming to this realization in one phone call was kind of unconvincing, but Elisabeth Moss's performance was so great that I can forgive it). Peggy has always been striving for some life outside of her office, some guy who differs from her, could enlighten her, and bring to her a world in which advertising isn't "all there is" (nod to Peggy Lee's song which plays during this last-half season's premiere). However, in the end, Peggy, like Don (just maybe; more on that soon), seems to accept herself for who she is, and the world she lives in for what it is, at least for now (Stan putting his hands on her shoulders as she types on her typewriter is a cliche'd shot, yet beautifully emblematic of all this).
Roger: Roger's ending was short and sweet. He got a couple of great one-liners: "All I got was 'suitcase'... yell at me slower, or in English!" and (when referring to Marie) "Nah. I met her through Megan Draper. She's old enough to be her mother... actually, she is her mother." That, along with Roger seemingly finally coming to terms and acceptance of his own mortality; finding a woman his own age who seems to be at level with him, was a perfectly hopeful ending for his character.
Pete: Who better than Pete, the snarky-est, whiniest, most consistently irritating, yet complex and somehow very sympathetic character on Mad Men to be the one who seemed to have learned most from his mistakes, attempting to start over in Wichita with Trudy.
Betty: Betty is seen smoking, which is consistent with her stating that she wants to face the inevitable on her own terms, and live her life the way she chooses, a choice she could have never considered when married to Don.
Sally: Sally is seen washing the dishes and teaching Bobby how to cook, implying that she's stepping up as the mother/general parental figure she has come to be, truly revealing how much she has grown; as she's learned the ways in which to follow and not follow in her mother's footsteps after Betty finally tells her that she has full confidence in her and loves her... which is all Sally ever needed to hear.
Don: There are many ways to interpret the show's final scene, which is the key to understanding Don's storyline in this episode, and by extension his character in general, and perhaps by further extension, the series itself... since it revolves around its protagonist.
The ending could be looked at as Don coming up with the Coke Ad, an implication that he eventually goes back to McCan and pitches the idea. This could represent somewhat of a reconciliation of Don Draper and Dick Whitman, a statement on how he has finally found "harmony" (nod to the Coke ad) within himself, and, like the rest of the characters for the time being, acceptance of who he is at heart: an ad man. Basically, he finds truth in advertising (this is the interpretation I would lean towards the most, if there actually is a definitive answer as to what happens.).
However, since this is an endlessly complex, open-ended series, that may not be all there is to it:
Perhaps Don didn't come up with the ad, and all of the previous subtle nods to the coke ad were just red herrings to that theory (Don fixing the coke machine in the previous episode, as well as the people he sees in the Esalen institute looking like the people in the actual coke ad... we know that Mad Men is not shy when it comes to red herrings) and the ending is him finding himself at Esalen and the Coke Ad is just a parting thought--a metaphor for the Utopia he and all of the characters revolving around him have been searching for all along, and he's found it--.
OR maybe he hasn't, and the Coke Ad represents the Utiopia he's still searching for but will never find because the nature of Don Draper (and by extension, advertising/consumerism) is farcical.
OR, he did come up with the Coke Ad, and it shows that Don, no matter how hard he tries to change, will always be a man built on lies; a man who looks at everything through the lends of advertising and salesmanship, and all he got out of this supposed transformative journey is merely another great idea for an ad... that's all that really makes him smile/happy. Perhaps that's all he's ever really been searching for, even if he doesn't always acknowledge it and thinks he's looking for something else, something true (or maybe he actually does try to search for something true, but always just ends up finding another idea for an ad).
The point is, the brilliance of the ambiguity--the question of whether Don changes, or whether the Coke Ad is genuine or not--- is that it raises the questions that have defined Don Draper, and Mad Men in general, to begin with. And however you perceive it reveals much about who you are, as does every other perception of any work of art, but its especially fitting for this show, because Mad Men has always been about human nature/the human condition, pitted against the evolution of American culture/history/time in general, which has defined who we were then, who we are now, and perhaps who we will be.
Larger questions the ending scene, and the series, raises:
What is the truth? Where does it lie? (no pun intended...but it kinda works....more on this later) What is happiness? (and since Matt Weiner has described Draper as being a representation of American society, the question is beyond just one individual). Is it consumerism? Spirituality? Capitalism? The past? The present? The future? Where can one find it? (I believe it answers that last question, more on that later).
"Person To Person" is a title that relates to human connection (which is apparent in this episode with Don, whether it's with the phone calls to Peggy, Betty, and Sally, or the hug he gives to the man in his therapy group, Leaonard, who he identifies with) but it's also a title that recalls Don's farcical nature, which makes one question if that connection he finds, even if momentarily sincere, can really last within him. And maybe it can, as the title could very well refer to his facade yet simultaneously point to how he finally finds truth and acceptance in it. Who knows, really. And even if Weiner was thinking of a specific meaning when he wrote it, we know that all great, profound art like Mad Men takes on a life of its own, its outcome offering further possible interpretations depending on who you are. And since the entire series, and all of the characters, revolve around Don Draper, the questions about him extend to the rest of the characters as well. Because even though they're different, they are also more or less the same (as is the case with people/society in general).
Weiner said that he didn't want a necessarily "happy" ending for the series... he just wanted his characters to be "a little happier than they were in the beginning". Yes, the Coke Ad is about "Harmony" and "The Real Thing" but then again... it's an advertisement. And if the series was firm about anything, it's that life goes on; time unceasingly persists. And as it does so, will these characters fall back into their old selves and make the same mistakes all over again? Can they change? Can we? I'm not sure Mad Men gives an answer to any of these questions. It doesn't try to; it never has. We can't know what the future holds, what would've been, or what is, really, because as Peggy says, "You're not supposed to know. Or you can't go on with your life." (emphasis on the "your" because this connects to the maddening, curiosity-filled relationship between the individual and the universal; one can't go on with their life wondering about the place, because what's important for the individual is their place ). The universe, time, is much bigger than us, obviously, and to quote Don twice: "The universe... is indifferent." and "That's part of the job. Living, in the not knowing." Those words ring true from a man that doesn't believe in fate.
And not knowing is scary and discomforting. Yet it can also be hopeful, sad, happy, optimistic, pessimistic, what have you. And all of those adjectives can also be applied to the Mad Men finale (and the series overall).
Another thing that the finale and the series set forth is that "Happiness", (which Don defines in the series more than once) generally speaking, may not exist, but one's own happiness does. And it is this truth that advertising /consumerism prevents one from realizing. The real question is not "what is happiness?", it's "what is happiness to an individual?" It seems as if the characters on Mad Men may have finally found this truth, but whether they can hold onto it (whether they've really definitively changed for the better) is what's unknown. In time, will they once again fall prey to the general definition of "happiness" that consumerism/advertising sets forth? I'm repeating myself here, because this all is just a more specific way of asking the original question regarding whether or not anyone has really changed. Again, it's open-ended, but Matthew Weiner himself said that "People don't change." However, there are different ways one can change: the characters might change behaviorally, and not repeat their old mistakes, yet remain the same at heart. The coke ad raises the question of not only if the characters have changed, but if so, how? What is change to a person?
The finale, through all of this, establishes the tagline for the show's first season (really the tagline for the series): "where the truth lies." This tagline (with a double meaning of the word "lies") is true of Mad Men , because the series itself speaks many truths about life and human psychology, so therefore truth does lie within the show. But the tagline is also true because in the world that Mad Men inhabits, the one where Don Draper, not Dick Whitman, lives (advertising), is one where the supposed "truth" is always to some extent a lie. Is the coke ad at the end the happiness that Don has found within himself? Or is it really just another ad; just another great idea of happiness that Don has come up with? And if it is his ad (which I'm pretty sure it is) it would be his masterpiece (its definitely the most legendary real ad presented on the show), therefore the ending could be presenting the ultimate "truth" to the audience (individual happiness that Don has found), or the ultimate "lie" (the most celebrated, legendary idea of happiness). Either way, in advertising, they're one and the same, aren't they? The question is (I know, too many questions) in the finale's case, which one overrides the other?
Oh yeah, so what's my personal interpretation on what actually happens? First off, as you can see, I just love its open-ended-ness; that it gives way to all of these interpretations and ties back into the central themes and universal questions that the show raises, which further brings out more specific questions within those larger ones. It's a testament to what a profound series Mad Men has been, and how profoundly affecting as well. Anyways, I think that Don gets the idea for the coke ad, goes back to New York and successfully pitches it, and has found, along with all of the other characters, momentary personal acceptance and happiness, and has stopped searching for the general definition of it which his business sets forth. The irony, however, is that he finds happiness and self-acceptance through advertising (accepting that he is an ad man), which is kind of twisted, and while the coke ad could be harmonic and happy for the moment, it could represent how consumerism/advertising will only continue to grow and become more threatening and create a larger, more manipulative false sense of security, and will in time consume all of the other characters, dragging them back down to where they started, revealing how they only momentarily changed (this also ties into the classic nature v. nurture question: are people born being unable to change, or does society and consumerism manipulate them into acting a certain way so they can feel "safe", or as Don says in the pilot, "okay"?). Consumerism/advertising certainly has only gotten more manipulative and toxic today, so if the implications of the coke ad at the end are ominously foreshadowing how advertising will just continue to flourish and consume everyone (thanks to men like Don Draper, buying into his false identity) it's accurately depicting American society (Don), in terms of both the past, and the present. So in the end, my personal take is that Mad Men 's finale is hopeful about the present (for its characters), yet ominous about the future (for American society).
Am I over-thinking all of this? If this is the case, is the finale too unclear? No, because endless amounts of specific questions like these are rooted in the larger, more universal questions that the finale and show raises, and can all be boiled down to said larger questions and themes that are prominent throughout the series. I'm not alone in thinking this way, and I honestly don't care if it's a stretch. The point is, the sign of a truly great TV series is one that makes us think this deeply. Like life, the finale, and pretty much Mad Men itself, is not about the answers. It's about the questions, and our individual answers. It's less about whether my interpretation is "right" or "wrong", because it's my interpretation. Period.
I'm not gonna turn this into a semi-diary entry where I start to blabber about what my future may or may not hold, but I will say this: A future without anymore Mad Men will be tough, but like I've said before, this is an immortal, timeless series, one that is a new experience with every re-watch. So if I can't make any more predictions about the future of this series, and whether or not any of these characters will change, I'll make a solid prediction about my own future: A part of me that'll never change will be that, no matter what other series' I may be watching at a certain point, I'll always be watching Mad Men. It will continue to stay with me. Forever.
To quote one more beloved character, the great Bert Cooper, "Bravo" Matthew Weiner.
A Quick Little Commendation to Mad Men + Ranking Every Single Season and Episode
I know this blog is usually reserved for movies, but I had to do this.
There's not much to say that hasn't already been said about AMC's iconic Drama Series Mad Men. It's a show I have watched and re-watched more than any other, one that my appreciation and love continues to grow for. Most skeptics have argued that it's overstayed its welcome and should have ended a while ago, and while that's understandable, I would argue that it's not the series itself that's overlong, it's the fact that AMC has drawn it out to a certain extent where some have lost their patience. The wait is testing: It's a much different experience to binge-watch 7 seasons of Mad Men than it is to have to wait a week for each new episode... during a new season that you've already waited a year for (including 2 years between seasons 4 and 5). When binging, the show flows much more naturally, you're not watching it under any sort of false expectations or immense anticipation, and you start to realize that it was never Mad Men 's quality that changed, it was your definition of it that had. Hitfix's Alan Sepinwall's recent piece about the shows' legacy perfectly articulates why it's much easier for shows like Breaking Bad to get away with splitting a season in half or prolonging an intermission than it is for shows like Mad Men: Breaking Bad is much more propulsive, visceral, its narrative style more progressive. Mad Men's is more choppy and slow-burning, resulting in a wait for it's return to be much more patience-testing. To my mind, however, the slowness of it has always been essential and consistent with the show's tone, and it's part of what makes it so fascinating and uncompromising. Others also say that Don Draper's character has lost his mysterious aura, which has in turn brought the series down. I think that his loss of mystery is precisely the point, and a testament to how masterfully the sixth season displayed his dissolution, to the extent where Don Draper ceased to exist, and all of a sudden, Dick Whitman became Mad Men's central character.
Albeit, Mad Men has never been without its imperfections. The 3rd season meanders for a bit, and its more recent seasons (mostly the 6th, 7A less so) became more unbalanced regarding the overall presence of its major characters. Joan, more than anyone else, has been underused, even though the storylines that have been given to her are as strong as ever, and it seems as if her character has settled down more than others. Also, in its 6th Season, the show became a little too figurative for its own good, using minor characters such as Bob Benson and Ted Chaough to set up contrasts and parallels to Don, as well as his relationships with others (Bob Benson and Pete Campbell). It was fascinating for a little while, but unfocused. Ted and Bob never really stood as characters in their own right. However, the more prominent material involving Don, Peggy, Pete, and especially Sally, was as strong as ever, the writing as consistently dense, the direction as artful, including some of the series' strongest episodes and most memorable scenes... all of which more than made up for its flaws. To my mind, Mad Men has always made up for its flaws.
As you can see, I'm not shy in showing my love for the series. I'd even go as far as to say my attachment to it is pretty obsessive. I babbled about it like a blurb-whore on twitter, which I will recite here:
"My love for Mad Men is unfathomable. There are plenty of great TV Shows I have yet to watch, but I highly doubt any of them will surpass. Yes, I believe it is greater than the ingenuous Breaking Bad, and just a hair above the iconic Sopranos. Sue me. To me, no show has pitted the vast against the intimate while simultaneously intertwining the two so elegantly. Even in its imperfections, it is never less then honorable. In terms of ambition and craft, it is consistently consummate. As a period piece and a drama it is an achievement like no other, a show I will continue to re-watch and re-watch for years to come."
I went a little crazy, but I meant it. Even though it's ending, I feel like its time has come. And because a revisitation of past seasons and episodes is always a new experience... for me, Mad Men will never die. And because of its greatness and influence for the medium; in television, and in art, Mad Men will never die.
And now, I humbly rank every season and episode of the series:
Seasons (from weakest to strongest)
7. Season 3
6. Season 6
5. Season 2
4. Season 7A
3. Season 1
2. Season 4
1. Season 5
Episodes (from weakest to strongest)
83. Dark Shadows (Episode 9, Season 5)
82. The Chrysanthemum and the Sword (Episode 5, Season 4)
81. To Have and to Hold (Episode 4, Season 6)
80. The Monolith (Episode 4, Season 7)
79. Man With A Plan (Episode 7, Season 6)
78. The Color Blue (Episode 10, Season 3)
77. The Flood (Episode 5, Season 6)
76. A Night to Remember (Episode 8, Season 2)
75. Long Weekend (Episode 10, Season 1)
74. Love Among the Ruins (Episode 2, Season 3)
73. The Benefactor (Episode 3, Season 2)
72. The Runaways (Episode 5, Season 7)
71. Chinese Wall (Episode 11, Season 4)
70. Flight 1 (Episode 2, Season 2)
69. Indian Summer (Episode 11, Season 1)
68. Tea Leaves (Episode 2, Season 5)
67. Christmas Waltz (Episode 10, Season 5)
66. A Tale of Two Cities (Episode 10, Season 6)
65. The Grown-Ups (Episode 12, Season 3)
64. The Fog (Episode 5, Season 3)
63. Maidenform (Episode 6, Season 2)
62. Ladies Room (Episode 2, Season 1)
61. Collaborators (Episode 3, Season 6)
60. Waldorf Stories (Episode 6, Season 4)
59. The Phantom (Episode 13, Season 5)
58. Christmas Comes But Once a Year (Episode 2, Season 4)
57. The Inheritance (Episode 10, Season 2)
56. For Those Who Think Young (Episode 1, Season 2)
55. Field Trip (Episode 3, Season 7)
54. Blowing Smoke (Episode 12, Season 4)
53. The Mountain King (Episode 12, Season 2)
52. The Summer Man (Episode 8, Season 4)
51. Tomorrowland (Episode 13, Season 4)
50. My Old Kentucky Home (Episode 3, Season 3)
49. At the Codfish Ball (Episode 7, Season 5)
48. The Gold Violin (Episode 7, Season 2)
47. Out of Town (Episode 1, Season 3)
46. The New Girl (Episode 5, Season 2)
45. Mystery Date (Episode 4, Season 5)
44. Marriage of Figaro (Episode 3, Season 1)
43. A Little Kiss (Episode 1-2, Season 5)
42. The Better Half (Episode 9, Season 6)
41. Hands and Knees (Episode 10, Season 4)
40. For Immediate Release (Episode 5, Season 6)
39. Souvenir (Episode 8, Season 3)
38. The Rejected (Episode 4, Season 4)
37. The Hobo Code (Episode 8, Season 1)
36. Wee Small Hours (Episode 9, Season 3)
35. 5G (Episode 5, Season 1)
34. Favors (Episode 11, Season 6)
33. The Arrangements (Episode 4, Season 3)
32. Six Month Leave (Episode 9, Season 2)
31. The Good News (Episode 3, Season 4)
30. Babylon (Episode 6, Season 1)
29. Commissions and Fees (Episode 12, Season 5)
28. A Day's Work (Episode 2, Season 7)
27. The Beautiful Girls (Episode 9, Season 4)
26. Red in the Face (Episode 7, Season 1)
25. Shoot (Episode 9, Season 1)
24. Public Relations (Episode 1, Season 4)
23. Lady Lazarus (Episode 8, Season 5)
22. The Quality of Mercy (Episode 12, Season 6)
21. Time Zones (Episode 1, Season 7)
20. The Crash (Episode 8, Season 6)
19. Three Sundays (Episode 4, Season 2)
18. New Amsterdam (Episode 4, Season 1)
17. The Jet Set (Episode 11, Season 2)
16. The Gypsy and the Hobo (Episode 11, Season 3)
15. Guy Walks Into an Advertising Agency (Episode 6, Season 3)
14. The Doorway (Episode 1-2, Season 6)
13. Seven Twenty Three (Episode 7, Season 3)
12. The Strategy (Episode 6, Season 7)
11. Meditations in an Emergency (Episode 13, Season 2)
10. Smoke Gets In Your Eyes (Episode 1, Season 1)
9. Waterloo (Episode 7, Season 7)
8. The Other Woman (Episode 11, Season 5)
7. In Care Of (Episode 13, Season 6)
6. Far Away Places (Episode 6, Season 5)
5. Signal 30 (Episode 5, Season 5)
4. Nixon vs. Kennedy (Episode 12, Season 1)
3. The Wheel (Episode 13, Season 1)
2. Shut the Door. Have A Seat. (Episode 13, Season 3)
1. The Suitcase (Episode 7, Season 4).
Here's to the final 7 episodes. Thank you for being you, Mad Men.
There's not much to say that hasn't already been said about AMC's iconic Drama Series Mad Men. It's a show I have watched and re-watched more than any other, one that my appreciation and love continues to grow for. Most skeptics have argued that it's overstayed its welcome and should have ended a while ago, and while that's understandable, I would argue that it's not the series itself that's overlong, it's the fact that AMC has drawn it out to a certain extent where some have lost their patience. The wait is testing: It's a much different experience to binge-watch 7 seasons of Mad Men than it is to have to wait a week for each new episode... during a new season that you've already waited a year for (including 2 years between seasons 4 and 5). When binging, the show flows much more naturally, you're not watching it under any sort of false expectations or immense anticipation, and you start to realize that it was never Mad Men 's quality that changed, it was your definition of it that had. Hitfix's Alan Sepinwall's recent piece about the shows' legacy perfectly articulates why it's much easier for shows like Breaking Bad to get away with splitting a season in half or prolonging an intermission than it is for shows like Mad Men: Breaking Bad is much more propulsive, visceral, its narrative style more progressive. Mad Men's is more choppy and slow-burning, resulting in a wait for it's return to be much more patience-testing. To my mind, however, the slowness of it has always been essential and consistent with the show's tone, and it's part of what makes it so fascinating and uncompromising. Others also say that Don Draper's character has lost his mysterious aura, which has in turn brought the series down. I think that his loss of mystery is precisely the point, and a testament to how masterfully the sixth season displayed his dissolution, to the extent where Don Draper ceased to exist, and all of a sudden, Dick Whitman became Mad Men's central character.
Albeit, Mad Men has never been without its imperfections. The 3rd season meanders for a bit, and its more recent seasons (mostly the 6th, 7A less so) became more unbalanced regarding the overall presence of its major characters. Joan, more than anyone else, has been underused, even though the storylines that have been given to her are as strong as ever, and it seems as if her character has settled down more than others. Also, in its 6th Season, the show became a little too figurative for its own good, using minor characters such as Bob Benson and Ted Chaough to set up contrasts and parallels to Don, as well as his relationships with others (Bob Benson and Pete Campbell). It was fascinating for a little while, but unfocused. Ted and Bob never really stood as characters in their own right. However, the more prominent material involving Don, Peggy, Pete, and especially Sally, was as strong as ever, the writing as consistently dense, the direction as artful, including some of the series' strongest episodes and most memorable scenes... all of which more than made up for its flaws. To my mind, Mad Men has always made up for its flaws.
As you can see, I'm not shy in showing my love for the series. I'd even go as far as to say my attachment to it is pretty obsessive. I babbled about it like a blurb-whore on twitter, which I will recite here:
"My love for Mad Men is unfathomable. There are plenty of great TV Shows I have yet to watch, but I highly doubt any of them will surpass. Yes, I believe it is greater than the ingenuous Breaking Bad, and just a hair above the iconic Sopranos. Sue me. To me, no show has pitted the vast against the intimate while simultaneously intertwining the two so elegantly. Even in its imperfections, it is never less then honorable. In terms of ambition and craft, it is consistently consummate. As a period piece and a drama it is an achievement like no other, a show I will continue to re-watch and re-watch for years to come."
I went a little crazy, but I meant it. Even though it's ending, I feel like its time has come. And because a revisitation of past seasons and episodes is always a new experience... for me, Mad Men will never die. And because of its greatness and influence for the medium; in television, and in art, Mad Men will never die.
And now, I humbly rank every season and episode of the series:
Seasons (from weakest to strongest)
7. Season 3
6. Season 6
5. Season 2
4. Season 7A
3. Season 1
2. Season 4
1. Season 5
Episodes (from weakest to strongest)
83. Dark Shadows (Episode 9, Season 5)
82. The Chrysanthemum and the Sword (Episode 5, Season 4)
81. To Have and to Hold (Episode 4, Season 6)
80. The Monolith (Episode 4, Season 7)
79. Man With A Plan (Episode 7, Season 6)
78. The Color Blue (Episode 10, Season 3)
77. The Flood (Episode 5, Season 6)
76. A Night to Remember (Episode 8, Season 2)
75. Long Weekend (Episode 10, Season 1)
74. Love Among the Ruins (Episode 2, Season 3)
73. The Benefactor (Episode 3, Season 2)
72. The Runaways (Episode 5, Season 7)
71. Chinese Wall (Episode 11, Season 4)
70. Flight 1 (Episode 2, Season 2)
69. Indian Summer (Episode 11, Season 1)
68. Tea Leaves (Episode 2, Season 5)
67. Christmas Waltz (Episode 10, Season 5)
66. A Tale of Two Cities (Episode 10, Season 6)
65. The Grown-Ups (Episode 12, Season 3)
64. The Fog (Episode 5, Season 3)
63. Maidenform (Episode 6, Season 2)
62. Ladies Room (Episode 2, Season 1)
61. Collaborators (Episode 3, Season 6)
60. Waldorf Stories (Episode 6, Season 4)
59. The Phantom (Episode 13, Season 5)
58. Christmas Comes But Once a Year (Episode 2, Season 4)
57. The Inheritance (Episode 10, Season 2)
56. For Those Who Think Young (Episode 1, Season 2)
55. Field Trip (Episode 3, Season 7)
54. Blowing Smoke (Episode 12, Season 4)
53. The Mountain King (Episode 12, Season 2)
52. The Summer Man (Episode 8, Season 4)
51. Tomorrowland (Episode 13, Season 4)
50. My Old Kentucky Home (Episode 3, Season 3)
49. At the Codfish Ball (Episode 7, Season 5)
48. The Gold Violin (Episode 7, Season 2)
47. Out of Town (Episode 1, Season 3)
46. The New Girl (Episode 5, Season 2)
45. Mystery Date (Episode 4, Season 5)
44. Marriage of Figaro (Episode 3, Season 1)
43. A Little Kiss (Episode 1-2, Season 5)
42. The Better Half (Episode 9, Season 6)
41. Hands and Knees (Episode 10, Season 4)
40. For Immediate Release (Episode 5, Season 6)
39. Souvenir (Episode 8, Season 3)
38. The Rejected (Episode 4, Season 4)
37. The Hobo Code (Episode 8, Season 1)
36. Wee Small Hours (Episode 9, Season 3)
35. 5G (Episode 5, Season 1)
34. Favors (Episode 11, Season 6)
33. The Arrangements (Episode 4, Season 3)
32. Six Month Leave (Episode 9, Season 2)
31. The Good News (Episode 3, Season 4)
30. Babylon (Episode 6, Season 1)
29. Commissions and Fees (Episode 12, Season 5)
28. A Day's Work (Episode 2, Season 7)
27. The Beautiful Girls (Episode 9, Season 4)
26. Red in the Face (Episode 7, Season 1)
25. Shoot (Episode 9, Season 1)
24. Public Relations (Episode 1, Season 4)
23. Lady Lazarus (Episode 8, Season 5)
22. The Quality of Mercy (Episode 12, Season 6)
21. Time Zones (Episode 1, Season 7)
20. The Crash (Episode 8, Season 6)
19. Three Sundays (Episode 4, Season 2)
18. New Amsterdam (Episode 4, Season 1)
17. The Jet Set (Episode 11, Season 2)
16. The Gypsy and the Hobo (Episode 11, Season 3)
15. Guy Walks Into an Advertising Agency (Episode 6, Season 3)
14. The Doorway (Episode 1-2, Season 6)
13. Seven Twenty Three (Episode 7, Season 3)
12. The Strategy (Episode 6, Season 7)
11. Meditations in an Emergency (Episode 13, Season 2)
10. Smoke Gets In Your Eyes (Episode 1, Season 1)
9. Waterloo (Episode 7, Season 7)
8. The Other Woman (Episode 11, Season 5)
7. In Care Of (Episode 13, Season 6)
6. Far Away Places (Episode 6, Season 5)
5. Signal 30 (Episode 5, Season 5)
4. Nixon vs. Kennedy (Episode 12, Season 1)
3. The Wheel (Episode 13, Season 1)
2. Shut the Door. Have A Seat. (Episode 13, Season 3)
1. The Suitcase (Episode 7, Season 4).
Here's to the final 7 episodes. Thank you for being you, Mad Men.
Check Out My Oscar Predictions
My Predictions (as well as my preferences) for the 87th Annual Academy Awards are up. Go to "More..." and click on "Oscar Stuff". Peace.
A Revisitation of "Birdman" and "Nightcrawler"
I recently re-watched Alejandro Gonzalez Iniarritu's Birdman and Dan Gilroy's Nightcrawler. Both were among my most anticipated movies of 2014, based on the people involved with them, and the praise both of them garnered. I walked out of both somewhat disappointed. I liked them, but I believe I had fallen prey to the very thing I discussed in my most recent piece below: neither movie was what I had expected, and that occluded my view towards each of the films' actual quality. At the time, both were easier to admire than to love. The endings to both seemed abrupt and unearned, the intentions and overall messages went over my head. Admitting this to myself, I left my mind open to both for reconsideration, as I included them in my "Honorable Mentions" section of my 20 Best-of-2014 list.
After a second-viewing of both films, here's my verdict:
I liked them each considerably more.
Will discuss below.
The ironic ending of Nightcrawler works, and is both better and infinitely more satisfying than the risky, noble, but ultimately frustrating ending of Birdman.
The fact that Nightcrawler's ending is more satisfying is not why it's better than Birdman's. It just manages to be thought-provoking, sardonic, unexpected, kinda funny, and very fitting all at once, while in the case of Birdman's finale, although visually in line with the rest of the movie, its ambiguity is more irritating than provocative. Maddening, but in a distant way. My own interpretation of it didn't even fit for me.
Jake Gyllenhall in Nightcrawler is slightly better than Michael Keaton in Birdman.
Both are two of the year's best performances (male or female), the latter being one of the best, while the former being perhaps the best. I am unsure why Gyllenhall's performance hit me so much harder watching it a second time, but all I know is that Nightcrawler thrives on it, and is somewhat defined by it. It wouldn't be half as effective with a lesser actor, as Gyllenhall's portrayal of Lou Bloom --blunt, dark, humorous, remote,-- gives life and purpose to its unsubtle dialogue. Keaton, on the other hand, is also brilliant, but Birdman is much more of an ensemble piece than Nightcrawler, and his character (Riggan Thompson) pales in the mind in comparison to Gyllenhall's (Lou Bloom).
Birdman is a much better movie than Nightcrawler.
Birdman, up until its ending, is so inventive, so different, so enthralling, that I forgave whatever remaining quibbles I had with it. The appearance of the entire movie being a single tracking shot is such a miraculous piece of filmmaking, because it holds the eye while visualizing some of the film's thematic elements, contrasting stage vs. reality/life vs. performance. It may just be 2014's most innovative film. On the surface, the movie presents a collision of artistic integrity and the constraints of contemporary life (social media and all that comes of it/the digital age), emphasized in the context of a celebrity. However, it's also a dissection of the nature, and definition, of an artist.
There are many different ways to interpret Birdman. Glenn Kenny, film critic/contributor to Rogerebert.com, wrote on his blog (highly recommended) http://somecamerunning.typepad.com/some_came_running/2014/10/the-invented-worlds-of-birdman-and-whiplash.html, his interpretation: "I perceive Birdman’s theme as not so much about the arts as such but more the extent to which the human need/desire for love is linked to vanity, and whether the two can ever be wholly distinguished and/or untwined from each other." I concur, Mr. Kenny, however I'll add that while Birdman is certainly related to all of these themes, it is so within the context of the arts. And thus is, in one way or another, about the arts. Either way, it is an extraordinarily rich film, a work of art in and of itself.
Nightcrawler, on the other hand, also has significant merit, but is not as accomplished a work as Birdman. Albeit they are very different movies with very different goals, but Birdman undeniably aims higher, and the fact that it even ALMOST sticks the landing makes it more memorable.
Not that Nightcrawler isn't memorable-- it's fairly terrific. Thanks to Gyllenhall's performance, its obviousness plays fittingly; it's a depiction of man as corporation; a black comedy about a sociopath's journey to success. It does seem small compared to Birdman -- it's a tight, taut character study rather than a sprawling ensemble piece-- but it's fun, twisted, and occasionally beautiful to look at.
If I could revise my 20-Best list, I would include both movies (it's much too late for that, obviously). But there you have it. If you love cinema, re-watch movies more often. The best ones will reveal themselves to you over time. This is an example.'
Whiplash and Modern Cinema: The "Plausibility" Issue
I'm not saying you aren't allowed to dislike a movie, but a lot of the time it seems as if great ones are being put down by skeptics
that are attempting to stand out in the midst of all of the hype, ignoring what makes the movie work and fishing for criticisms by focusing on mere plausibility. For example, stating that the ending of Whiplash (one of my favorites of the year) "rings false" (which almost every criticism of the movie does) is really wrongheaded to me, because it's dismissive of the world that the film has constructed and inhabits in. Would I argue for a second that the ending, on its surface, is something that rings true to LIFE in any way? No. However, would I argue that the ending stays true to the film's tone, spirit, and central ideas that it has developed throughout? Absolutely. It converts to realism off-stage (scenes between Andrew (Miles Teller) and his father, Andrew and his crush, Andrew by himself when not drumming), while on-stage (band performances, Andrew practicing, or anything of direct relation to that such as *spoiler alert* the car accident ), it's pure adrenaline. If the movie was actually aiming to depict each situation as how it'd transpire in the real world, THAT would be troublesome.
If Whiplash 's (and I'm also speaking for numerous movies this past year that are also dealing with these problematic criticisms that are becoming increasingly common , such as Interstellar, Gone Girl, and recently, even Boyhood) only focus was plausibility--without it's semi-ridiculousness, it wouldn't work at all. It'd be uneven, a bit mundane and, ironically, it wouldn't be or feel nearly as true. What I am getting at is, in all of its wild exaggeration and implausibilities, Whiplash has an underlying truth to it (discussed in my original review) that wouldn't be delivered with nearly as much emphasis, authenticity, or excitement if it had simply gone for what's believable. The ending, and the movie, is a gut-punch. It, exhilaratingly, remains itself. Which is what all great movies throughout history have done. I guess that all of this pretty much ties back to the primary, fundamental issues regarding hype and audience expectation based on false preconceptions and what's defined as a "good" or "bad" movie these days; audiences judging movies based on what they want or expect them to be rather than judging them for what they are. These are issues which are sadly, and continuously, growing evermore relevant.
that are attempting to stand out in the midst of all of the hype, ignoring what makes the movie work and fishing for criticisms by focusing on mere plausibility. For example, stating that the ending of Whiplash (one of my favorites of the year) "rings false" (which almost every criticism of the movie does) is really wrongheaded to me, because it's dismissive of the world that the film has constructed and inhabits in. Would I argue for a second that the ending, on its surface, is something that rings true to LIFE in any way? No. However, would I argue that the ending stays true to the film's tone, spirit, and central ideas that it has developed throughout? Absolutely. It converts to realism off-stage (scenes between Andrew (Miles Teller) and his father, Andrew and his crush, Andrew by himself when not drumming), while on-stage (band performances, Andrew practicing, or anything of direct relation to that such as *spoiler alert* the car accident ), it's pure adrenaline. If the movie was actually aiming to depict each situation as how it'd transpire in the real world, THAT would be troublesome.
If Whiplash 's (and I'm also speaking for numerous movies this past year that are also dealing with these problematic criticisms that are becoming increasingly common , such as Interstellar, Gone Girl, and recently, even Boyhood) only focus was plausibility--without it's semi-ridiculousness, it wouldn't work at all. It'd be uneven, a bit mundane and, ironically, it wouldn't be or feel nearly as true. What I am getting at is, in all of its wild exaggeration and implausibilities, Whiplash has an underlying truth to it (discussed in my original review) that wouldn't be delivered with nearly as much emphasis, authenticity, or excitement if it had simply gone for what's believable. The ending, and the movie, is a gut-punch. It, exhilaratingly, remains itself. Which is what all great movies throughout history have done. I guess that all of this pretty much ties back to the primary, fundamental issues regarding hype and audience expectation based on false preconceptions and what's defined as a "good" or "bad" movie these days; audiences judging movies based on what they want or expect them to be rather than judging them for what they are. These are issues which are sadly, and continuously, growing evermore relevant.
The 10 Worst Movies of 2014
I only capital H Hated 5 of these movies. The rest just aren't very good, or majorly disappointing. Like I said, this was a great year. One that was very light on junk (granted, I didn't see everything).
10. Walk Among the Tombstones - This movie works as an undemanding, gritty, entertaining thriller. But it makes the fatal mistake of also trying to be a story of personal redemption and some sort of character study, and it leads to one of the most miscalculated and laughable sequences of any movie this year; a sequence that ostensibly intends to give the movie its central purpose... in what had been shaping up to be a fairly compelling story. It takes you out of the movie's fittingly, entertainingly simplistic aura.
(Hint: the sequence involves Liam Neeson tracking down bad guys while recalling the 12 steps from his rehabilitation program).
9. Million Dollar Arm - Discussed below in "Catching Up". Not terrible, utterly forgettable.
8. Non-Stop - Reviewed Below 4/8/14.
7. Magic in the Moonlight - A wonderfully clever idea turned into a hit-and-miss comedy and a predictable (as well as unconvincing) romance. It also at times plays like some kind of classroom philosophical discussion that is characteristically believable but not in the least bit interesting.
6. Begin Again - Discussed below in "Catching Up". A disappointingly silly movie.
5. St. Vincent - The movie itself, thanks to Bill Murray's performance, is not a contrivance... but almost every scene in it feels contrived. It's very bad, however Murray saves it from being a trainwreck.
4. Wish I Was Here - For its first 30 minutes, Zach Braff's new movie blends its comedic and dramatic qualities rather skillfully. Then it drags on for another 90 minutes and becomes insufferably melodramatic, uneven, anti-subtle and awkwardly existential.
3. Transcendence - Discussed below in "Catching Up". Lame.
2. Noah - Reviewed Below 3/31/14.
1. The Other Woman - Discussed below in "Catching Up". Offensively dumb.
(Hint: the sequence involves Liam Neeson tracking down bad guys while recalling the 12 steps from his rehabilitation program).
9. Million Dollar Arm - Discussed below in "Catching Up". Not terrible, utterly forgettable.
8. Non-Stop - Reviewed Below 4/8/14.
7. Magic in the Moonlight - A wonderfully clever idea turned into a hit-and-miss comedy and a predictable (as well as unconvincing) romance. It also at times plays like some kind of classroom philosophical discussion that is characteristically believable but not in the least bit interesting.
6. Begin Again - Discussed below in "Catching Up". A disappointingly silly movie.
5. St. Vincent - The movie itself, thanks to Bill Murray's performance, is not a contrivance... but almost every scene in it feels contrived. It's very bad, however Murray saves it from being a trainwreck.
4. Wish I Was Here - For its first 30 minutes, Zach Braff's new movie blends its comedic and dramatic qualities rather skillfully. Then it drags on for another 90 minutes and becomes insufferably melodramatic, uneven, anti-subtle and awkwardly existential.
3. Transcendence - Discussed below in "Catching Up". Lame.
2. Noah - Reviewed Below 3/31/14.
1. The Other Woman - Discussed below in "Catching Up". Offensively dumb.
The 20 Best Movies of 2014
For a year at the movies as good as this, there were so many films I simply could not leave unmentioned. So I decided to extend my annual best-of-the-year list to 20 movies instead of merely 10. So much good stuff this year. I apologize for the inconsistency of reviews, but hopefully with this list you'll get a sense of what I've liked over the past month (and disliked, my worst-of-the-year list is coming up soon as well). So much oscar buzz and hype surrounded movies released these past couple months. Did they live up to it?
Enjoy.
Honorable Mentions: Top Five (nearly tied with #20), A Most Violent Year, Birdman, Nightcrawler, Godzilla, Enemy.
20. Jorodowsky's Dune - An excellent documentary less about the "best movie never made" and more about the artist behind it, and what he, his passion, and his ambition, reflect about the nature of hollywood and the art of cinema itself.
19. Dear White People - A very interesting movie, visually and narratively. It shows the lives of 4 characters, but doesn't appear to be character-driven. All of them are beautifully realized, full of contradictions yet totally understandable and human... but the visuals, full of close-ups and sometimes, slow motion, create a colorful, almost cartoonish atmosphere reminiscent of Do the Right Thing. But the smartest thing about Simien's movie is that it's not about racial issues, but more about the general hypocrisy of the people involved. In this case, it's the students of the fictional Winchester University. Hypocrisy is rooted in racial issues as well as in college and high school students. Simien uses these issues to highlight this hypocrisy, creating one of the best movies about School life in quite a while.
18. Locke - Discussed below in "Catching Up". Superb character study... daring experiment.
17. Frank - A warm-hearted movie about not selling out that is also wacky and bizarre, filled with wonderful performances (particularly from Michael Fassbender) and lovable characters.
16. The Skeleton Twins - This movie would have been much higher on my list if not for a contrived, heavy-handed ending. Oh well. Up until then, not a moment rung false, the chemistry between Hader and Wiig was fabulous, every character was well-written, making a movie that was in equal turns entertaining and moving. It's still delightful... just not perfect, which it came maddeningly close to being.
Side note: Speaking of Hader and Wiig's awesome chemistry (which I'm sure has to do with their time spent together on Saturday Night Live), there's a brother/sister throwback scene in the movie involving lip syncing and dancing to a cheesy hit Starship song from the 80s: "Nothing's Gonna Stop Us Now". A scene that, in any other movie, could have been so cringe-worthy and unwatchable, turns out to be one of the funniest and most touching scenes in a movie this year.
15. The Lego Movie - Reviewed below 2/8/14.
14. Selma - A powerful, unpretentious historical drama that is only sentimental when it needs to be. It's raw, yet gloriously cinematic. However, the only thing keeping it from a spot in my top 10 is the casting. It's hard to become invested in characters that are part of such a historically important, fact-based, well-known story if they are played by big-named celebrities. I am not that familiar with David Oyelowo (who's magnificent), so I was able to recognize him as M.L.K. However, when Tom Wilkinson came onto the screen as Lyndon Johnson, all I saw was Tom Wilkinson. When Oprah Winfrey came onto the screen as Annie Lee Cooper, all I saw was Oprah. It was distracting. But its a minor quibble, as the performances by said actors were good enough to keep me thoroughly interested. And the film itself, on almost every level, is stunning.
13. Gone Girl - Reviewed below 10/4/14.
12. The Grand Budapest Hotel - Reviewed Below 4/14/14.
11. Foxcatcher - The gradual, almost hypnotic pace of Foxcatcher blends beautifully with the unraveling of the characters' emotions; both towards one and other and within themselves. It is challenging; one of those movies that tests our patience, and demands close attention. It is carefully observant, emotionally subtle, artful, and exceptionally acted. It's also highly unsettling, and not something I would recommend for everyone. But that doesn't lessen its quality; no, it's only a testament to its power. Sure there are a lot of films that study "The American Dream" but so what? Foxcatcher is a good one.
10. The Babadook - A great (and I mean GREAT) horror movie about grief and learning how to deal with it through the perspective of a widowed mother. The Babadook has what most other modern horror movies have ignored: truth and heart.
9. We Are The Best! - A faultless, truly authentic movie that understands childhood and, in turn, Rock'N'Roll, better than any other movie since The School of Rock (2003).
8. Dawn of the Planet of the Apes - An enthralling hollywood blockbuster about the nature of civilization, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes aims big in every conceivable way, and is the best blockbuster to come out since 2007's The Dark Knight. It's a cause for celebration.
7. Life Itself - When I saw Steve James's documentary Life Itself, it deeply moved me not only because it was a celebration of the life of one of my biggest idols, but also because it was a celebration of everything he represented; what he did for and how he impacted his business, and the example he set, not just for aspiring critics but for anybody, of life fully lived. The movie is beautifully reflective of Roger himself: full of life, love, and inspiration.
6. Interstellar - Interstellar extends beyond whatever flaws it may have. However scientifically inaccurate it is, it's still an awe-inspiring experience. I didn't go into this movie for accuracy. That isn't the proper way to judge it. Just behold the various worlds Nolan invites you into. It's transformative.
5. Ida - It's difficult to describe how much Pawel Pawlikowski achieves in the mere 80-minute runtime of Ida. It's gorgeously shot in black-and-white and has an astonishing, refreshing stillness that holds you. The movie is not much of an emotional experience but more of an evocative one. It explores death and innocence through its two central characters' (Ida and Wanda's) faith and lack thereof at a time where faith was greatly needed yet easily questioned during the early 1960s/postwar Poland. The contrasting perspectives of the characters evoke the general societal vibe of the era. In Ida, the harsh realities and results of war are settling in, and innocence is perhaps the greatest chance of holding onto hope of some kind. But it never lasts.
4. Under the Skin - Discussed below in "Catching Up". Astounding.
3. Whiplash - Reviewed below 10/22/14.
2. Inherent Vice - One of the 2 movies this year primarily about the passage of time, however this is an altogether sadder one, more about its unavoidability and the sadness it ultimately brings at a time where everybody was trying to preserve the freewheeling, loving, escapist, reckless hippie-vibe of the psychedelic 60s. It's also fascinatingly psychological; it uses Los Angeles as a state of mind rather than a place. It's also all over the place, bafflingly structured and NOT for everybody. Yet that's all appropriate somehow, and apparently also faithfully Pynchonian. (I've never read Pynchon). PTA has yet to disappoint.
1. Boyhood - This is the other movie that is primarily about the passage of time. And it is more moving and profound and utterly unique than any other movie this year. It embraces life and its inevitabilities, and in turn its ultimate tragedies and triumphs. It is not a particular story, but just an examination of time unfolding through the eyes of a growing boy named Mason. And its achingly beautiful.
Enjoy.
Honorable Mentions: Top Five (nearly tied with #20), A Most Violent Year, Birdman, Nightcrawler, Godzilla, Enemy.
20. Jorodowsky's Dune - An excellent documentary less about the "best movie never made" and more about the artist behind it, and what he, his passion, and his ambition, reflect about the nature of hollywood and the art of cinema itself.
19. Dear White People - A very interesting movie, visually and narratively. It shows the lives of 4 characters, but doesn't appear to be character-driven. All of them are beautifully realized, full of contradictions yet totally understandable and human... but the visuals, full of close-ups and sometimes, slow motion, create a colorful, almost cartoonish atmosphere reminiscent of Do the Right Thing. But the smartest thing about Simien's movie is that it's not about racial issues, but more about the general hypocrisy of the people involved. In this case, it's the students of the fictional Winchester University. Hypocrisy is rooted in racial issues as well as in college and high school students. Simien uses these issues to highlight this hypocrisy, creating one of the best movies about School life in quite a while.
18. Locke - Discussed below in "Catching Up". Superb character study... daring experiment.
17. Frank - A warm-hearted movie about not selling out that is also wacky and bizarre, filled with wonderful performances (particularly from Michael Fassbender) and lovable characters.
16. The Skeleton Twins - This movie would have been much higher on my list if not for a contrived, heavy-handed ending. Oh well. Up until then, not a moment rung false, the chemistry between Hader and Wiig was fabulous, every character was well-written, making a movie that was in equal turns entertaining and moving. It's still delightful... just not perfect, which it came maddeningly close to being.
Side note: Speaking of Hader and Wiig's awesome chemistry (which I'm sure has to do with their time spent together on Saturday Night Live), there's a brother/sister throwback scene in the movie involving lip syncing and dancing to a cheesy hit Starship song from the 80s: "Nothing's Gonna Stop Us Now". A scene that, in any other movie, could have been so cringe-worthy and unwatchable, turns out to be one of the funniest and most touching scenes in a movie this year.
15. The Lego Movie - Reviewed below 2/8/14.
14. Selma - A powerful, unpretentious historical drama that is only sentimental when it needs to be. It's raw, yet gloriously cinematic. However, the only thing keeping it from a spot in my top 10 is the casting. It's hard to become invested in characters that are part of such a historically important, fact-based, well-known story if they are played by big-named celebrities. I am not that familiar with David Oyelowo (who's magnificent), so I was able to recognize him as M.L.K. However, when Tom Wilkinson came onto the screen as Lyndon Johnson, all I saw was Tom Wilkinson. When Oprah Winfrey came onto the screen as Annie Lee Cooper, all I saw was Oprah. It was distracting. But its a minor quibble, as the performances by said actors were good enough to keep me thoroughly interested. And the film itself, on almost every level, is stunning.
13. Gone Girl - Reviewed below 10/4/14.
12. The Grand Budapest Hotel - Reviewed Below 4/14/14.
11. Foxcatcher - The gradual, almost hypnotic pace of Foxcatcher blends beautifully with the unraveling of the characters' emotions; both towards one and other and within themselves. It is challenging; one of those movies that tests our patience, and demands close attention. It is carefully observant, emotionally subtle, artful, and exceptionally acted. It's also highly unsettling, and not something I would recommend for everyone. But that doesn't lessen its quality; no, it's only a testament to its power. Sure there are a lot of films that study "The American Dream" but so what? Foxcatcher is a good one.
10. The Babadook - A great (and I mean GREAT) horror movie about grief and learning how to deal with it through the perspective of a widowed mother. The Babadook has what most other modern horror movies have ignored: truth and heart.
9. We Are The Best! - A faultless, truly authentic movie that understands childhood and, in turn, Rock'N'Roll, better than any other movie since The School of Rock (2003).
8. Dawn of the Planet of the Apes - An enthralling hollywood blockbuster about the nature of civilization, Dawn of the Planet of the Apes aims big in every conceivable way, and is the best blockbuster to come out since 2007's The Dark Knight. It's a cause for celebration.
7. Life Itself - When I saw Steve James's documentary Life Itself, it deeply moved me not only because it was a celebration of the life of one of my biggest idols, but also because it was a celebration of everything he represented; what he did for and how he impacted his business, and the example he set, not just for aspiring critics but for anybody, of life fully lived. The movie is beautifully reflective of Roger himself: full of life, love, and inspiration.
6. Interstellar - Interstellar extends beyond whatever flaws it may have. However scientifically inaccurate it is, it's still an awe-inspiring experience. I didn't go into this movie for accuracy. That isn't the proper way to judge it. Just behold the various worlds Nolan invites you into. It's transformative.
5. Ida - It's difficult to describe how much Pawel Pawlikowski achieves in the mere 80-minute runtime of Ida. It's gorgeously shot in black-and-white and has an astonishing, refreshing stillness that holds you. The movie is not much of an emotional experience but more of an evocative one. It explores death and innocence through its two central characters' (Ida and Wanda's) faith and lack thereof at a time where faith was greatly needed yet easily questioned during the early 1960s/postwar Poland. The contrasting perspectives of the characters evoke the general societal vibe of the era. In Ida, the harsh realities and results of war are settling in, and innocence is perhaps the greatest chance of holding onto hope of some kind. But it never lasts.
4. Under the Skin - Discussed below in "Catching Up". Astounding.
3. Whiplash - Reviewed below 10/22/14.
2. Inherent Vice - One of the 2 movies this year primarily about the passage of time, however this is an altogether sadder one, more about its unavoidability and the sadness it ultimately brings at a time where everybody was trying to preserve the freewheeling, loving, escapist, reckless hippie-vibe of the psychedelic 60s. It's also fascinatingly psychological; it uses Los Angeles as a state of mind rather than a place. It's also all over the place, bafflingly structured and NOT for everybody. Yet that's all appropriate somehow, and apparently also faithfully Pynchonian. (I've never read Pynchon). PTA has yet to disappoint.
1. Boyhood - This is the other movie that is primarily about the passage of time. And it is more moving and profound and utterly unique than any other movie this year. It embraces life and its inevitabilities, and in turn its ultimate tragedies and triumphs. It is not a particular story, but just an examination of time unfolding through the eyes of a growing boy named Mason. And its achingly beautiful.
Review Posted: 11/14/14 (Unfinished)
Listen Up Philip (2014) Directed By Alex Ross Perry
I wasn't happy with the reaction I had to Alex Ross Perry's new movie, "Listen Up Philip." On a more basic level, that's probably because I didn't like it. But I think the reason I was more unhappy with my reaction to the movie than the movie itself is because it was one of those times where the movie itself is difficult to criticize, because it does most things right. My disliking of the film had more to do with me than the movie itself. Which happens every so often, but it is always frustrating.
Listen Up Philip is a stylish movie that studies an artists's perception of those around him. Philip Friedman (Jason Schwartzman, an obvious choice) and his idol Ike Zimmerman (Jonathan Pryce)
Listen Up Philip is a stylish movie that studies an artists's perception of those around him. Philip Friedman (Jason Schwartzman, an obvious choice) and his idol Ike Zimmerman (Jonathan Pryce)
Whiplash (2014) Directed By Damien Chazelle
(and a bit of a rant on "instant classic")
I hate that it's a hyperbole these days to call a movie an "instant classic." Scratch that. I pretty much hate the statement altogether. It's paradoxical and reductive; a movie that really deserves that title is one that has a power that is not merely immediate, but one that lingers and grows as time progresses (masterpieces, as I've stated in my old piece about those below). Anything "instant" is not "classic", to put it shortly. The fact that it's being used repeatedly (or at all) nowadays aggravates me, because all of a sudden, it has made what should be a standout cinematic declaration (that's right, declaration, if ever to be used) into just a formal rave. A movie that of that power--one of an "instant classic"--transcends time itself, because it somehow manages to be timeless in the moment.
All of that said, if Damien Chazelle's electrifying new movie Whiplash generally gets the recognition it deserves, and is not perceived wrongheadedly (some skeptics believe the film encourages the teaching methods that are shown), it may have the potential to become, yes, a classic. The relationship between the film's central characters is what drives the film. It is unlike any movie relationship I have seen in quite some time, because it differs from traditional father-son mentor-student relationships. It is between Andrew Neeman (Miles Teller), an aspiring drummer, and Terrence Fletcher (J.K Simmons), an intimidating, ruthless, verbally abusive teacher who stops at nothing to make a master out of Neeman, perhaps something he himself never could become.
Teller and Simmons have a chemistry that is both spellbinding and discomforting. Watching the film, I was struck by how accurately it portrayed human interaction (some have argued otherwise, but trust me on this one). This is something I cannot analyze too specifically without giving away key story elements, but I will say that Teller's display of social uneasiness is remarkably precise, and Simmons' depiction of rage towards his students is explosive and forthright but not insincere. Even brief flashes of conversations between the teenage band members have an authenticity rarely seen in movies these days. It is exceptionally perceptive. The film also studies how certain kids react to authoritative abuse. Neeman's other figure of authority is his father, who is loving and supportive, which certainly impacts how Neeman responds to the abuse he receives from Fletcher. But once again, I would rather avoid spoilers.
This is a special movie. It's a movie where the editing is in sync with the liveliness of the band performances. It seeps into you, and sticks there... like music. It's a movie where the central relationship reveals more about how the two individuals feel about themselves rather than how they feel about each other. The teacher, Terrence Fletcher, is abusive and unsettlingly harsh to his students, yes, but outside of his class, the film uncovers that this man is not solely cold-hearted, but angered and frustrated for never having been able to achieve greatness, or successfully foster someone else's. But the harsh truth is that you can't teach greatness. You can ignite it. Which is the best Fletcher can do. One of the many strengths of the film is that it does not present Fletcher as a villain or a mentor. Like the best of movies, it presents him as a man. A very flawed man.
The movie is not about how abuse produces or even ignites greatness but about how we all have greatness within us, and how we mustn't allow obstacles, however large, in our way, to break our spirits or prevent us from staying true to ourselves. We must overcome these obstacles, and use them as tools for greater strength. We must remain our own leaders and not followers of others. It's certainly not the first time a movie has attempted to deliver this message, but I cannot remember the last time I saw one that delivered it so organically, so thrillingly. And if there was ever a time for one to do so, it would be for this tarnished generation.
I hope this movie gets taken seriously. I really hope it is remembered. It deserves it. It is the kind of film I cannot bear to hear criticism of, because I really do think it is a great movie. I always respect others' opinions, but with this movie, because it is so close to my heart, if your feelings on it differ from mine, don't bother sharing them with me. Because I will not be respectful. Hell, I'll be dismissive. And I'll regret it, because I stand against those who are dismissive of others' opinions. But there is an exception to be made for Whiplash, one of the very best, if not the best, of the year's films.
All of that said, if Damien Chazelle's electrifying new movie Whiplash generally gets the recognition it deserves, and is not perceived wrongheadedly (some skeptics believe the film encourages the teaching methods that are shown), it may have the potential to become, yes, a classic. The relationship between the film's central characters is what drives the film. It is unlike any movie relationship I have seen in quite some time, because it differs from traditional father-son mentor-student relationships. It is between Andrew Neeman (Miles Teller), an aspiring drummer, and Terrence Fletcher (J.K Simmons), an intimidating, ruthless, verbally abusive teacher who stops at nothing to make a master out of Neeman, perhaps something he himself never could become.
Teller and Simmons have a chemistry that is both spellbinding and discomforting. Watching the film, I was struck by how accurately it portrayed human interaction (some have argued otherwise, but trust me on this one). This is something I cannot analyze too specifically without giving away key story elements, but I will say that Teller's display of social uneasiness is remarkably precise, and Simmons' depiction of rage towards his students is explosive and forthright but not insincere. Even brief flashes of conversations between the teenage band members have an authenticity rarely seen in movies these days. It is exceptionally perceptive. The film also studies how certain kids react to authoritative abuse. Neeman's other figure of authority is his father, who is loving and supportive, which certainly impacts how Neeman responds to the abuse he receives from Fletcher. But once again, I would rather avoid spoilers.
This is a special movie. It's a movie where the editing is in sync with the liveliness of the band performances. It seeps into you, and sticks there... like music. It's a movie where the central relationship reveals more about how the two individuals feel about themselves rather than how they feel about each other. The teacher, Terrence Fletcher, is abusive and unsettlingly harsh to his students, yes, but outside of his class, the film uncovers that this man is not solely cold-hearted, but angered and frustrated for never having been able to achieve greatness, or successfully foster someone else's. But the harsh truth is that you can't teach greatness. You can ignite it. Which is the best Fletcher can do. One of the many strengths of the film is that it does not present Fletcher as a villain or a mentor. Like the best of movies, it presents him as a man. A very flawed man.
The movie is not about how abuse produces or even ignites greatness but about how we all have greatness within us, and how we mustn't allow obstacles, however large, in our way, to break our spirits or prevent us from staying true to ourselves. We must overcome these obstacles, and use them as tools for greater strength. We must remain our own leaders and not followers of others. It's certainly not the first time a movie has attempted to deliver this message, but I cannot remember the last time I saw one that delivered it so organically, so thrillingly. And if there was ever a time for one to do so, it would be for this tarnished generation.
I hope this movie gets taken seriously. I really hope it is remembered. It deserves it. It is the kind of film I cannot bear to hear criticism of, because I really do think it is a great movie. I always respect others' opinions, but with this movie, because it is so close to my heart, if your feelings on it differ from mine, don't bother sharing them with me. Because I will not be respectful. Hell, I'll be dismissive. And I'll regret it, because I stand against those who are dismissive of others' opinions. But there is an exception to be made for Whiplash, one of the very best, if not the best, of the year's films.
Review Posted: 10/4/14
Gone Girl (2014) Directed By David Fincher
Casting Ben Affleck to play the lead role in Gone Girl, David Fincher's cold, cynical, brilliant new movie, was a little stroke of genius. Affleck does not have a great reputation as an actor. He is a celebrity who has frequently been knocked down and badgered by the press, interfering with his personal life and his career, slamming his performances and violating his privacy. He is one of the more noticeable representations of what the digital age has done to celebrities. I have felt bad for the guy, as I do for most celebrities some of the time, but he really isn't all that great of an actor.
However, he's unnervingly perfect in Gone Girl, a movie about a man (Nick) whose life gets turned upside down when the media begins to invade his personal space over the disappearance of his wife, Amy (played by Rosamund Pike, in an astounding performance). This is a richly layered film, one with much significance and modernity. It displays a portrait of a disastrous, tension-filled marriage that was doomed from the moment its two participants laid eyes on each other.
(Major spoilers ahead!!!) Neither Amy or Nick is entirely innocent, but Amy is the conniving one, seeking revenge for her husband's infidelity. She is fully aware of the world we currently exist in, a world of artificiality where everyone and everything is reduced to an image due to the manipulation and allure of social media and cable news. Amy uses this to her advantage, disappearing and leaving convincing evidence behind leading people to believe Nick may have murdered her, thus turning his image from a working man and a loving husband to a sociopathic killer.
I won't delve deeply into Nick's character because I really don't wanna spoil anything more. This is one of those movies that is much better if you go in cold. However I will say that Gone Girl is one of the best movies of the year, a challenging, idealistically ambitious movie, one that manages to play with your emotions and make you question your own morals. It is a social satire, a devilish comedy, a psychological thriller, an old fashioned murder mystery... it almost can't be categorized. But above all else, it's just fun. It is entertainment of the highest order. Both sick and sickening, see it and embrace the chills it'll send down your spine.
However, he's unnervingly perfect in Gone Girl, a movie about a man (Nick) whose life gets turned upside down when the media begins to invade his personal space over the disappearance of his wife, Amy (played by Rosamund Pike, in an astounding performance). This is a richly layered film, one with much significance and modernity. It displays a portrait of a disastrous, tension-filled marriage that was doomed from the moment its two participants laid eyes on each other.
(Major spoilers ahead!!!) Neither Amy or Nick is entirely innocent, but Amy is the conniving one, seeking revenge for her husband's infidelity. She is fully aware of the world we currently exist in, a world of artificiality where everyone and everything is reduced to an image due to the manipulation and allure of social media and cable news. Amy uses this to her advantage, disappearing and leaving convincing evidence behind leading people to believe Nick may have murdered her, thus turning his image from a working man and a loving husband to a sociopathic killer.
I won't delve deeply into Nick's character because I really don't wanna spoil anything more. This is one of those movies that is much better if you go in cold. However I will say that Gone Girl is one of the best movies of the year, a challenging, idealistically ambitious movie, one that manages to play with your emotions and make you question your own morals. It is a social satire, a devilish comedy, a psychological thriller, an old fashioned murder mystery... it almost can't be categorized. But above all else, it's just fun. It is entertainment of the highest order. Both sick and sickening, see it and embrace the chills it'll send down your spine.
Doodlebug (1997) Christopher Nolan
Here is Christopher Nolan's Doodlebug (1997). One of the most fascinating and inventively atmospheric short films I've seen. Wanted to share. Enjoy.
Catching Up
I apologize for the absence of reviews. It really has been a while. So in order to get things back on track as quickly as possible, I am going to do short reviews that summarize my basic thoughts on each movie I have seen since my last review:
Transcendence (2014) Directed By Wally Pfister: A classic example of fascinating ideas poorly executed. A movie that presents its potential in its first act by filling our heads with endless possibilities of how it could all play out, only to disappoint us by taking unearned tonal shifts, and having preposterous explanations for its inexplicable outcomes. Johnny Depp's strong performance deserved a better script, and based on this project, Pfister should stick to cinematography.
Under The Skin (2014) Directed By Jonathan Glazer: A challenging science fiction movie that, based upon a first viewing, appears to be about a great many things - lust, alienation (no pun intended), the value of humanity...but it merits multiple viewings. It deserves to be seen for many reasons, such as its evocative, eerie score, its astounding imagery, particularly in its opening sequence, or Scarlett Johansson's remarkable acting. I was not quite sure how to feel at the end of it; all I know is that it definitely made me feel a lot. It is bizarrely beautiful, somewhat terrifying, and altogether extraordinary.
Locke (2014) Directed By Steven Knight: Frustration and sorrow hang around the eyes of Tom Hardy in Steven Knight's Locke; a movie about mistakes and consequences. If you have seen the film's trailer, you already know it stretches the boundaries of traditional narrative. It all takes place in a car, which is an admirable experiment in and of itself, but the two most amazing accomplishments of the movie are: 1. How it makes us feel and recognize the world that remains unseen outside of Ivan Locke's BMW - that of his wife, children, affair, and co-workers - and how much we sympathize with these people through only their voices on Locke's phone; 2. The emotional complexities of its protagonist, who spends the entire movie talking to these people, and to his imagined, deceased father.
The film's success is largely due to its invisible actors, and especially Tom Hardy's great performance. Kudos to writer/director Steven Knight for crafting an intimate portrait of a man whose life crumbles as he makes new mistakes in reaction to the consequences of his past ones. Your mistake would be to miss it.
Godzilla (2014) Directed By Gareth Edwards: One of the most exciting blockbusters of recent years, Gareth Edwards' Godzilla is an exhilarating rush of pure, old-fashioned popcorn-movie entertainment. It is one of those movies you have to be a part of to truly experience it. You have to make it into some sort of event (I saw it opening night on a humungous IMAX screen with a sold out crowd). It is also a smart movie; our gargantuan hero is concealed for most of its running time, which kept the audience in immense anticipation. So when he finally appears (the camera in close-up, moving upward to emphasize the vast enormity of his green, scaly figure), it's a triumphant moment. Everybody cheered. It reminded me of why we go to the movies in the first place.
Million Dollar Arm (2014) Directed By Craig Gillespie: A predictable, kind movie that never is as bad as you expect it to be. It's entertaining and warm and not entirely compelling, but it does somewhat make you root for its major characters (at least I was) and its heart is in the right place. No, its characters are not multi-dimensional and the story is not very sophisticated or ballsy or anything less than formulaic, but that isn't the kind of thing you expect from a movie like this. It's not good; but it's not bad either.
The Other Woman (2014) Directed By Nick Cassavetes: One of the worst movies of the year; a movie that never seems to be sure of itself, full of scenes that are unnecessary, and scenes that run far too long until they become unnecessary. It also contradicts itself; it appears to be more feminine than macho... Based on its story and the actions of its characters it seems to intend on empowering women, yet all it does is objectify them (most notably in one sequence where Kate Upton is shown in close-up, walking towards the camera with her cleavage exposed). Most of us would agree that Kate Upton is very attractive, but in the context of this movie, I was disgusted. I am certain that this is an attempt to appeal to more than just one particular audience (men rather than only women), but instead, it just makes the whole thing feel cheap and desperate. I am sure that The Other Woman does not care about having any significance, and is only trying to succeed on being a piece of pleasurable trashy entertainment. It fails at being this as well, for one simple reason: it isn't funny. It's an offensive atrocity.
Begin Again (2014) Directed By John Carney: With Begin Again, writer/director John Carney essentially tries to do the same thing he did in his earlier, lovely film, Once (2007), in which he allows his characters to express their feelings, thoughts, fears, desires, through their music (but they're not musicals). What worked beautifully in Once falls flat in Begin Again simply because the characters are uninteresting, and (in my opinion) the music isn't very good. There are subtly nice moments that take place within the performances and the actors' facial expressions, moments that show you hints of the better movie this could've been. Also, it sometimes attempts to be a commentary on the evolution of the music industry, yet it knows nothing about it (most of what occurs while the plot develops is nonsensical). It is a major disappointment.
Wish I Was Here (2014) Directed By Zach Braff: Wish I Was Here
A Most Wanted Man (2014) Directed By Anton Corbijn: A Most Wanted Man has virtually no music throughout, which forces it to rely on storytelling for it to come to life. In that regard, it does not entirely succeed. It's slow and somber, full of troublingly abstruse characters, all of which create a sense of tedium rather than flourishing tension. However, the movie is saved by a deliciously maddening, unexpected ending that includes such an explosive moment of acting from the late great Phillip Seymour Hoffman that is at once brilliantly revealing of his character, -as we realize at this moment all of the coiled rage and guilt that had been lingering inside of him- and as a result, of his overall performance, as it, at this moment, goes from bland and flat to skillfully understated. It made the whole experience more satisfying, and gives Hoffman an honorable send-off.
Transcendence (2014) Directed By Wally Pfister: A classic example of fascinating ideas poorly executed. A movie that presents its potential in its first act by filling our heads with endless possibilities of how it could all play out, only to disappoint us by taking unearned tonal shifts, and having preposterous explanations for its inexplicable outcomes. Johnny Depp's strong performance deserved a better script, and based on this project, Pfister should stick to cinematography.
Under The Skin (2014) Directed By Jonathan Glazer: A challenging science fiction movie that, based upon a first viewing, appears to be about a great many things - lust, alienation (no pun intended), the value of humanity...but it merits multiple viewings. It deserves to be seen for many reasons, such as its evocative, eerie score, its astounding imagery, particularly in its opening sequence, or Scarlett Johansson's remarkable acting. I was not quite sure how to feel at the end of it; all I know is that it definitely made me feel a lot. It is bizarrely beautiful, somewhat terrifying, and altogether extraordinary.
Locke (2014) Directed By Steven Knight: Frustration and sorrow hang around the eyes of Tom Hardy in Steven Knight's Locke; a movie about mistakes and consequences. If you have seen the film's trailer, you already know it stretches the boundaries of traditional narrative. It all takes place in a car, which is an admirable experiment in and of itself, but the two most amazing accomplishments of the movie are: 1. How it makes us feel and recognize the world that remains unseen outside of Ivan Locke's BMW - that of his wife, children, affair, and co-workers - and how much we sympathize with these people through only their voices on Locke's phone; 2. The emotional complexities of its protagonist, who spends the entire movie talking to these people, and to his imagined, deceased father.
The film's success is largely due to its invisible actors, and especially Tom Hardy's great performance. Kudos to writer/director Steven Knight for crafting an intimate portrait of a man whose life crumbles as he makes new mistakes in reaction to the consequences of his past ones. Your mistake would be to miss it.
Godzilla (2014) Directed By Gareth Edwards: One of the most exciting blockbusters of recent years, Gareth Edwards' Godzilla is an exhilarating rush of pure, old-fashioned popcorn-movie entertainment. It is one of those movies you have to be a part of to truly experience it. You have to make it into some sort of event (I saw it opening night on a humungous IMAX screen with a sold out crowd). It is also a smart movie; our gargantuan hero is concealed for most of its running time, which kept the audience in immense anticipation. So when he finally appears (the camera in close-up, moving upward to emphasize the vast enormity of his green, scaly figure), it's a triumphant moment. Everybody cheered. It reminded me of why we go to the movies in the first place.
Million Dollar Arm (2014) Directed By Craig Gillespie: A predictable, kind movie that never is as bad as you expect it to be. It's entertaining and warm and not entirely compelling, but it does somewhat make you root for its major characters (at least I was) and its heart is in the right place. No, its characters are not multi-dimensional and the story is not very sophisticated or ballsy or anything less than formulaic, but that isn't the kind of thing you expect from a movie like this. It's not good; but it's not bad either.
The Other Woman (2014) Directed By Nick Cassavetes: One of the worst movies of the year; a movie that never seems to be sure of itself, full of scenes that are unnecessary, and scenes that run far too long until they become unnecessary. It also contradicts itself; it appears to be more feminine than macho... Based on its story and the actions of its characters it seems to intend on empowering women, yet all it does is objectify them (most notably in one sequence where Kate Upton is shown in close-up, walking towards the camera with her cleavage exposed). Most of us would agree that Kate Upton is very attractive, but in the context of this movie, I was disgusted. I am certain that this is an attempt to appeal to more than just one particular audience (men rather than only women), but instead, it just makes the whole thing feel cheap and desperate. I am sure that The Other Woman does not care about having any significance, and is only trying to succeed on being a piece of pleasurable trashy entertainment. It fails at being this as well, for one simple reason: it isn't funny. It's an offensive atrocity.
Begin Again (2014) Directed By John Carney: With Begin Again, writer/director John Carney essentially tries to do the same thing he did in his earlier, lovely film, Once (2007), in which he allows his characters to express their feelings, thoughts, fears, desires, through their music (but they're not musicals). What worked beautifully in Once falls flat in Begin Again simply because the characters are uninteresting, and (in my opinion) the music isn't very good. There are subtly nice moments that take place within the performances and the actors' facial expressions, moments that show you hints of the better movie this could've been. Also, it sometimes attempts to be a commentary on the evolution of the music industry, yet it knows nothing about it (most of what occurs while the plot develops is nonsensical). It is a major disappointment.
Wish I Was Here (2014) Directed By Zach Braff: Wish I Was Here
A Most Wanted Man (2014) Directed By Anton Corbijn: A Most Wanted Man has virtually no music throughout, which forces it to rely on storytelling for it to come to life. In that regard, it does not entirely succeed. It's slow and somber, full of troublingly abstruse characters, all of which create a sense of tedium rather than flourishing tension. However, the movie is saved by a deliciously maddening, unexpected ending that includes such an explosive moment of acting from the late great Phillip Seymour Hoffman that is at once brilliantly revealing of his character, -as we realize at this moment all of the coiled rage and guilt that had been lingering inside of him- and as a result, of his overall performance, as it, at this moment, goes from bland and flat to skillfully understated. It made the whole experience more satisfying, and gives Hoffman an honorable send-off.
Review Posted: 4/14/14
The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014) Directed By Wes Anderson
The Grand Budapest Hotel, Wes Anderson's eighth feature, is one of the most purely pleasurable movies in theaters right now. It is a visual delight, and it is full of the usual whimsy and quick-witted dialogue that all of Anderson's films contain. It is sure to satisfy his fans by providing them with his distinct style. However, even the skeptics may be pleasantly surprised.
Despite the idiosyncrasies that skeptics usually find to outweigh the narrative in his movies, this film has elements that most classic action/adventure movies have. It has a throbbing pace, exciting chase sequences, fights, murder, etc. It is also consistently funny. Ralph Fiennes is brilliantly sharp as M. Gustave, a determined man and all the better for it, who seems to go to whatever lengths needed to get to where he wants, or needs, to go.
It is so easy to lose yourself in a Wes Anderson film, and I believe no other movie he has made supports this notion better than The Grand Budapest Hotel. It is not a movie you simply watch, but one that you enter. That is a very exciting and rare feeling when going to the movies. As a visual achievement, it is entrancing, marvelous. You won't want to leave.
It works as an entertainment. It is thoroughly enjoyable. However, without giving anything away, I will say that it is not a 'happy' film. Once thought about after you have left it, or perhaps revisited it, the undertones of melancholy hit you. It has a profound sadness to it... a film of loss and longing, beauty and illusion. As well as an entertainment, it is an evocation of a time and feeling. Which is quite impressive to say the least.
Despite the idiosyncrasies that skeptics usually find to outweigh the narrative in his movies, this film has elements that most classic action/adventure movies have. It has a throbbing pace, exciting chase sequences, fights, murder, etc. It is also consistently funny. Ralph Fiennes is brilliantly sharp as M. Gustave, a determined man and all the better for it, who seems to go to whatever lengths needed to get to where he wants, or needs, to go.
It is so easy to lose yourself in a Wes Anderson film, and I believe no other movie he has made supports this notion better than The Grand Budapest Hotel. It is not a movie you simply watch, but one that you enter. That is a very exciting and rare feeling when going to the movies. As a visual achievement, it is entrancing, marvelous. You won't want to leave.
It works as an entertainment. It is thoroughly enjoyable. However, without giving anything away, I will say that it is not a 'happy' film. Once thought about after you have left it, or perhaps revisited it, the undertones of melancholy hit you. It has a profound sadness to it... a film of loss and longing, beauty and illusion. As well as an entertainment, it is an evocation of a time and feeling. Which is quite impressive to say the least.
Review Posted: 4/8/14
Non-Stop (2014) Directed By Jaume Collet-Serra
The best movies are always ahead of you.
Now while I say that, I don't necessarily mean that every movie that is somewhat predictable is bad. We all have our guilty pleasures. And that is what the best kind foreseeable movie is: a guilty pleasure.
Every once or twice a year, a Liam Neeson thriller gets released. Many people go to see them, myself included. So after a while, the usual audience lining up for a Neeson thriller have come to expect the same thing from every one of them... stupid, dumb fun. Some are actually quite good, while others are just flat-out awful. They are almost always preposterous. They are never genuinely good movies. But if they succeed, they're successful for being good for what they are.
The latest Neeson thriller, Jaume Collet-Serra's Non Stop, pleasantly surprised me for its first two acts, presenting itself as far more self-serious than what I was used to seeing. The mystery of who the plane hijacker is leaves you as puzzled and as frustrated as its flawed, alcoholic, grieving hero, Bill Marks (Neeson). It puts you in his place, in which you are unsure of what is coming next and who you can trust, a quality that the best of thrillers have. I was watching this movie, not waiting for it to end. A rarity for me when it comes to Neeson thrillers. For the first time, I actually felt as if I was watching an effective, decent thriller.
However, the way that Non Stop is structured narratively, I knew that there was going to be some sort of big reveal towards the end, and I kept worrying that it would be unsatisfying. The reason I didn't have much confidence that it would pull it off is that the entire film takes place inside of a plane, which is an enclosed space. We are informed in the film's first act that there is a hijacker within this space, threatening to murder a passenger every 20 minutes that he is without the money he demands. We are led to believe that the hijacker is one of the passengers. So I was thinking to myself how disappointing it would be if the guy really turned out to be one of them, or even just someone within the enclosed space. I was afraid that Non Stop had set itself up to fail, unless somehow it was misdirecting us. As much as I was enjoying it, I still wasn't sure if it was a movie that was smart enough to have its big reveal still be unexpected, given that it's set up to have only a limited amount of logical outcomes.
This is a movie that sets itself up for thrilling success or crushing failure, depending on its execution of all that has come before. I knew that whatever the twist was going to be, it was going to uncover what kind of film Non Stop really was. If it found a way to be shocking, it would make its first two acts worth it because it would prove itself to be the kind of movie that is ahead of its audience. If it didn't, the whole thing would feel like a sham, because it would prove itself to be the kind of movie that has been behind, or at the same pace, as us.
In the end, it wasn't ahead. Unfortunately, it turned out to be almost as forgettable as the rest of the Neeson thrillers, because like I said, this is the kind of movie that reveals its true self to you in its final scenes, and it showed me that it wasn't playing any tricks. It was what it led us to believe it was, and that kinda sucked. But hey, it was fun while it lasted.
Now while I say that, I don't necessarily mean that every movie that is somewhat predictable is bad. We all have our guilty pleasures. And that is what the best kind foreseeable movie is: a guilty pleasure.
Every once or twice a year, a Liam Neeson thriller gets released. Many people go to see them, myself included. So after a while, the usual audience lining up for a Neeson thriller have come to expect the same thing from every one of them... stupid, dumb fun. Some are actually quite good, while others are just flat-out awful. They are almost always preposterous. They are never genuinely good movies. But if they succeed, they're successful for being good for what they are.
The latest Neeson thriller, Jaume Collet-Serra's Non Stop, pleasantly surprised me for its first two acts, presenting itself as far more self-serious than what I was used to seeing. The mystery of who the plane hijacker is leaves you as puzzled and as frustrated as its flawed, alcoholic, grieving hero, Bill Marks (Neeson). It puts you in his place, in which you are unsure of what is coming next and who you can trust, a quality that the best of thrillers have. I was watching this movie, not waiting for it to end. A rarity for me when it comes to Neeson thrillers. For the first time, I actually felt as if I was watching an effective, decent thriller.
However, the way that Non Stop is structured narratively, I knew that there was going to be some sort of big reveal towards the end, and I kept worrying that it would be unsatisfying. The reason I didn't have much confidence that it would pull it off is that the entire film takes place inside of a plane, which is an enclosed space. We are informed in the film's first act that there is a hijacker within this space, threatening to murder a passenger every 20 minutes that he is without the money he demands. We are led to believe that the hijacker is one of the passengers. So I was thinking to myself how disappointing it would be if the guy really turned out to be one of them, or even just someone within the enclosed space. I was afraid that Non Stop had set itself up to fail, unless somehow it was misdirecting us. As much as I was enjoying it, I still wasn't sure if it was a movie that was smart enough to have its big reveal still be unexpected, given that it's set up to have only a limited amount of logical outcomes.
This is a movie that sets itself up for thrilling success or crushing failure, depending on its execution of all that has come before. I knew that whatever the twist was going to be, it was going to uncover what kind of film Non Stop really was. If it found a way to be shocking, it would make its first two acts worth it because it would prove itself to be the kind of movie that is ahead of its audience. If it didn't, the whole thing would feel like a sham, because it would prove itself to be the kind of movie that has been behind, or at the same pace, as us.
In the end, it wasn't ahead. Unfortunately, it turned out to be almost as forgettable as the rest of the Neeson thrillers, because like I said, this is the kind of movie that reveals its true self to you in its final scenes, and it showed me that it wasn't playing any tricks. It was what it led us to believe it was, and that kinda sucked. But hey, it was fun while it lasted.
Review Posted: 3/31/14
Noah (2014) Directed By Darren Aronofsky
Darren Aronofsky is known for making bold, abstract, and audacious works of art, such as 2011's oscar-nominated Black Swan, and 2000's Requiem For A Dream. He is definitely not for everyone. People who have seen his films have come to expect the eerie sense of dread, the unusual darkness, both creepy and crawly, both chaotic and terrifying. Like most art, you either love it or hate it, but you still find yourself thinking about it for a long time after your initial viewing of it. And while I never found much pleasure in his films, he still fascinated me. I couldn't say I liked his work all that much but I appreciated it, and I was always curious to see what he would come up with next.
His new movie, Noah, is not any more enjoyable than his other work, in fact, it isn't even worthy of the appreciation that I felt the others, for me, deserved. It tries to be a fresh cinematic take on an ancient biblical tale, but it isn't reinventing anything. The biggest and most surprising letdown of the film is that it takes no risks. Yes, there are moments of visual ambition, (most notably an exhausting sequence involving a flood), but most of it feels like an ordinary action movie starring Russell Crowe, wearing a beard, yelling at everyone or saying something supposedly deep or important. I'll also point out that there's a lot of ludicrous CGI, including rock-like creatures that, when in battle, are reminiscent of something out of a Transformers movie. I actually laughed out loud at some points.
It's a vacant extravaganza, one that has the feel of cheap entertainment, which, coming from Aronofsky, made it all the more dull. Noah left me with a feeling I rarely get after watching a movie, even having seen plenty of bad ones in my life: the feeling that I had just wasted my time.
His new movie, Noah, is not any more enjoyable than his other work, in fact, it isn't even worthy of the appreciation that I felt the others, for me, deserved. It tries to be a fresh cinematic take on an ancient biblical tale, but it isn't reinventing anything. The biggest and most surprising letdown of the film is that it takes no risks. Yes, there are moments of visual ambition, (most notably an exhausting sequence involving a flood), but most of it feels like an ordinary action movie starring Russell Crowe, wearing a beard, yelling at everyone or saying something supposedly deep or important. I'll also point out that there's a lot of ludicrous CGI, including rock-like creatures that, when in battle, are reminiscent of something out of a Transformers movie. I actually laughed out loud at some points.
It's a vacant extravaganza, one that has the feel of cheap entertainment, which, coming from Aronofsky, made it all the more dull. Noah left me with a feeling I rarely get after watching a movie, even having seen plenty of bad ones in my life: the feeling that I had just wasted my time.
Excerpt from "Ratatouille" (2007)
I felt like sharing this. It is an excerpt from one of Pixar's best films. My personal favorite will always be "Up" (2009), but this monologue, to me, is the most beautiful, resonant thing they have ever done. Enjoy.
Review Posted: 2/8/14
The Lego Movie (2014) Directed By Phil Lord & Christopher Miller
(Spoiler alert!) The Lego Movie reveals to us in its final third that everything we have been watching has been put on by a little boy named Finn (Jadon Sand), playing with the legos that his father bought to create displays out of them. Most of the movie is a ceaseless diversion, full of frequently funny scenes and one-liners. It takes a daring, emotional turn in its final third that makes it really something to treasure.
The Lego world is quite a dazzlingly inventive trip indeed. It is a celebratory piece of animated filmmaking. However, the movie goes beyond the world it has laid out for you and turns into live action towards the end. It becomes a creation within a creation. A structurally, and emotionally, richer movie.
It may not explore unfamiliar emotional themes, but it presents them with constant groundbreaking invention. It's not wholly NEW, but it's new enough. I loved it.
The Lego world is quite a dazzlingly inventive trip indeed. It is a celebratory piece of animated filmmaking. However, the movie goes beyond the world it has laid out for you and turns into live action towards the end. It becomes a creation within a creation. A structurally, and emotionally, richer movie.
It may not explore unfamiliar emotional themes, but it presents them with constant groundbreaking invention. It's not wholly NEW, but it's new enough. I loved it.
Remembering Phillip Seymour Hoffman
As a tribute to his incredible work, I have gathered clips of him from his many different roles, including his acceptance speech when he won his oscar. He is gone, but his characters and performances live on.
2/3/14
R.I.P Phillip Seymour Hoffman
(1967-2014)
One of this generation's most versatile and extraordinary actors was found dead in his apartment yesterday of an apparent drug overdose. His work includes Doubt (2008) Boogie Nights (1997) The Master (2012) Almost Famous (2000) Charlie Wilson's War (2007) Capote (2005). He was my personal favorite and he will be missed.
Side note: I will never forget the day I was at a Knicks game and he was sitting a few rows above me. I could have gone up to him to tell him how much I admired him, but I was too shy. I will always regret it. R.I.P.
Side note: I will never forget the day I was at a Knicks game and he was sitting a few rows above me. I could have gone up to him to tell him how much I admired him, but I was too shy. I will always regret it. R.I.P.
Why American Hustle is a great movie and why other people may think otherwise
Recently someone told me that they had just seen David O. Russell's latest film, American Hustle, and that they absolutely hated it. Thought it was a total mess. Poorly edited, characters were all over the place, and the movie was unentertaining as a result of that. This is an understandable opinion. There are many times where the film seems unbalanced, moving through the different perspectives of each character, having a seemingly unfocused narrative structure. However, this is (to me) precisely the point. The film seems to be a mess because it is a character-driven movie in which each of the characters are messes themselves, each one constantly changing their identities in an attempt to survive, thrive, and figure out who they are.
These are unstable people desperately trying to escape their true selves by pretending to be someone else. It is no wonder that each of them fit so well into the art of the con. It is not merely about the Abscam scandal. It is a movie about reinvention, the will to thrive, survive. To watch a series of unsteady, chaotic characters may be frustrating for someone else to watch. But for me, it is fascinating.
These are unstable people desperately trying to escape their true selves by pretending to be someone else. It is no wonder that each of them fit so well into the art of the con. It is not merely about the Abscam scandal. It is a movie about reinvention, the will to thrive, survive. To watch a series of unsteady, chaotic characters may be frustrating for someone else to watch. But for me, it is fascinating.
Honorable Mentions
Here are the movies that didn't quite make my top 10, but I feel are still worth mentioning:
Blue Jasmine
The World's End
Captain Phillips
Hunger Games: Catching Fire
Room 237
Frances Ha
The Past
Blue Jasmine
The World's End
Captain Phillips
Hunger Games: Catching Fire
Room 237
Frances Ha
The Past
My Top 10 Movies of 2013
10. Short Term 12 - Considering what the movie is attempting to depict, it is remarkably unsentimental and all the more affecting for it. Brie Larson is astonishing.
9. Mud - The best coming of age movie since Stand By Me. A movie that captures divorce and the power women hold over men in relationships. Matthew Mcconaughey gives a great, understated performance.
8. The Place Beyond the Pines - An ambitious, mesmerizing epic about fathers and sons.
7. The Spectacular Now - A lovely movie that portrays addiction, young love, and High School more realistically than any movie I have seen in a very long time, featuring splendid performances from Miles Teller and Shailene Woodley.
6. Nebraska - A beautiful, moving film about a father and a son who connect through the need for human reason and destination. It is lovely and bittersweet in its authenticity.
5. American Hustle - One of the great entertainments of the year, American Hustle pleasures us using its exuberant script and endlessly watchable ensemble. It is character-driven, but it is also one of the more insightful movies I've seen about the nature of self-reinvention and what it is to be a con artist.
4. The Wolf of Wall Street - An off the rails movie about off the rails people. It is tragically hilarious. Transcendentally energetic. A masterpiece of amorality.
3. Inside Llewyn Davis - A haunting, enigmatic movie about the journey of an artist, Inside Llewyn Davis is an entrancingly exquisite piece of filmmaking.
2. Gravity - The towering, crowning cinematic achievement of 2013, Gravity is a game-changing, miraculous movie that is the most visually extraordinary I have ever seen. Yet what makes it even more consummate is how it uses its visuals to create an emotionally genuine, poetic character-study about being lost, closed in, and finding your way back down to earth. A technical achievement with humane, poignant undertones. That is something you rarely see in movies.
1. Her - A visionary, futuristic film about love and loss, human connection and disconnection. It is uncommon and fascinating in the way that it humanizes artificial intelligence, as well as perceptive in the way it depicts loneliness. It is the most inventive, moving film I have seen all year.
9. Mud - The best coming of age movie since Stand By Me. A movie that captures divorce and the power women hold over men in relationships. Matthew Mcconaughey gives a great, understated performance.
8. The Place Beyond the Pines - An ambitious, mesmerizing epic about fathers and sons.
7. The Spectacular Now - A lovely movie that portrays addiction, young love, and High School more realistically than any movie I have seen in a very long time, featuring splendid performances from Miles Teller and Shailene Woodley.
6. Nebraska - A beautiful, moving film about a father and a son who connect through the need for human reason and destination. It is lovely and bittersweet in its authenticity.
5. American Hustle - One of the great entertainments of the year, American Hustle pleasures us using its exuberant script and endlessly watchable ensemble. It is character-driven, but it is also one of the more insightful movies I've seen about the nature of self-reinvention and what it is to be a con artist.
4. The Wolf of Wall Street - An off the rails movie about off the rails people. It is tragically hilarious. Transcendentally energetic. A masterpiece of amorality.
3. Inside Llewyn Davis - A haunting, enigmatic movie about the journey of an artist, Inside Llewyn Davis is an entrancingly exquisite piece of filmmaking.
2. Gravity - The towering, crowning cinematic achievement of 2013, Gravity is a game-changing, miraculous movie that is the most visually extraordinary I have ever seen. Yet what makes it even more consummate is how it uses its visuals to create an emotionally genuine, poetic character-study about being lost, closed in, and finding your way back down to earth. A technical achievement with humane, poignant undertones. That is something you rarely see in movies.
1. Her - A visionary, futuristic film about love and loss, human connection and disconnection. It is uncommon and fascinating in the way that it humanizes artificial intelligence, as well as perceptive in the way it depicts loneliness. It is the most inventive, moving film I have seen all year.
Review Posted: 8/25/13
The Spectacular Now (2013) Directed By James Ponsoldt
There's a scene near the end of The Spectacular Now, the new high school dramedy written by Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber, Directed By James Ponsoldt ,where the film's protagonist, Sutter Keely, (Miles Teller) is told by his mother that his father, (Kyle Chandler) has never loved anybody but himself. She goes on by saying that Sutter is different than him because he loves everybody. What his mother is saying here is correct, but she leaves out one other significant trait. And that's how Sutter loves everybody, and hates only himself. He is the opposite of his father. It's ironic how the only reason Sutter is the opposite of his father is because he thinks that he is the same as his father.
Sutter is an alcoholic, he gets bad grades, he likes to party, get drunk, live in the now. One night, he tries to help his friend Ricky (Masam Holden) get with a girl. The girl is with her friend. This situation results in Sutter's girlfriend Cassidy (Brie Larson) catching him in his car with the girl's friend. They aren't doing anything, but she assumes the worst.
After that, Sutter is bummed out. He goes out, gets drunk, and eventually passes out on another person's yard. That person, however, happens to go to his school. Her name is Amy Finecky (Shaliene Woodley). She's standing over Sutter as he wakes up. He is hung over, still melancholy over his girlfriend dumping him. They bond as they do a paper route together, they plan to meet at lunch the next day, they are now acquaintances .
I could pick apart every scene of this film and talk about how beautifully realized they all are. There is not one moment of The Spectacular Now that feels forced, hokey, or anything less than genuinely authentic. By the end, it's truly remarkable how much these characters have grown for a 90 minute movie. Character development is one of the most essential things to making a movie truly memorable, I don't think I've seen a movie this year that has developed its characters as well as The Spectacular Now.
Sutter is an alcoholic, he gets bad grades, he likes to party, get drunk, live in the now. One night, he tries to help his friend Ricky (Masam Holden) get with a girl. The girl is with her friend. This situation results in Sutter's girlfriend Cassidy (Brie Larson) catching him in his car with the girl's friend. They aren't doing anything, but she assumes the worst.
After that, Sutter is bummed out. He goes out, gets drunk, and eventually passes out on another person's yard. That person, however, happens to go to his school. Her name is Amy Finecky (Shaliene Woodley). She's standing over Sutter as he wakes up. He is hung over, still melancholy over his girlfriend dumping him. They bond as they do a paper route together, they plan to meet at lunch the next day, they are now acquaintances .
I could pick apart every scene of this film and talk about how beautifully realized they all are. There is not one moment of The Spectacular Now that feels forced, hokey, or anything less than genuinely authentic. By the end, it's truly remarkable how much these characters have grown for a 90 minute movie. Character development is one of the most essential things to making a movie truly memorable, I don't think I've seen a movie this year that has developed its characters as well as The Spectacular Now.
Review Posted: 8/24/13
Blue Jasmine (2013) Directed By Woody Allen
If Cate Blanchett doesn't get an oscar nomination for her performance in Blue Jasmine, Woody Allen's terrific new character study, than I might just give up on the oscars. Blanchett delivers the best performance by an actress this year, portraying a woman who is selfish, miserable, weak, and a little insane. It is not only fascinating to watch Jasmine slowly self destruct as the story unfolds because Blanchett is so mesmerizing, but also because her character is as well written as any movie character I've seen in quite a while. I might have not felt bad for Jasmine as I sat back in my comfy seat, ate my popcorn, and watched her life fall apart, but I was always compelled.
If Blanchett does get nominated, I hope her performance isn't too much of a stunner to pull all of the attention away from Sally Hawkins, who is just as good as Blanchett for the role she plays. She plays Jasmine's sister, Ginger, who is constantly struggling with money and relationships. She starts out with nothing, but in the end, while not really gaining much financially, she ends up with everything she could've wanted in Chili, (Bobby Cannavale), her new boyfriend. Jasmine starts out with all of the money in the world, but an unfaithful criminal for a husband. We see that Jasmine cannot support herself, because once her husband leaves her for another woman, everything goes downhill from there.
Even with all of the money she had, plus a husband, she's always had nothing. She's never loved anyone more than herself, which is why she's never really had anyone. She has so much loneliness inside of her, so she takes it out on people who are happy and loved (her sister) because she wishes she was. She may have had a husband, but he wasn't in love with her, she had a sister who tried to help her, but ungrateful Jasmine is so hard to put up with that she loses her too. And so of course, she ends up with no money, no husband, no sister, nothing. Nobody but herself, (which is, deep down, how it's always been in the first place), but now she literally is just by herself, talking to herself, thinking about everything she's lost.
This is a hopeless, but masterful film. One of Woody Allen's best in recent years.
If Blanchett does get nominated, I hope her performance isn't too much of a stunner to pull all of the attention away from Sally Hawkins, who is just as good as Blanchett for the role she plays. She plays Jasmine's sister, Ginger, who is constantly struggling with money and relationships. She starts out with nothing, but in the end, while not really gaining much financially, she ends up with everything she could've wanted in Chili, (Bobby Cannavale), her new boyfriend. Jasmine starts out with all of the money in the world, but an unfaithful criminal for a husband. We see that Jasmine cannot support herself, because once her husband leaves her for another woman, everything goes downhill from there.
Even with all of the money she had, plus a husband, she's always had nothing. She's never loved anyone more than herself, which is why she's never really had anyone. She has so much loneliness inside of her, so she takes it out on people who are happy and loved (her sister) because she wishes she was. She may have had a husband, but he wasn't in love with her, she had a sister who tried to help her, but ungrateful Jasmine is so hard to put up with that she loses her too. And so of course, she ends up with no money, no husband, no sister, nothing. Nobody but herself, (which is, deep down, how it's always been in the first place), but now she literally is just by herself, talking to herself, thinking about everything she's lost.
This is a hopeless, but masterful film. One of Woody Allen's best in recent years.
Review Posted: 7/14/13
World War Z (2013) Directed By Marc Forster
The opening sequence in World War Z is a series of news reports of a rabid virus that is spreading worldwide. This sequence is one of the best things I've seen in a movie all year long. It sets up everything that occurs from then on. And it is riveting.
The film's opening allows the movie to get going right at the start. So impatient viewers will definitely be pleased. Brad Pitt is very good here, because while we don't know much about him, we still root for him because of the way he portrays his character. His name is Gerry, and he is a brave, tough, but sweet man trying to help his family and anyone else he can.
There are times where the zombie attacks can look a little silly, and the movie has a disappointingly soft ending, but besides that, this is a fast paced, first rate zombie thriller that grabs hold of you right from the start and doesn't let go. It doesn't rely on gore and brutal violence for tension and scares. World War Z has a story to tell, and it tells it well.
This is definitely one of the better blockbusters that have come out this year.
3.5/4
The film's opening allows the movie to get going right at the start. So impatient viewers will definitely be pleased. Brad Pitt is very good here, because while we don't know much about him, we still root for him because of the way he portrays his character. His name is Gerry, and he is a brave, tough, but sweet man trying to help his family and anyone else he can.
There are times where the zombie attacks can look a little silly, and the movie has a disappointingly soft ending, but besides that, this is a fast paced, first rate zombie thriller that grabs hold of you right from the start and doesn't let go. It doesn't rely on gore and brutal violence for tension and scares. World War Z has a story to tell, and it tells it well.
This is definitely one of the better blockbusters that have come out this year.
3.5/4
Review Posted: 7/14/2013
Pacific Rim (2013) Directed By Guillermo Del Toro
Pacific Rim is frustrating. There are many great things about it. It has inventive ideas, stunning visuals. And while the action is sometimes thrilling, it can also be exhausting. I have been told not to take this movie seriously, and not to expect it to be anything profound or emotionally complex. I understand that completely, and that is not what I was expecting at all. But there are moments in Pacific Rim that really aim to move you. I didn't care enough about the characters to be moved.
I am not saying every movie has to have characters you feel deeply for, I understand that for a big summer blockbuster about giant robots battling giant monsters to save the world, character development isn't going to be a huge factor. But THERE ARE scenes that try to be emotionally affecting using the relationships between some of the characters, and they didn't work because I didn't care about them. I have also been told that for a movie like this, I have to expect it to be silly and dumb most of the time. Well I don't know about that. I understand that I shouldn't expect anything brilliant, but why should just plain stupid be passable? There are moments of dialogue in this film that are really, I mean really bad.
There are also moments of magnificence. For example there is a sequence where one of the major characters is inside of one of the Jaegers, (the giant robots), she is inexperienced and she gets sucked into her memories. She remembers an attack by one of the monsters when she was a little girl, and what follows is a harrowing, spellbinding sequence. It just shows the potential for greatness that Pacific Rim has.
In all honesty, I was disappointed. It was frustrating to see so many moments of spectacularity mixed in with other moments that simply didn't work. Pacific Rim is not by any means bad, it's just not what it could have been.
2.5/4
I am not saying every movie has to have characters you feel deeply for, I understand that for a big summer blockbuster about giant robots battling giant monsters to save the world, character development isn't going to be a huge factor. But THERE ARE scenes that try to be emotionally affecting using the relationships between some of the characters, and they didn't work because I didn't care about them. I have also been told that for a movie like this, I have to expect it to be silly and dumb most of the time. Well I don't know about that. I understand that I shouldn't expect anything brilliant, but why should just plain stupid be passable? There are moments of dialogue in this film that are really, I mean really bad.
There are also moments of magnificence. For example there is a sequence where one of the major characters is inside of one of the Jaegers, (the giant robots), she is inexperienced and she gets sucked into her memories. She remembers an attack by one of the monsters when she was a little girl, and what follows is a harrowing, spellbinding sequence. It just shows the potential for greatness that Pacific Rim has.
In all honesty, I was disappointed. It was frustrating to see so many moments of spectacularity mixed in with other moments that simply didn't work. Pacific Rim is not by any means bad, it's just not what it could have been.
2.5/4
"Masterpiece."
It is a word often used express a film's greatness. It is really a word we should only use for movies to truly savor. In my opinion, it is used far too often. If I give a movie 4 stars, it doesn't necessarily mean that I think it is a masterpiece. For a movie to achieve that level, it must possess some kind of wonder that doesn't fade away. Masterpieces haunt, provoke, mesmerize, sometimes even transform. They are examples of artists setting goals for themselves, and achieving beyond what they set out to do. They are timeless, they don't vanish as the years go by, they grow.
Consider a movie like Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey. Here is an example of an artist creating something that fascinates because of its uniqueness, and puzzles because of its ambiguity. It makes you want to see it again for further understanding. The artist is not mindlessly feeding his/her audience what he or she thinks it wants, but rather challenging them with something new. Something that will grow over time, something that you will still be discussing and thinking about days, weeks, months, even years after you've seen it.
The artist is ahead of you. His ideas aren't fully clear to you on first viewing. The audience themselves must master the artists' creation to fully appreciate it. This is fearless ambition and imaginative invention. Movies that achieve this kind of magic are what I would describe as masterpieces. Movies that can still surprise you every time you watch them, movies you can find something new in every time you watch them. Movies that never, ever, grow old.
Every artist has their masterpiece. I'm not saying a film is a masterpiece just because it's ambiguous or enigmatic like 2001. A movie is a masterpiece if it is a truly defining achievement of an already great artist. Because every director has their best film, but that does not necessarily mean that film is a masterpiece. For example, Michael Bay's best film would not qualify as a masterpiece, it just happens to be (in my opinion) just not one of his terrible movies. Kubrick was a master, and to me, 2001 is his masterpiece.
Consider a movie like Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey. Here is an example of an artist creating something that fascinates because of its uniqueness, and puzzles because of its ambiguity. It makes you want to see it again for further understanding. The artist is not mindlessly feeding his/her audience what he or she thinks it wants, but rather challenging them with something new. Something that will grow over time, something that you will still be discussing and thinking about days, weeks, months, even years after you've seen it.
The artist is ahead of you. His ideas aren't fully clear to you on first viewing. The audience themselves must master the artists' creation to fully appreciate it. This is fearless ambition and imaginative invention. Movies that achieve this kind of magic are what I would describe as masterpieces. Movies that can still surprise you every time you watch them, movies you can find something new in every time you watch them. Movies that never, ever, grow old.
Every artist has their masterpiece. I'm not saying a film is a masterpiece just because it's ambiguous or enigmatic like 2001. A movie is a masterpiece if it is a truly defining achievement of an already great artist. Because every director has their best film, but that does not necessarily mean that film is a masterpiece. For example, Michael Bay's best film would not qualify as a masterpiece, it just happens to be (in my opinion) just not one of his terrible movies. Kubrick was a master, and to me, 2001 is his masterpiece.
Focusing on the present.
When I began doing these reviews, I wrote them on a blog I have on the Rottentomatoes website. What I have been trying to do is take those reviews from the website, and re write them all onto here. I have now realized that since there are so many of them, it will take too much time to do so. So I have decided to stop rewriting my reviews from Rottentomatoes on here and only focus on the movies I am currently watching. If you would like to see my old reviews from the website, use this: http://www.rottentomatoes.com/user/982073/reviews/
Warning: I was not as mature a writer at the time! So the reviews may seem a bit amateur.
Warning: I was not as mature a writer at the time! So the reviews may seem a bit amateur.
Review Posted: 8/26/2012
The King's Speech (2010) Directed By Tom Hooper
It never goes anywhere unexpected, but The King's Speech is so well done that it's impossible to resist.
3.5/4
3.5/4
Review Posted: 8/26/2012
Inception (2010) Directed By Christopher Nolan
It is maddeningly, endlessly complex. And bless it for being so.
4/4
4/4
Review Posted: 8/25/2012
The Kids Are All Right (2010) Directed By Lisa Cholodenko
Everything in the film feels real.
4/4
4/4
Review Posted: 8/25/2012
Avatar (2009) Directed By James Cameron
Cameron's story is one we've all heard before, but he tells it so well that we are still on the edge of our seats, along with some of the most spectacular visuals you're ever likely to see.
3.5/4
3.5/4
Review Posted: 8/23/2012
The Future (2011) Directed By Miranda July
Extremely bizarre, at times very confusing, but in its own quiet way, powerful.
3/4
3/4
Review Posted: 8/21/2012
Adaptation. (2002) Directed By Spike Jonze
Adaptation succeeds on many different levels, but above all it is brilliantly, wholly original.
4/4
4/4
Review Posted: 8/20/2012
Midnight In Paris (2011) Directed By Woody Allen
Woody Allen has made his best movie in years with Midnight In Paris; a humorous, heartwarming comedy that is one of 2011's best films.
4/4
4/4
Review Posted: 8/20/2012
Twilight (2008) Directed By Catherine Hardwicke
Twilight is god-awful, but entertaining in its unintentional hilarity.
1/4
1/4
Review Posted: 8/20/2012
Princess Mononoke (1997) Directed By Hayao Miyazaki
It's visually admirable and demonstrates Miyazaki's artistic gift, but Princess Mononoke suffers from sloppy storytelling and, at least for me, lack of excitement.
2/4
2/4
Review Posted: 8/20/2012
The Sorcerer's Apprentice (2010) Directed By Jon Turtletaub
Unfunny and childish. When is Nicolas Cage going to stop?
1/4
1/4
Review Posted: 8/20/2012
American Beauty (1999) Directed By Sam Mendes
American Beauty is a perceptive, disturbing look at dysfunctional relationships, life, death, and everything in between.
4/4
4/4
Review Posted: 8/20/2012
Juno (2007) Directed By Jason Reitman
A bright, fresh, touching comedy full of wonderful performances (most notably Ellen Page).
4/4
4/4
Review Posted: 8/20/2012
Bowfinger (1999) Directed By Frank Oz
Bowfinger is absolutely hilarious.
4/4
4/4
Review Posted: 8/20/2012
The Green Hornet (2011) Directed By Michel Gondry
For it's first two-thirds, The Green Hornet is a fun ride. It's final-third is exhausting, excruciating, and insufferable.
2/4
2/4
Review Posted: 8/19/2012
Fargo (1996) Directed By Joel Coen
Very original, very funny, very dark, and very brilliant.
4/4
4/4
Knight and Day (2011) Directed By James Mangold
Cruise and Diaz's decent chemistry aren't enough to save this wildly uneven comedy/action flick.
1.5/4
1.5/4
Review Posted: 8/19/2012
The Social Network (2010) Directed By David Fincher
The rarest kind of movie: a perfect one.
4/4
4/4
Review Posted: 8/19/2012
J. Edgar (2011) Directed By Clint Eastwood
An imperfect but emotionally captivating and fascinating film.
3.5/4
3.5/4
Review Posted: 8/19/2012
Wanderlust (2012) Directed By David Wain
With its two charming leads, it could've worked a lot better.
2/4
2/4
Review Posted: 8/19/2012
Tron Legacy (2010) Directed By Joseph Kosinski & John Lasseter
Tron Legacy has dazzling visuals and a cool soundtrack, but really nothing else.
1/4
1/4
Review Posted: 8/19/2012
The Artist (2012) Directed By Michel Hazanavicius
What a lovely film this is.
4/4
4/4
Review Posted: 8/19/2012
To Rome With Love (2012) Directed By Woody Allen
Nothing compared to the marvelous "Midnight In Paris" but still charming and ultimately satisfying.
3/4
3/4
Review Posted: 8/19/2012
Salt (2010) Directed By Phillip Noyce
Salt has some cool action sequences, but it is dragged down by being predictable and messy.
1.5/4
1.5/4
Review Posted: 8/19/2012
Win Win (2011) Directed By Thomas McCarthy
Its smart script and memorable characters make Win Win a real Winner.
4/4
4/4
Review Posted: 8/19/2012
Dr. Seuss' The Lorax (2012) Directed By Chris Renaud & Kyle Balda
Casting Danny Devito as the title character may be the worst of its many flaws, making the cute fuzzy heartfelt creature sound like a grumpy old man.
0.5/4
0.5/4
Review Posted: 8/19/2012
21 Jump Street (2012) Directed By Phil Lord & Chris Miller
A frustratingly hit and miss comedy.
2/4
2/4
Review Posted: 8/19/2012
Punch Drunk Love (2002) Directed By Paul Thomas Anderson
While Punch-Drunk Love proves that Adam Sandler can act, and showcases great talent from writer/director Paul Thomas Anderson, I only somewhat admired it. And I didn't enjoy it.
2.5/4
2.5/4
Review Posted: 8/19/2012
Burlesque (2010) Directed By Steve Antin
It wastes its skilled cast by being eye rolling and clichéd.
0.5/4
0.5/4
Review Posted: 8/19/2012
Transformers (2007) Directed By Michael Bay
Transformers is made of stone. Impressive visual effects aren't enough to keep me interested for nearly two and a half hours.
0.5/4
0.5/4
Review Posted: 8/18/2012
The Descendants (2011) Directed By Alexander Payne
What makes The Descendants so moving and humane is that it invests us in the lives of its characters. We feel as if we know them, like they're our friends next door.
4/4
4/4
Review Posted: 8/18/2012
Hugo (2011) Directed By Martin Scorcese
An unforgettably magical experience.
4/4
4/4
Review Posted: 8/18/2012
Moonrise Kingdom (2012) Directed By Wes Anderson
Moonrise Kingdom is whimsical, enchanting, and wholly beautiful.
4/4
4/4
Review Posted: 8/18/2012
Up (2009) Directed By Pete Docter
Up is pixar's best film yet.
4/4
4/4
Review Posted: 8/18/2012
Ratatouille (2007) Directed By Brad Bird and Jan Pinkava
Smart, well written and hilarious, Ratatouille is a real treat.
4/4
4/4
Review Posted: 8/18/2012
Arthur (2011) Directed By Jason Winer
Russel Brand gives effectively funny performances in supporting roles, but as a lead he is exhaustingly irritating. "Arthur" is a remake that never works.
0/4
0/4
Review Posted: 8/18/2012
The Dark Knight Rises (2012) Directed By Christopher Nolan
The Dark Knight Rises is an ambitious and emotional thrill ride that just might be the best of the trilogy.
4/4
4/4
Review Posted: 8/18/2012
Ted (2012) Directed By Seth Macfarlane
This isn't your usual hit and miss comedy. Ted is consistently hilarious and while I must admit it is not for everyone, it is undeniably hysterically funny and thus far the best comedy of 2012.
3.5/4
3.5/4
Welcome!
Welcome to thezizzotake.com, where I (Thomas Zizzo) will help you find what's good out there in the glorious world of cinema. I review current films, classics, even ones that aren't very well known. I hope my reviews are enjoyable and helpful. Thanks!