Amph What was the last movie you saw?

If it's a musical that would still work if it were silent, then what's the point of the music? I actually thought the music seemed pretty pointless.

Anyway, it's a film about Hollywood for Hollywood. It's Oscar bait shouting at the top of its lungs. That's not necessarily a criticism-- good movies do go for awards-- but I don't think La La Land manages to move beyond it much.

I saw Fences. I hated it. It's like a parody of those Death of a Salesman-type stage plays (if there's a term for them, please let me know). The dialog doesn't stop at all for the first 30 minutes. There's not even a pause when characters are having a conversation. It's exhausting. SHUT THE **** UP. They clearly just filmed it as it was performed on stage, which doesn't work well at all. The actors are ACTING as though they're on a stage. The doesn't work either. You can't act like that when a camera's right on you. That's different than being in front of a live audience. The blocking, again, was exactly like they're on a stage, which, again, doesn't work on film. It looks amateurish and stiff and wrong. Even the camera work is just competent, like they hired a daytime soap director. The story was boring and uninspired. The characters are over-the-top. I barely made it to the end.

 

Sleepless. As far as January action movies, this competently fills the spot Liam Neeson has left sadly vacant this year. Jamie Foxx plays a dirty cop who steals a shipment of drugs, only for it to turn it belongs to a bigger gangster than he'd thought; between the crooks kidnapping his son and Michelle Monaghan as the IA cop on his tail, he's in hot water. He spends most of the movie running around the villain's casino, trying to get himself out of the web he's caught in. It's a good enough premise, and though the execution is only ever really competent B-movie level, it does do some interesting things with it. Foxx doesn't begin as a particularly likable protagonist. Monaghan, who could potentially be the big hero as the crusading cop, is even less likable, so obsessive as to be off-putting. I really liked the fact that the IA cop wasn't a stick-in-the-mud, but actually another cowboy who ignores the rules (to a frankly stupid extent) to try to nail her man. She and her partner, David Harbour (always a reliable presence in action/cop movies) both come off like jerks. Dermot Mulroney, as the casino owner who takes the son hostage, is enjoyably hapless, less evil mastermind than very powerful victim of circumstance, as things keep going south as he's trying to please the even more powerful villain, an almost unrecognizable Scoot McNairy in full bat**** villain mode as the drug kingpin who will start ruining everybody's day if he doesn't get his goddamn cocaine. There's also a running focus on the service workers the characters keep running into, all the attendants and maintenance men and bartenders whose days get so, so weird when these screaming cops and crooks show up, who get treated as people themselves rather than action-movie props. It's not by any means a great movie. But it's a competent, solid, sometimes silly action movie that has just enough interesting things going on in the background, and a solid enough cast, to be highly watchable.

 

It isn't always a criticism necessarily although it can be. The Academy voters have tastes and films are engineered to those tastes and released accordingly.

 

Suicide Squad This film summed up everything I hate about comic book movies. In general this seems disjointed with scenes inserted that just seem out of place or out of order. The introduction of the "heros" is just the worst kind of exposition, like they are rushing to build a world and get on a par with Marvel too quickly. The villain and the special effects destination are so typical of a lot of these film, pointless CGI for the sake of it showpieces. The best things about this film were Dead Shot and Harley Quin and I'll even say that jai Courtney was decent in this too. But otherwise it was instantly forgettable. The Joker was wasted in this.

 

Command and Control A documentary about an accident at an Arkansas Titan II ICBM complex in the early 1980s. Scary **** and further solidifies my anti-nuclear weapon stance. A 9-megaton warhead stood a serious chance of detonating in the middle of the United States and the USAF lied about it and covered it up.

 

GrownUps (2010)
It was okay. There were some funny bits, and I liked the spirit of it.

3/5

 

Oh, wow, I missed that this had got the documentary treatment. I read the book a couple of years ago and it freaked me the **** out. You should definitely read the book as well. I mean, I can't exactly judge since I haven't seen the movie, but I'd bet the book has more details and such; aside from the Arkansas story, it also has chapters dedicated to the history of the weapons program. It's a book I'm always recommending to pro-nuclear weapons people. I mean, it's basically miraculous that there hasn't already been an accidental detonation on American soil.



Jackie (2016) – Pablo Larrain

What did we truly accomplish?. . . History is harsh. We’re ridiculous. Look at you.

In Jackie, Natalie Portman really gives the performance of a lifetime as the grieving Jacqueline Kennedy. The film takes place almost entirely in the week following JFK’s assassination and Portman manages to dig below the façade to give a genuinely great performance. She looks uncannily like Jackie and finds both a real vulnerability and a steely strength as she balances, or rather fails to balance, her personal grief and her desire to secure a public legacy for her dead husband. It’s definitely Portman’s show, but she has good support from a really excellent Peter Sarsgaard as Bobby Kennedy; he thankfully doesn’t attempt even the slightest impersonation and instead gives a really fine interior performance. Billy Crudup is fantastic as the journalist in the frame story which revolves around an interview given by Jackie only a few days after Kennedy’s death. The scenes between Portman and Crudup are surprisingly compelling; the film gives them a really interesting, very antagonist relationship. For a journalistic and subject, they’re surprisingly unpleasant and they both come across as deeply unlikable in these scenes. John Hurt has a compelling extended cameo as a priest. But the movie’s real achievement is conjuring a really strange atmosphere, a kind of blurry haze. The atmosphere hangs over the film like a thick fog, aided immeasurably by Mica Levi’s haunted score, one of the best of the year. Larrain’s camera refuses to lock us down into time and place; we jump from moment to moment at the speed of a muddled thought, often unsure of where we are in the public narrative of the story: is this a flashback to when Kennedy was alive? Is this the day of the assassination? The day of the funeral? Weeks later? It’s a strange, almost dreamy way to do things and it really works. The film has a lot on its mind as far as things like legacy and myth go. It takes the rather uncomfortable stance that JFK really wasn’t a president of any note and that the myth of Kennedy as an inspiring, historic figure is entirely a fabrication of Jackie’s and the ethically compromised journalist who dislikes everything about the story has to tell, except for the story itself. It’s a really dark movie and a quietly excellent one. It doesn’t quite do anything you expect it to do and at the end of the film, I found myself left in a really strange place, unsure of what to think. It’s an ambiguous film, unafraid to portray its characters in extremely negative light and yet also able to keep a feeling of empathy in the audience. It strikes me as a kind of challenging film, but if you can adjust your pulse to the film, you’ll find something like a masterpiece. 4 stars.

tl;dr – atmospheric direction & a great score bolster a magnificent lead performance by Natalie Portman in this compelling meditation on grief & power. 4 stars.

More Movie Reviews!

 

The Town - Good movie

 

The documentary is free to watch on PBS. I didn't know it was a book until I looked it up. I read Eric Schlosser's Fast Food Nation in college and I loved it. I will probably read this book some day.

 

Dirty Dancing (1987) - Plot; A sheltered teenager falls in love with a handsome older dance instructor while on vacation with her family at a resort in the early 1960s.

I must've watched Dirty Dancing at least half a dozen times during the Summer of 1990. Not because I was in any way a fan of the movie, but because a girl I had a huge crush on seemed to have it on a loop. I had no idea I was in the Friend Zone. I didn't even know what a Friend Zone was. I just pretended to love it because she loved it.

Fast forward 27 years (Wow. Just... wow) and I still have a certain affection for Dirty Dancing. I've always liked the soundtrack, even before that Summer spent in the air conditioned comfort of Denise Harvey's suburban Ohio living room. And of course the movie is sort of a touchstone to that place and time. So, when I saw the Blu-Ray poking out from the abyss that is the Wal-Mart bargain bin, I had to get it.

The movie is first and foremost (and perhaps only) a feel good coming of age story. There's some pretense about being more, but really this is nothing more than a fairytale; and that's perfectly okay, as it handles that aspect deftly. Stars Patrick Swayze and Jennifer Grey have good chemistry, the soundtrack is a hip-shaking mix of 60s classics and anachronistic 80s hits (including one from Swayze himself) and though it's all cheesier than Chuck E., it does entertain, and yes, make you feel good. What's wrong with that? - 7/10

- You know you're in a feel good Hollywood movie when a heretofore obstinate Father's mind is changed by watching his daughter dance a sexy mamba with the much older dance instructor he's hated for the previous 104 minutes of the film.

- Swayze was a dancer in real life, and it shows. Grey certainly holds her own (and there are no doubles here ala Flashdance), but it's Swayze who really shines in the dance numbers. I can't say that Swayze was a great actor, but he has absolute conviction in every role I've ever seen him in, and that's commendable. Grey however is a good actress, and she's very strong here. The movie really rests on her shoulders, and she carries the load with charm and grace. Kudos also to the late Jerry Orbach, wonderful as always in his role as the Father.

- Denise, if you're out there, this is for you...

 

Ouija: Origin of Evil.

Terrible, terrible movie. The ending is perplexing and predictable at the same time. How did this get 82% on RT? It's a mystery.

Here's the plot of every bad ghost/demon possession movie: haunted house events slowly ratchet up. Characters struggle to figure out the rules for quieting the restless ghosts/vanquishing the demon/exorcising the spirit. Characters perform whatever ritual acts needed to vanquish ghost/demon under the rules. Ghost/demon seems to be vanguished. Characters find out those weren't really the rules after all. More horror ensues. The end.

 

You being surprised by the poor quality of this film is about on par with being surprised at Hillary Clinton's flaws as a candidate.

Oh, wait.

 

I watched Superman and Superman II for the first time last week. Reeve is charming as Kent, and Hackman is sneering as Luthor, but the movies are just barely a cut above campiness.

 

Hidden Figures Kevin Costner really likes being a White Savior, doesn't he? This film took an interesting premise with a good cast and made a cliche-ridden biopic out of it. It was okay. Nothing more. At least they avoided the cliche of turning a historical figure into an antagonist.

 

Poseidon - Eh not bad

 

Charlie Chan at the Opera. Boris Karloff was great.

 

Darth Guy, since, you know, I think we finally agree on a movie.



La La Land (2016) – Damien Chazelle

It’s pretty strange that we keep running into each other.

Maybe it means something.

I doubt it.

Yeah, I didn’t think so.

I was very excited for Chazelle’s La La Land; I loved his previous film, Whiplash, and I was eager to see what he’d do with the classic musical format. Let’s chalk La La Land up as my biggest disappointment of the year. It isn’t that the story is clichéd, though it is; the tale of young, earnest artists searching for the big dream in Hollywood is an evergreen, when done well. So, where to begin? The film has a really beautiful aesthetic; Chazelle loves colors and the lighting & costumes are well done. But there’s no real heart beneath that superficial prettiness. This isn’t a beautiful movie; it’s just pretty in a Vogue photoshoot kind of way. Whiplash was all passion and emotion, raw and visceral. La La Land is muted, restrained to a fault, reaching for elegance but finding only blandness. The corners have been sandblasted away; there’s not a sharp moment in the entire vanilla pudding avalanche of La La Land. It’s too bad because there’s certainly potential and you can see Chazelle cribbing from all the best, but that’s all it is, at the end of the day, just uninspired borrowing. There are a few good moments. There’s a wonderful long take of a dance number that starts with a song called A Waste of a Lovely Night; the song is classic musical flirtation, the kind of witty duet you used to hear a lot and the number itself is restrained but clever. It’s borrowing from one of my favorite musical numbers of all time, the gorgeous Dancing in the Dark scene from The Band Wagon. And Emma Stone isn’t just good; she’s great. She finds the real heart in her earnestly striving actor. There’s no quibbling with her. She saves an underwritten part (seriously, we never hear a single word of her supposedly brilliant one-woman show and what’s with that sudden tragic aunt story that hasn’t been referenced before in the entire film?) with a performance of such sincerity that I was transfixed. Gosling fares less well. He’s a bit too focused on the cool aesthetic of the character to allow himself to reach the kind of earnestness Stone reveals. He looks great in the costumes and remains a charismatic screen presence, but the performance is distant, ironic almost, totally wrong for this film. He lands some comedic bits, most notably a really wonderful bit where he’s part of a tacky 80s cover band. I really can’t overestimate the degree to which this is a movie saved by Stone’s performance. Well, not saved exactly. I still can’t recommend it. The problems are too severe and I haven’t even delved at all into that extremely problematic twenty minutes that gets tacked on after the movie’s natural end point. But why have three acts when you can have four? Why bring a movie in at a draggy two hours when you can almost reach an interminable two-and-a-half? This movie’s cleaning up the awards; well, nostalgia is a powerful force. But the musicals this movie wants to emulate were never this safe, never this inert. This a movie nostalgic for a genre that has never been about nostalgia. Coming off the raw, visceral intensity of his last movie into this tired, bland musical? Talk about whiplash. 2 stars.

tl;dr – overly nostalgic, mostly inert & restrained to a fault, La La Land is a vastly overrated failure. 2 stars.

More Movie Reviews!

 

Clerks
Clerks operates in much the same way as an early Scorsese or Tarantino film through its no frill simplicity that is told to tell a very straight forward story. The filming, editing and cuts are crude, it's shot in black and white while the angles and focus of what is happening within the frame is uninteresting. But, like Scorsese and Tarantino, there very little technical shortcomings which stand in the way of Kevin Smith's script and characters. Despite its lack of polish, this is why Clerks plays out more like an HBO style comedy, kind of like Curb Your Enthusiasm given the mundanity of the characters and their situations. Simply put, Clerks is very much a day in the life story about two neighbouring store owners. In a way, the satire featured in the film can be seen as being drawn from creatively barren daytime sitcoms given the minimal use of settings, props and costumes. After all, the story is only set during one day in the life of the characters.

That is the extent of the story with the exception of some personal dramas that are happening in their life. At no point are either of the protagonists found thwarting some robbery attempt, nor are they fighting for their jobs or attempting to preserve their dwellings from destruction. Clerks is as simple and uneventful as one could imagine but that's why the comedy is effective in its Seinfeld-like story about "nothing". The humour relies on a light drama subplot, some innuendo laden jokes, insult humour, observational comedy along with a cast of supporting characters who are quirky and memorable. By the end of Clerks, you feel rewarded because the movie mostly maintains its momentum but sometimes Smith's attempts at writing drama can serve too bold a contrast to the slick and laconic humour that runs throughout the film. But, the film never feels over laboured or that it is attempting to be anything more than what is dictated by its own premise which is appropriately underscored by a grunge and metal soundtrack.

4 out of 5

 

Island of Lost Souls. Charles Laughton gives a great performance and there are some scenes that are still very disturbing even now (no wonder it was banned in the UK for many years)

Speedy. Harold Lloyd is as likeable as ever and the set pieces are generally funny.

 

Over the past several weeks:

The Neon Demon: Hated "Only God Forgives." Well except for the dude singing, that was great. I knew going in that this had a very divisive reaction, but I also saw it on a lot of best of list 2016. I have to say I actually liked it. Maybe I was just in the mood for a weird art film. It sold me on what it did, and I laughed at how it all turned out.

Laura: Pretty good. Spent the last half of the film saying, "It's a dream. He's been dreaming since he fell asleep in the chair." Guess that cliche wasn't around back then.

Alien: Watched the theatrical version for the first time in a long while since I've seen the special edition so many times. Noticed everything that was edited out, and there were a few scenes that actually made certain parts make sense that weren't in the Directors Cut. Like that short scene of Parker going to get ammo for the weapons, where he's intense and firing the flamethrower as he enters the ammo room. I guess it wasn't necessary really, but having forgot it was there I'd ask,"So is he just going to walk around the ship with the Alien seemingly anywhere?" That scene showed that he in fact knew this and was acting appropriately.

LA LA Land: If you want to tell me it's the best film of the year, okay. I thought it was fine. I didn't really see how people made the connection to it being like old school musicals. It's there I guess, but it's not as heavy as I thought it would be. Pretty much just a standard bittersweet love story with some okay tunes. I'm seeing people marking out for the music like crazy, but I didn't hear anything that made me start humming when I left. The tap dancing scene was the best thing in the movie.

Hidden Figures: Enjoyed it. Costner really owns the character of Father Figure/Authority Figure Kevin Costner. He's got that role down pat.. Highly annoying bit was the constant clapping in the theatre for every heart warming or joy inducing scene.

Silence: I'm going to go with saying I liked it. It told a story and I liked the story, and maybe that's just Scorsese. Like Bergman and Kubrick, he can tell a story about a broom handle and have me invested.


This is probably first time in a while that I've haven't agreed with the hype for some of the most talked about movies. Dr. Strange was decent, Rogue One was meh, and La La Land was fine. Arrival was great in terms of craftsmanship and idea, but failed to connect with me on an emotional level.

The only film recently that I've seen that blew my ****ing mind was Nocturnal Animals.