Give me a second, just a second to not be professional. A Most Violent Year is f***ing awesome. It is electrifyingly engaging and has some of the best acting and directing I have ever seen. As far as gangster films go (if you could even call it one), I can't think of a better one besides Goodfellas, and that’s saying something. On it surface, the one thing that holds A Most Violent Year together is Oscar Isaac playing Abel Morales, an immigrant who runs a heating oil company. His company is soon robbed and he starts losing money. He must race the clock before a contract on a loan that could make or break his business expires. This is what makes the entire film so compelling. There is hardly any violence in A Most Violent Year, but the film is more intense than a movie with lots of action because you care about Abel. Unlike many gangster films, the protagonist is an honest, hardworking man, and what surprised me most about the film is the fact that it is ultimately optimistic. It believes much like it's main character that honesty no matter what beats you down will always prevail. This essentially makes the film extremely satisfying. The character is a good person, and I liked him. Abel's wife (Jessica Chastain) comes from a mob family, and is not quite as righteous as her husband. She doesn’t play a huge role in the film, but this doesn’t end up mattering too much. The fact that the film is perfect in its use of dialogue only compliments the performances. Abel is one heck of a speaker, and when he brings his honest word to the crooked people around him he hits and hits hard. This dialogue here is electrifying and exciting; I would even argue that almost every scene in this film is perfect. J.C. Chandor of 2013's All is Lost is really coming into his own and doing it perfectly here. The cinematography is spectacular, creating the world of 1981 New York in beautiful shots. I would mainly mention a specific shot where a few men are running down a car-crowded bridge. It's a simple enough event, but the shot itself resulted in an utterly awe-inspiring scene. I sat in my seat completely riveted by the imagery. It's just those simple things done so well. Even the most mundane of things are made out to be spectacular. There's another chase sequence that is also incredible. There was just something so new and fresh about it. This is one of those films like Selma or Boyhood;every aspect was completed so meticulously that any small flaw was barely noticeable. Not much can be said for them other than, "I was incredibly entertained, and I can’t wait to see this again!" I give A Most Violent Year a 10 out of 10. Reviewed by Stephen Tronicek. Edited by Holly Clemons.
0 Comments
Well A Most Violent Year opens near me this weekend so I'm gonna go see it. I really enjoyed director J.C. Chandor's last film All is Lost, and can't wait for this one. Mr. Turner is a masterpiece of a calming film; that is, nothing too intense happens in it. And yet, its simplicity brought about a certain beauty in its little moments. The greatest thing about it is that when you allow yourself to get wrapped up and enjoy this beauty, it is all extremely engrossing. Mr. Turner is about the life of J.M.W Turner, a man considered to be one of the greatest painters in history.The protagonist is played by Timothy Spall. Oddly, I haven't seen him in very much else. He was the later Harry Potter films playing Peter Pettigrew ,and Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street as Beadle, but he seems to be one of England's leading character actors. He brings a depth to the role embodying the character of J.M.W. Turner almost to a fault ( I know that sounds odd, but I'll get into that more later). Spall’s modest acting style surprised me; he shows his great talent quietly without being showy or using an in-your-face attitude. That's the beating heart of the film when you get down to it. The cinematography, the script, and the acting are all wonderfully subtle. You won't see any sweeping shots in this film, more a very beautiful shot of a sunset, or a lovely boat on water. It was all intentionally made out to look very much like a painting. The visuals were amazingly rich. This film, if anything, is not about the painting; it's about the man, and watching his life play out in front of me was amazing. In all I've said I would like to add that the subtlety is used in many ways, making the entire film more interesting and even comedic. There is a scene wherever an art critic is giving a wild amount of affection to Turner's art and displaying this to other people in the room. He is actually incorrect in his judging and even out of the boundaries of taste. The film doesn't really push what's so funny about it. It allows the scene to play out hilariously as the actor (whose name I am having difficulty locating) goes on and on, playing off as extremely stupid, but wholeheartedly thinking the opposite. It starts off as amusing, but as it continues to the point of being gut-busting; the fact that it sneaks up on you is what makes this subtle sort of humor so entertaining. As far as problems with the film there are few,but they concern much of the film’s grounding. Because the film concerns mundane events some of it is a little slow, but that's kind of the point. My big problem comes from something that was extremely annoying near the beginning of the film. I mentioned earlier that Timothy Spall played Turner to a fault. That fault was the accent that he was using was so strong at times that I could not understand him. This was a problem mainly at the beginning of the film and left me feeling a little lost. I however did pick up on it around 15 minutes in. Other than that I enjoyed Mr. Turner for the most part. It's interesting and really beautiful when you get down to it. Reviewed by Stephen Tronicek. Edited by Holly Clemons. I give Mr. Turner a 9 out of 10. I guess now I can stop holding my breath. The reality is I had no idea what I would think of American Sniper when I saw it. The critic that I myself follow, Moviebob, absolutely hated it; then it was nominated for Best Picture. So what did I ultimately think? I'm gonna lean toward the positive on this one. It's not perfect, but enough of it works well. By now I'm pretty sure all of you know the story of American Sniper. It's about Chris Kyle, a sniper that is considered the most lethal sniper in American history. The film itself is pretty straightforward, tracking from his early life to much later within it. For the most part it holds together, but I think it's really right for the wrong reasons. This is because the film's dropping points are quite mediocre, yet when it picks up you can really tell, almost the the point where you could excuse the lulls. And when the film is firing on all cylinders (pun intended) it was really good. The best parts of this film were its action sequences. Frankly, they reminded me a lot of Black Hawk Down. Clint Eastwood's eye for military action seems very similar to Ridley Scott's, and this is good because Sniper provides intense sequences just as the aforementioned Down did. I was really happy about this because this makes for great scenes, his highlight being one where Kyle alerts an enemy militia to the position of his crew by taking a shot and his crew has to fend for themselves. It's really a fantastic scene. Also in the favor of American Sniper are the performances. Bradley Cooper is not at his best here ( So much better in Silver Linings Playbook), but once the film kicks in so does his performance. Sienna Miller does good work, but her role was tragically minor and I dare say unimportant for at least the most part. But again, there are dropping points. These mainly come in the first 30-45 minutes of the film. The editing in this part isn’t phenomenal, and while the actors try to make it convincing it just isn't. Unfortunately, this is the time whenever Kyle meets his wife. The dialogue just doesn't really work here, and that's actually not as much of a problem because I honestly just kind of ignored that Frankly, the Best Picture nomination made me give this one the benefit of the doubt. I am actually most disappointed in the the fact that the film just doesn't have that much emotion to it other than the intensity of the action scenes. I felt a little bad for the guy’s family, but not really that much. Then again, the same thing was going on in Black Hawk Down, and in case you haven't noticed I love that movie. Wrapping up, I liked American Sniper mostly for it's action. If it were simply this intense action with none of the human element to it, it probably would have made for a tighter, more intense film. To be blunt, any human interaction that wasn’t murder was emotionless, cold, and detached, making it hard to relate to any character or be moved by the plot. I give American Sniper an 8 out of 10. The Interview: Directed by Seth Rogan,and Evan Goldberg. Starring: Seth Rogan,and James Franco.1/24/2015 The consistently surprising thing about Seth Rogen and Evan Goldberg "comedies" is that they are not very funny. Now that's not to say that they're bad, just that they all have something else that works much stronger in them than the moments that should invoke laughing. This Is the End was a better movie about friendship than a comedy about the world falling apart, relying more on shock value and gross outs than stuff that actually came off as funny. But I still liked that movie a lot. That comedy, combined with the group dynamic and a surprisingly funny look at God and the devil, made that movie. Neighbors wasn't that funny, but was at least genuine enough in its drama to not fall apart into something like Project X with a frat and a married couple. That brings us to The Interview, a movie that, while not exactly gut-busting hilarious, is still amusing. The Interview is about two reporters (James Franco and Seth Rogen) who go to North Korea to interview Kim-Jong Un. They are then tasked by the CIA with killing him. That's mainly for the comedy part of the film. While there are some funny parts (namely a sequence where Eminem reveals his true self) the film seem to have dialed the jokes back or at least had become more subtle about them. This Is the End took a sledgehammer to subtlety, which turned out to be quite funny throughout the film, but when looking back at it made you kind of feel like shit. The Interview is more of a film that makes you chuckle but gets better once you sit back and think about it. I like this aspect of it, but the problem is it feels like the jokes on the surface of the film really aren't that funny. There's a moment where Seth Rogen has to insert something into his anus. In the moment I didn't laugh, but the more I continue to think about it the more amused I am. The real question is what is it that works better than the comedy in this movie. Well this film is more subtle with that too. There's no big arching story that works better. The story of friendship between Kim and James Franco's character has some good parts, but then loses it a little near the end. The Seth Rogen romance portion actually works, it's pretty good. But they all come together eventually just balance out. The thing that really sells this movie is James Franco, Seth Rogen, and the rest of the cast. I was really surprised. This was a movie that could have been bad brought up by the fact that the people delivering the lines do it so well. James Franco is great with a big personality that is so funny, and when the film’s climax comes he's the one delivering the stand-up-and-cheer moments. Rogen is kind of in the backseat but is believable as more of the straight man in this situation. Randall Park is really a surprise hit as Kim..etc. As far as subtlety goes in with what it has to say...that's the sledgehammer. The film is basically attacking Kim-Jong Un, and that's not a bad thing but it is having a good time doing it. I mean seriously there are no pulled punches, especially with this film crazy and hilarious ending. I mean sure it’s all offensive,but all of it is in good fun out of making the Korean people. I know that’s not particularly good, but the film is not very concerned with them. The point is, while the film itself is not particularly funny (though that Eminem part is hilarious) like everything else in Goldberg and Rogen's catalogue, the actors just elevate it to the point of it being worth the viewing. I am a little surprised that the comedy was so subtle while the message is not, but it's still a wild time, and I enjoyed it. I give The Interview an 8 out of 10. Reviewed by Stephen Tronicek. Edited by Holly Clemons. Unfortunately I was enough of a stupid person to post a top ten list before the year was up. Now that I have truly seen all the movies I could from the year of 2014 this is my revised list. I hope you enjoy this one more than the last one.
Honorable Mentions: Honorable Mentions: John Wick, Edge of Tomorrow, Stretch, The Fault in Our Stars, A Most Wanted Man, The Grand Budapest Hotel, The Babadook, Filth, Only Lovers Left Alive, Big Eyes, Wild, Fury, Guardians of the Galaxy, American Sniper, Selma. 10. Interstellar- This is the biggest film on this list. An exciting juggernaut of action,and emotion Interstellar is one of Nolan's best. 9. Whiplash- What a fantastic and intense film. Miles Teller shows off what he really can do,and it's really a revelation to see nice guy J.K. Simmons be bad. 8. Birdman or the Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance. 7. Gone Girl- This is the best crime film of the year a scolding satire of marriage in the modern world that is well acted,and scary. 6. Foxcatcher- A slow, and brooding film that uses it's pacing to hit harder than any other film of the year. 5. Nightcrawler- Jake Gyllenhaal puts on the best performance of the year in Nightcrawler. This is an incredibly intense,and well shot film. 4. Locke- A moving piece of work that is a guy in a car for an hour,and a half. Tom Hardy's best performance. 3. The Imitation Game- This is a moving period piece that is put together perfectly. Great performances from Cumberbatch,and Knightley. 2. Inherent Vice- Heck yeah. Paul Thomas Anderson's hilarious,and deep mystery tale had me laughing constantly as well as marveling at the actors performances. 1. Boyhood- This does not change. I would like to mention that while this film is predictable it is the best acted film I have really seen. This film was the biggest delight of the year,and I loved it. Honestly, Wild has just about stumped me. The film is so good, yet it has one major problem. I have been thinking about it for days, and still I am having trouble with it. However I have ultimately settled on a full opinion. Wild is a film that has two storylines; at first they fight each other, but eventually they come together. The question that comes with the film is whether it can survive the beginning fragmenting. It does for the most part, and this is what brings the two storylines together. Also tying the story’s many pieces together was the very real performance by Reese Witherspoon. She has kind of fallen from the limelight,and I'm really glad to see her come back in a big way. Between Wild and Mud she might be able to make more of a career. Witherspoon is playing Cheryl Strayed, a women who decides to hike the Pacific Coast Trail in order to get over the death of her mother, who died years earlier. It's also to get over her last method of grieving--sex and heroine. We spend a lot of time with Witherspoon as this character. It's fantastic that she keeps her energy up as we watch her ultimately hike with only the sounds around her and the beautiful scenery of the trail. She does meet people, but this is much more of a mental journey for the character. Moments of trauma result in her thinking about the bad times in her life. Moments of triumph lead to happy thoughts. These thoughts are mostly displayed in flashbacks that randomly pop in. These flashbacks are a little scattershot and really quite jarring. This is because the tones of the hike and the flashbacks, even though they deal with similar emotions, come of with different tones. I know you can't add fully tangible drama to a film of a person on a hike by just having them hike, but a little more subtlety would have helped blend the differing tones. That's not to say that the flashbacks are bad. They are acted extremely well,and they give us insight into why this hike is happening. Laura Dern is really the star of these portions as Witherspoon’s mother, even if her cheeriness seems less authentic than much of the film. She and the other supporting cast really do sell the entire thing though. But when you get down to it this is a film about a person’s journey. It has beautiful cinematography. It's well directed and by the end very engrossing. I felt a wave of emotion in the film’s closing moments. This film was really a journey, both physically and mentally. I give Wild a 9 out of 10. Reviewed by Stephen Tronicek. Edited by Holly Clemons. Tusk is a film about a podcaster who goes to Canada to meet with an old man. This old man drugs him, mutilates him, and turns the podcaster into a walrus out of his own parts. The podcaster's friends then have to come find him...While it may sounds strange, this is in fact a movie, and it's made by Kevin Smith. Surprisingly, it's not bad either. The plot I gather has probably shaken you. The first time I heard of it I thought, "This is going to be complete shit." What I also thought when I heard of this film was that it was very far from the stories that Kevin Smith often tells. The tone and the plot just seemed so different from his other work. And yet, as I watched Tusk, I realized that there was much more to this film than just the brutally violent story of a man being turned into a walrus. Smith is know for the offbeat comedies of his early work, and at times this is what Tusk feels like. In fact, before Wallace the podcaster starts getting turned into a walrus, the film is actually very much a comedy. Not all of it is funny and there's a particularly mean-spirited part, but most of it sticks. Justin Long, who plays Wallace, really makes the guy look like kind of an asshole. This is actually a good thing because it is one of the factors going into what makes Tusk so powerful. Long, however, pales in comparison to Michael Parks, who I find is one of those character actors that's good in anything. He really has charisma and helps keep the film together for the most part. Then the tone changes. Now it's dark, brutal, yet still kind of funny. The old man starts to do his thing, changing Wallace both physically and mentally. Tusk reveals its other storyline here. At times, when he blacks out, Wallace imagines events that lead up to this. The film uses similar breaks to transition into the search for Wallace. These flashbacks are powerful weapons and are perfectly setup. They are also a nice change from the surprisingly absent yet brutal and disturbing surgery scenes. I was very surprised that the walrus turned up after so little surgery, but this still works. Also during this act is the story of Wallace’s friends looking for him. Additionally, there is an extremely crazy plot twist that scared the shit out of me. The third act starts and there is a cameo that moves into very funny territory. The friends meet up with a man who I will not say anything about. I will say that he is very funny, and while his section is distracting, it's still very amusing. All of this then comes together at the end with a confrontation that is so witty and disturbing that I can't even believe how I was supposed to take it. Then the film reveals its big weapon--sentimentality. The flashbacks have shown us what Wallace was like as a person, and in the full sweep of the film there is a moment that is like getting punched. I suddenly realized just how seriously the film was taking itself, and I felt for all the characters. The ending made me especially sad actually. The reason I cut this review into the 3 acts is because I wanted to highlight just how different each one of them are. The acts all work really well on their own. They eventually all kind of to tie together, but they just don't seem to cohere completely. I really liked Tusk though. The beginning made me laugh for the most part, the middle disturbed me and was interesting. The end made me laugh again and feel oddly touched. There are good performances even though it is pretty insane. I give Tusk an 8 out of 10. Reviewed by Stephen Tronicek. Edited by Holly Clemons. Dear Readers, I am sorry for delaying this Selma review, and the reason is I can't think of a very in depth way of going about reviewing it. I can only think of a few notes that you readers should keep in mind going into it. 1. Every actor in this movie is really great, especially David Oyelowo. He embodies MLK perfectly, as well as accurately. The rest of the cast is also very good, but due to Oyelowo's performance their job is quite easy. What's miraculous is that David Oyelowo practically carries the entire film. The film is just scenes of people talking for the most part, making it even more miraculous. 2. This is a film that uses violence to it's benefit. That may seem like an odd and bad comment, but it is true. The short bursts of shocking, brutal violence ( I can't even understand why this movie is "PG-13") are used most effectively by boosting the real punch of the film. This fact is what's really insane. This film is daring; I can say that. 3. There is a great amount of serendipity to specific parts of the film. There are some great moments where the music and directing just meld perfectly. Other than that I really can't say much about it. It's all good, but there's not really much I had to say on the entire production. It's really just about perfect, but in a plain way. Not a way that can really be discussed. The history though should be discussed,and this is a perfect reminder. All said, I give Selma a 9.5 out of 10. Review by Stephen Tronicek. Edited by Mia Rinoul. The Best Picture Nominees are:
American Sniper- I haven't seen it,but I will by Saturday. The Imitation Game- I loved this. Great performances from Benedict Cumberbatch. Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)- This was a fantastically shot, and acted film that I could just dig into. Selma- You'll get my review soon. Bottom line though is it's really good. The Theory of Everything: This is good,but not great. A very good performance from Eddie Redmayne though. Whiplash: Yeah this was an intense just about perfect film that features a performance for the ages from J.K. Simmons. The Grand Budapest Hotel: I was worried the Academy would forget this one,but nope. This is one of Wes Anderson's best featuring a hilarious performance from Ralph Fiennes. And finally Boyhood- I have said a lot about Boyhood for a lot of reasons. This is the best movie ever made in my opinion,and I hope this wins this years Best Picture. The Imitation Game: Directed by Morten Tyldum, Starring: Benedict Cumberbatch, and Kiera Knightly1/10/2015 I posted my top ten list too early! The reason? The Imitation Game. This is a film that elevates itself over any conventional idea through fantastic performances and a script that allows it to fall into a category all its own. I find it amazing just how good this film is. From the trailers I was expecting something like The Theory of Everything: a good, but not great biopic. Instead, I was surprised with much more. On the surface, The Imitation Game is about the men and women who figured out how to read the Nazi's enigma device. Really,it's much more. It's about hiding who you are. Alan Turing, played by the ever-powerful Benedict Cumberbatch,, was in fact gay. As he was living in a society wherever that was inappropriate and even illegal, the movie was surprisingly smart,and heartfelt. That's a lot to go on in one movie. The thing that fascinates me about the performance is that Cumberbatch captures even the slightest subtle expressions of the character and projects them effectively. Turing (as played off in the film) is not that warm of a person, and Cumberbatch does wonders with the role, making him that sympathetic asshole of a genius you just know something horrible has happened to. Unfortunately, something did -- that's the real heart of the film. I can openly admit the fact that the film is wildly good at manipulating you into being sad, which isn’t necessarily a bad thing. A film should be good at manipulating the audience, and The Imitation Game has that power. This gives the film quite a large heart to it and makes it really emotional. Cumberbatch wasn’t the only phenomenal actor in The Imitation Game.The entire cast does something good with their roles. Keira Knightley is surprisingly good as Joan Clarke, the only women on the team. Her relationship with Turing is one of the other things that drives the movie. The fact that she can keep up with Cumberbatch is an astonishing feat. The skill level of the actors makes the entire film work on a surprising level. The script also helps this. The dialogue is like Tarantino dialogue. Not in his typical vulgar way, but in a way that the dialogue just melts into the background of the film. These things, including some flashbacks that really hit you, make this film just great. All of this was so manipulative that I actually can't find a problem. I know that doesn't sound professional, but the film truly sucked me in. This is a master class of direction, and the acting made something I had little faith in turn out to be one of the best movies of the year. I give The Imitation Game a 10 out of 10. Review by Stephen Tronicek. Edited (and thankfully) by Holly Clemons. I am incredibly excited for this weekend. I might be able to see Inherent Vice, and I will for sure see Selma. I am excited because I love the work of Paul Thomas Anderson (Boogie Nights, There Will Be Blood etc...) and Selma has been getting rave reviews. I hope you all have a great weekend,and check back for the reviews. Into the Woods is a pretty great film with many high points: it's fantastically acted, you can tell that the singers are loving the material and all the pieces that need to play out play out very well. And yet there is one large thing that really takes the entire thing down. I really love the musical Into the Woods. The dark humor, the double entendres, the delightful music--the film maintains all of this throughout the entire thing. The only concern that I had about the film prior to seeing it was whether or not it would stand up to the musical in content, and I'm so surprised this got a PG rating because it's almost all in there. And I can't actually say anything more on the good side of this film that won't sound trite. The reality is the film is all around fantastic. Emily Blunt and Meryl Streep have gotten deserved nominations and recognition for their work. They are extremely expressive and their songs are so well done. However while I felt much of the same way the real showcase for me in the film was Chris Pine. He can sing really well first of all, and his main song "Agony" which he sings with the other prince was really the highlight of the film for me. It's just so funny how the two princes are acting. It's just a hilarious sequence.The other cast members are quite good as well. Nobody does badly and the effects also suit the entire thing well. The songs themselves are still some of my favorite Sondheim. The big problem that I have with the entire thing is just the pacing. The film just starts the music very quickly from the beginning which didn’t bother me, but it never really lets up. I wish some of it were a little bit more drawn out. This may actually seem odd to some people because many critics found the film to long. Having seen the musical myself, I found the film interpretation to be kind of short. There's a lot going on in the film, and some of it just seems rushed (mainly the Red Riding Hood story). Other then that I really can't find a problem. The film really just fell over on me. I really have been waiting for a film of this musical, and that's what I got. A very well done film of one of my favorite musicals. I give Into the Woods a 9 out of 10. Near the beginning of Foxcatcher Channing Tatum's character, Mark Schaltz, looks in the mirror and observes his bruised cheek. The tone is calm, almost relaxing. This is how Foxcatcher begins–with a slow and relaxed pace, just showing us the daily routines of two its characters Mark,and Dave Schultz .The relaxed tone at this point caused a slight problem for me. The film was a tiny bit uninteresting. The acting of course held it together; Tatum showed just how good an actor he is and Ruffalo delved into a role that was meant for him, as it matched the gentle mannerisms of his public persona. The next way the scene continued was Tatum started to poke at the bruise. This can be observed as the next part of the film. Tatum is called upon by John du Pont who wants to create a team of wrestlers to compete at the Olympic Games. The film becomes more intense at this point with the bizarre personality of du Pont starting to creep up on you. This is so effective because Steve Carrel is really great in the role projecting a ton of depth some of it shown,and some of it having to be interoperated. He truly creates a scary character. A man who is seemingly a spoiled brat so far gone that anyone that doesn't take a liking to him or doesn't follow his rules might be in danger. It's haunting just how creepy he becomes drawing you more,and more into this film. By this time I had forgotten about the pace,and just gone with it. Then Tatum starts hitting the bruise a little harder,and the scene becomes more intense. In the later movie we see the bizarre behavior of duPont corrupting the men. This is an interesting way to go,and the actors really show the subtleties. Of course the film still while intense feels kind of sleepy in it's slow pace. At the end of the scene Tatum hits the bruise with vicious punches wincing the scene having built to it's full intensity. This moment in the film comes at the point when a person gets shot. This is an expertly shot scene with the gun being the loudest thing in the theater. This ties together the entire film, and bolsters an emotional punch. What I find most interesting is the fact that it all holds together. This could have devolved into a film that felt ultimately uncomfortable,and boring. Sure some of it is uncomfortable,but nothing is boring. Foxcatcher is a one of the best films of the year,and shouldn't be missed. I give Foxcatcher a 10 out of 10. |
Archive
December 2017
CategoriesAuthorHello welcome to FilmAnalyst. My name is Stephen Tronicek, and I really like movies. This is a way to get my opinions out to people. Thank you for visiting. |