Café Society: Written and Directed by Woody Allen, Starring: Jesse Eisenberg and Kristen Stewart7/29/2016 Great films sometimes make you wonder why something feels the way it does? Why in this moment of watching a man confess his heart’s desire, a moment of solemn drama, am I laughing so hard I can’t contain myself? Why is it that every time I see two characters on screen together I gesticulate if almost on cue? Why can’t I stop gesticulating? I’m so happy. I want to cry. I’m so freaking happy. That is what happens when a film physically moves you and that’s in a literal sense. When a film in an almost unwanted but exciting bravado takes you and the things that create you and completely commands them, leading to a loss of all control. That is what the great filmmakers do. I haven’t truly considered Woody Allen as one of them always. I’m always garishly excited for one of his projects as it prompts a comfortable good time that is most likely going to be breezy, but his films (even the true masterpieces) take on a sense that maybe just maybe Allen is just a sort of well-versed point and shoot dramatist. I was horribly mistaken. Café Society is a film that seems to do all the wrong things but uses that to its advantage. It’s got blatant moments of narration, it’s got subplots that are almost useless, it flamboyant for the simply the sake of it, and yet it understands longing and uses all aspects of its being to thrust the feeling on us the audience and the feeling is mesmerizing. Woody has always been one for funny, yet emotionally dark fare, but Society isn’t actually pessimistic or cynical. It believes that no matter the mistakes people make, appreciation of what we still have and the times we share as humans make it all worth it. Bobby Dorfman (Jesse Eisenberg) arrives in L.A. to get a job from his uncle (Steve Carrel), a powerful agent. Bobby is shy and fidgety (perfect for Eisenberg’s fidgety nature so reviled in BvS) as we see him display in a hilarious early scene where he argues with a prostitute why she should not sleep with him. Soon, though he meets Vonnie (Kristen Stewart) and their story continues in a twisty and interesting way. The film feels like an old Austen romance in the emotions it harnesses of want and longing which could be Allen simply trying to create an old seeming movie. The cinematography and direction are certainly very old fashioned centric. The film is shot in intimate wides and close-ups that remind one of the old shooting styles that Hitchcock used almost making you imagine that the crystal clear colors and images would be what those crystal clear images of black and white would look like if they had been colorized. The film’s grandeur is unprecedented, and it only prompts the idea that most things in the characters lives are ok bringing more attention to the central romance. Most importantly though it seems as if Allen has mastered this wonderful, if simple, style. The way he utilizes it brings less attention to the dialogue and more to the almost sensuous feelings of the set design leading to the film being both intellectually and visually stimulating. As suggested the performances here occupy the same quality as in most of Allen’s films which is to say that they seem authentic and comfortable. Carrel lends a silly edge to his character as if he’s still playing a character in the vain of Adam Mckay, but it works in a hilarious way. Blake Lively is also given more movie star material as she plays probably the kindest person you can think of while keeping it from becoming boring. But as you’ve heard Kristen Stewart and Jesse Eisenberg reveal themselves as the new Woody Allen crew in a big way. Hopefully, he brings the two together again as they really do bring the best out of each other. The connected chemistry of their acting styles being benefited by each other and the way that both characters make each other better people to the point of doing anything for each other compliment each other to make the film even more emotional. Café Society is a film that made me feel love. It made me feel release, and took me to a place that while sad, made me happier then I’ve been at almost any film this year. Woody Allen, the creator of calmer classics of the relationship game, physically moved me. The patrons behind me in the theater must have been annoyed by my swinging arms. Café Society gets a 10 out of 10.
0 Comments
Hunt for the Wilderpeople: Directed by Taika Waititi, Starring: Julian Dennison and Sam Neil7/26/2016 Hunt for the Wilderpeople might be a perfect argument for why the world should be run under the mentality of a 13-year-old kid. The elementary school world has faded away ever so slightly and now the depth of the adult world has started to slowly reveal itself, but still, the mindset is: authority is bad, the forest is a place to have an almost mystical adventure and the most important person in the world is you. Ricky Baker is a boy sent to live with a foster mother and father out near the New Zealand “Bushland,” a huge forested area. Soon, Baker and the foster father Uncle Heck end up alone in the woods and running from child protective services. The perfection of the film comes not from that plot, which is simple, and probably a little off kilter in structure, but again from that worldview of a 13-year-old. Wilderpeople understands the fact that a child at this point in their life is still a child, but is slowly attempting to figure out what is going on in the world. Ricky learning how to survive in the wild, while also staying true to his childish and destructive nature perfectly encapsulates this. Young actor, Julian Dennison plays Ricky with a sense of naïveté that completely sells the whole dramatic arc of the movie. Dennison is also just a different type of protagonist than we usually see, and he harnesses his figure (yes, he’s chubby) to create jokes that would not work with any other type of kid. Sam Neil’s performance as Heck is ecstatically funny because it turns out Heck is in the same situation that Ricky is in. As Heck’s character develops it’s revealed that he has a rough past that only one person helped him through and he is wonderfully complex on account of that. The juvenile comedic edge of the worldview benefits everything else in the film too. The Child Protective Services officer is a delight to watch as actress Rachel House repeats “No child left behind” in such a manic and bloodthirsty way that you almost get the sense that if the officer ever caught Ricky she’d stab him. There're difficult balances to strike in the movie everywhere like that. That character had to be built specifically to seem reasonable yet murderously enthusiastic and I can’t imagine it was an easy character to write or create. However, in the mind space that the movie creates she works and is utterly daunting in her effectiveness. As characters everyone’s idiosyncratic, and the balance necessary to pull that off while keeping the structure just loose enough to make sure these idiosyncrasies don’t smash into each other is mind-boggling. Not to say all of it works out, but Taika Waititi’s writing and directing work is top notch in a way that allows for complete tonal consistency. That structure though does end of feeling a slight bit bulbous though as the film at 101 minutes feels stretched out. There’s so many weird things trying to fit into this movie that eventually the film seems a little overdone and at times it feels like it’s going a bit slow, but what’s there is still genius so that matters very little. The fact is it’s just not easy to say anything bad about Hunt for the Wilderpeople. It’s too charming, too funny, and above all too intelligent for that. Waititi has crafted a perfect film out of pieces that should not fit together, but they do. Onward to Thor Ragnarok. Hunt for the Wilderpeople gets a 10 out of 10. Star Trek: Beyond is the type of blockbuster that has true thematic depth hidden in the filmmaking, but doesn’t really push that enough. The climax of the movie is the epitome of what can be done with this genre and the filmmaking that is still fresh and fast paced. The rest of the movie is much less so but is still too much of an awesome ride to ignore. That’s where the tricky part of reviewing this movie comes in. The first act is thin, but entertaining introductions chockful of above the line character driven action, the second is exposition driven set pieces that work, but seem to be just going to fast getting you from plot point A to plot point B, and then the third act explodes into this something so amazing in its throughline that it almost elevates the previous acts. Almost. The paralyzing (I literally was so moved I could not move) climax of this movie is so incredible and the other acts so much fun if just breezy that you can’t help but love all of it. Star Trek: Beyond is simply a well-done movie. So, with that out of the way...there’s only the superficial stuff to cover. Chris Pine is interesting for the first time, Zachary Quinto is given incredible depth as Spock as he struggles with the ideas of death and relationships, Karl Urban (still the best thing that has come out of this series) get’s some of the best lines he could have, Knife Leg Lady (Sofia Boutella) from Kingsman is both awesome in action scenes and surprisingly effective for as much of her character is simply explained in the dialogue. Simon Pegg and Doug Joun have done great work on the screenplay, which while thin in the middle act is breezy to the point of just feeling homey and welcoming, Idris Elba charges in to scare the heck out of you as you stew in that hominess. Justin Lin does some of his best direction bringing a stunning eye to action scenes especially in his direction of action in the third act. A scene of multiple Kirk’s under the wrong direction could have confounded and irritated, but under Lin becomes hilarious and completely simple. But, then there’s that moment. See, I didn’t really talk about this earlier because I didn’t want to spoil the movie. Now I will. The big savior, in the end, is music. The Beastie Boys "Sabotage" in fact. Yes, I know it was in the first movie, but that wasn’t a good movie so we’ll just skip over here. The moment when it plays is astounding, not just in the visual sense, but in the true thematic throughline of the Federation and therefore the film. Using cultural connections, and culture, aka the music, to bring hope and understanding to the universe. By proxy you connect to Starfleet’s use of the music because they are the good guys and they’re just fun to hang around, leading to their heroic deed coming in the sharing of culture being both heartfelt and intoxicating. Yes, that is simple for the message or whole undertaking of a movie, but it’s extremely effective, as well as the only thing worth analyzing here. Sometimes, the blockbusters just need to be the blockbusters, and if all of them are as full-blooded as Star Trek: Beyond we’ve got some good times ahead. Star Trek: Beyond gets an 8.5 out of 10. You know that a drug theme and color grading doesn’t make you Traffic right? For that matter why would you want to seem as dated as Traffic (that is a good movie though)? If there’s one thing that I could describe The Infiltrator as is an 80’s version of one of the stories from Soderbergh’s calling card movie from 2000. It’s rampantly edited, color adjusted in some scenes and clear in others to boost artistic merit, and as a story by itself doesn’t boil down to all that much. The simple story here is that Bryan Cranston, plays Bob Mazur, an undercover cop who is infiltrating the operation of Pablo Escobar’s right-hand man with a partner played by John Leguizamo. This story has been seen in many forms, and here there doesn’t seem to be enough meat on the bones of the movie to actually make this specific story worth telling, but overall the payoff scene is worth it. The editing and the colors are the first things you’ll notice though. Director Brad Furman has enthusiastically cut this movie to form an intense but energetic 80’s feel, while also grading the movie like a late 90’s drug movie. The visual effect of this is a little odd as the images never really seem truly real and only informed by a white-hot adrenaline, but you can’t take your eyes off of it. There’s a scene where nude dancers are using large feathers to perform a routine that is visually awkward, and bewildering, but fascinating at the same time. When the movie does finally pay off in one of the most startlingly amazing endings in a movie this year, the style lends itself well as the use of synth-pop music and montage cutting makes the moment gut wrenching. It’s all for not though without Cranston, who being one of the most realistic actors of all time creates Bob out of literally the thin air and dead weight that the screenplay gives him. Leguizamo, being one of those sad 90’s actors that never really made it, is doing his traditional well researched character work. Seriously, this guy needs a full on drama role so he can knock it out of the park. The rest of the cast is a charismatic wash, either not getting much to do (something that befalls Leguizamo), or simply doing serviceable if arch “drug movie” performances. The real surprise is that the climax actually doesn’t hinge on Cranston though, but more on Benjamin Bratt, who has both an imposing personality and grandiose figure to bring to the film. There’s a moment of Bratt’s facial acting during the climax that is so striking that it paralyzes the viewer. Brad Furman, and Bryan Cranston craft a thin Traffic story with The Infiltrator, that still eventually brings the big guns through mind wracking cinematography and editing, and solid character acting. If you like crime movies this is a fine thriller to spend an afternoon with. I give The Infiltrator a 7 out of 10. The most difficult thing about Ghostbusters is the fact that it’s simply...there. It’s not game changing, it’s not horrible, it’s not special...it’s just kind of is. There’s not a real central theme to talk about (mainly because the one that could exist in the context of the film really is underplayed), and there’s not really much to say as far as the direction or acting goes. This is simply a bordering on good adventure/comedy that lacks any sense of a point and is a little sickly in its own studio mandated tonal broth. That’s actually the problem with a lot of comedies these days. No matter how funny they actually get, or how original they actually get, the jokes are the only thing making them into “stories” as the main plots, even at their most complicated, lack the weight to really get off the ground. The original Ghostbusters had a very deliberate plot and central theme that could be talked about for an hour (in fact go check out Bob Chipman’s Really That Good to see just that), but this one lacks that. Sure, one could consider the idea that women not being taken as seriously in the workplace and world to be a central theme, but this movie is leaning a lot more on the comedy then the thoughtfulness. Weighted a little bit more with these themes (accentuated by a raving fan base) the film could have have been the ultimate version of itself being just as relatable for a female audience as Bridesmaids (I take it on good accord from my female friends that Bridesmaids is relatable), but Katie Diploid, Feig, and the Ghostbusters probably wanted to make the movie more entertaining by not dwelling too much on the themes at their disposal. While it is true that the film is probably more entertaining in the absence of such themes, it’s less provoking than the original, and much of the available talent on display. But all that said the movie is very, very, fun and light to watch. The cast is joyful, and the effects are colorful and only a little bit sickly compared to what the trailers suggested. The tone here is spot on as the film is light enough, like other Feig comedies, to keep us laughing before we realize that ultimately none of it matters. Melissa McCarthy, and Kristen Wiig are revelations as usual, and the amount of nuance that this project allows for Leslie Jones is a welcome change from her normal screaming comedy. Kate Mckinnon is very enjoyable, but she seems to be a little forced, as her character's quirks seem the most traditional out of all the women’s. That said the quirks do suggest a sadness behind her character which pretty much overshadows everything that seems overly forced. For as anticipated, and hated as this all was there’s not a whole lot to say about Ghostbusters. It’s a colorful, weightless, but hilarious and emphatic experience made well enough to warrant a release. As far as depths...I got nothing. I give Ghostbusters a 7 out of 10. I heard a lot of reviewers explicitly spoiled this movie to keep some animal lovers from seeing this film. I only do so for the sake of analysis as it’s difficult to dig into a project of Todd Solondz’s without doing so. At that note, this review (but more analysis) explicitly spoils Wiener Dog. SHORT VERSION: A little bland because of one of the central themes and the way it reflects on the acting, but other than that overall one of the most potent movies I’ve seen in awhile. If you can laugh at something horrible happening to a wiener dog, and also be very sad toward that then you’re the person for this movie. If you love dogs? Don’t bother. Wiener Dog might just be Todd Solondz messing with us. That’s something that can be stood by. That’s not bad, in fact, Solondz’s crazy, depressing, and funny style has always been doing just that, I was just stating the ground rules here. The movie follows a wiener dog who goes through 4 different owners, each revealing something about life in the 21rst century. So let’s set up more ground rules. The point of “animal” movies is to make us emote through the animal, and Wiener Dog starts off by letting us stare at the dog itself and realize that. However, soon the dog leaves the focus of the movie and the people who are affected by the dog become more of the focus. Solondz structuring the beginning of the film like this is smart as it allows us to get into the mind space of emoting to the dog and then throws the humans into the movie quickly so we start to do the exact same thing to them. There’s a sense of deceit to the way that he alters our view of the world and then serves up his view on it through the stories. The first concerns a small boy and his pair of despicable parents. This is showing how a smaller character can be abused without ever really knowing it. Julie Delpy, deliciously evil, as the mother explains to her cancer survivor 9-year old that the dog may very well have emotions, but it still must be treated like a dog. The father explains how “we need to break the will” of such animals. But aren’t they just talking about the boy? That’s the trick. This scene started all about the dog, but now you’re projecting the feeling that you would have on the dog to the boy because the dog is nowhere to be seen. The parents for good or ill are trying to break in their son, by telling nasty stories (seriously, Delpy gets some hilariously sardonic milage), and keeping him in a place where he can’t do anything. Sure, it’s all for the best but what about the boy? What about the dog? That’s the question that this section brings up. There’s a sadness and a depth to it all, but the film’s indefinite problem rears its head during this as well. The projection is so necessary that the actors almost become blank slates much like the animals in these movies often become. The acting is fine, just a little flat (except in one section of the movie, but that comes later). This first section makes one question the whole stability of the systems we have for taking care of pets, and the way that parents shelter their children. It’s an important topic that Solondz executes well even if it did compel a sense of depression. But that’s what this movie runs on. The lofty ideas that almost always inspire depression. The mix of nostalgia and happiness and the other darker feelings that follow these when you realize that you won’t get what you want. This brings us to Dawn Wiener, who was the protagonist of Solondz’s masterpiece, Welcome to the Dollhouse. In the context of Dollhouse this section of the film is tear inducing, attempting to approach the meaning of the dog in a different way. It draw parallels between the feelings of nostalgia that the wiener dog, herself embodies, as the childhood dog you’d never forget, and the nostalgia of never being happy because you were robbed the ability to properly comprehend adult life because you were introduced to all that stuff in middle school, and now you can’t feel anything or understand it. Gerwig’s construction of Dawn is so vivid that I was able to describe the entire heartfelt motivation of her character in detail right there. This part of the movie got to me. Dawn and Branden (another Dollhouse character, played here by Kieran Culkin) are on a road trip, and he doesn’t know that she’s in love with him. It’s the type of almost cheap gimmick that seems to strive for your heart and it got mine. I suppose lacking the context of Welcome to the Dollhouse the sequence would play less emotional, but nonetheless, the sequence is incredible, playing to all kinds of tearful looking back. There’s a recurring song, sung throughout it that makes one think of better times, and happier places, and the way Solondz plays the idea of the American road trip, and the idea of the collapse of the American ideal against that in just a few scenes is mesmerizing and traumatizing. Thinking onto the later sections of the movie, Solondz might be making fun of all of us for believing in that American ideal, like the representation of the feeling of nostalgia that the wiener dog is, is a lie, and that now all we have to do is look into the people to notice the bitterness… I’m getting a little overblown here, though. Point is, the Dawn Wiener section of this movie is heartbreaking, and Gerwig is so realistic and moving that I doubt there’ll be a better performance by an actress this year. The fake idealism comes up again in an interview in the third section of the film which follows a screenwriting professor played by Danny Devito. The scene concerns a student in an interview for the school, and he’s answering in completely broad terms as if he doesn’t understand what he’s getting into, blindly wanting to make movies because THAT SOUNDS GOOD. The parallel to how Solondz may look at how my generation approaches the coming years of our lives in what is ultimately a collapsing country is highlighted here, and the way that Solondz eventually uses a terrorist attack to represent the ideals that may have eventually destroyed that American ideal once and for all is gloriously blatant. Plus, the image of a man in a bomb suit crawling up to a wiener dog in a yellow dress with a bomb strapped to it is downright the funniest thing you’ll see all year. It’s interesting how the movie accepts all of this and then finally, and damningly takes the piss out of itself by condemning the negativity that it’s almost all about. Ellen Burstyn is a blinded woman with cancer who is visited by her niece. Her life is structured almost like a prison, and the final place she has to escape to (a forest behind her house because the rest of her world has been industrialized) is haunting her. What specifically is? Versions of her younger self, each a little bit different. This is you if….this is you if… The point, though? All of these versions are better versions of herself. This is a sad moment, especially since you can tell by the money that the woman seems to have and the very protected shrine of a house she has that she must have either married into a capitalist run family or just gone and done it herself sacrificing happiness, (no that is not saying that capitalism is bad, simply saying that people with lots of money probably sacrifice a lot to secure such money) but it’s also a moment of optimism on how we can all improve ourselves and create a better world. MAJOR SPOILER AHEAD IF YOU’VE GOTTEN THIS FAR. And then the dog runs down the hill the house is on, and is hit by a truck….and then a car, and then another car, and then another car, and then another car. The optimism of the idea of old world industrialism makes one think about what these cars may mean. Considering what specific models the cars are they seem to be ones that glorify industrialism: A truck, a yellow sports car, a minivan. It possibly could be about how the whole damn thing is self-defeating and will ultimately destroy itself. The film ends with the dog having been turned into a taxidermic art piece, that can turn its head and bark at us as it stares directly into us. The face of everything that the movie is criticizing is now staring at us in all its artificial glory and suddenly...barking. Wiener Dog is not great because of these deeper meanings. Really the acting problem takes a good chunk out of the movie, but they certainly makes the movie mean more. Solondz could be just messing with us of course as I covered earlier, though. Honestly, I will not be surprised if many don’t subscribe to the film's depressing world view, but it was quite entertaining in my opinion. Wiener Dog gets an 8 out of 10. Looking over the work of Roald Dahl, one starts to understand that his work is predominantly focussed on his mind as a child. His work has always been layered in the existential panic that the nasty old stories that the children used to tell him, and the authorities switches were just about to capture him. That’s what makes The BFG an interesting beast on his side. It’s less about the ways that human stupidity and childishness befall children (like Charlie and the Chocolate Factory) and more about how a child with childishness and intelligence can make a difference with the help of those around him/her. That’s an upbeat message in a film market saturated with children either being the monsters in horror films or dough-eyed plot contrivances for the heroes to fall back on. What’s also saturated in a negative way? The market of big budget live action/CGI character films out there. The magic that CGI characters brought to films like Lord of the Rings and Terminator 2 has now devolved into a computer wasteland full of films from once great visionaries. The question as to whether or not Steven Spielberg aka THE MOST ACCESSIBLE BUT NOT NECESSARILY GREATEST FILMMAKER IN THE WORD, would drown in that comes to a head in The BFG and the results are better than even I expected. Brimming with CGI and live action creativity, Spielberg's The BFG is an imperfect, but wondrous work.
For those who grew up with Roald Dahl, you’ll get the idea here quickly. This is a film completely based on the mind of a child, but with all the dark depths of loneliness, and fear tossed back in for good measure. We follow Sophie, a small orphan, who is snatched from her bedroom and taken to Giant Country by the Big Friendly Giant, a runt giant who doesn’t eat children like the rest. From there, an adventure embarks. The surprising thing, though the reason for it is obvious, is that the darker subtext always hidden in Dahl’s work is not fully present here. Spielberg isn’t trying to upset anybody, but since the story plays like a vignette series of events rather than a flowing connected plot the weight of the picture doesn’t really stick around. An emphasis on over the horrors of the authority in the real world would have gone a far way to inform some of Sophie’s character, but young actress, Ruby Barnhill, is a classic Spielberg child actress, providing a performance that while not be fully realistic, hits the correct notes for the bossy little character. The emphasis on diction and intelligence in the voice makes for some incredibly charming sequences. Charming their way through the movie though is Mark Rylance, and some stunning if not always perfect CGI. The BFG himself sometimes seems to slip out of his own movie because of little patches of unpolished CG on the character, but the Academy Award-winning actor Rylance (oh shut up Stallone people, I wanted him to win too) brings his kind and gentle vocals and expressions to the character in a lovely way. To talk of Spielberg comes with the familiar comments. The camera movement flows with such efficiency that the confidence of 50 years becomes incredibly apparent. His calming camera shows such an epic sweep that even when the CG is off putting it’s still believable. The more childish moments of the movie, which mainly have to do with fart jokes, are actually pulled off well, with Spielberg playing the audience’s discomfort and embarrassment against them to the point of it becoming giggly. As a director, he continues to direct movies in a way that invokes a happiness. The BFG has a difficult time feeling fully there, as the effects and story seem to be unpolished, but the direction and charm on display here are enough to make it worth a watch. As a work, it also lacks the depth and fear of Dahl’s others but this is an enlivening picture. Spielberg really brings his talents and it makes the movie miles better than the rest of the live action/CGI crop. The BFG gets an 8 out of 10. The law of diminishing returns is discussed in length during the duration of Swiss Army Man, and might happen to be the only reason that some (including myself) will find it less genius than those who are less attuned to the emotions that Swiss Army Man is dealing in. That said it is pretty original. Paul Dano ends up on an island and must use the body of dead Daniel Radcliffe to escape and survive in the wild while developing a friendship with the corpse. Sounds like a Sunday afternoon movie in America right? Right? Well, here’s the point that I want to get to fast. Swiss Army Man is a stupendous, emotional, and beautiful film, and is so effortlessly those things that the only thing that’s worth criticizing in the movie, and that would make for a review structure that doesn’t read like, “the acting’s great, the direction may have a universal flaw but you get what you get, the script is great, and the ending is the stuff of dreams when it comes to true visual thinking and taking a concept to its full potential” is the discussion of how overall Swiss Army Man just isn’t quite as original as it lets on. It’s a movie about the folly of life in the presence of loneliness, and when observed through the way it allows us to catch onto that, while the premise is creative and mind tickling, the inner thematic concept is not and therefore can’t be as emotionally satisfying. This is a personal opinion, though. Swiss Army Man is a film that should be studied and is a complete revelation, but it seemed to be telling me things that I’d already known in a way that I had already seen. The spin on such things in that only one of the main characters is alive is executed well enough to keep this from becoming wholly apparent, but when the film reaches what might be its logical emotional climax I realized that I’d seen that type of scene in many works of theatre and film and here it didn’t hit me quite as hard. The way the film literalizes everything about its also takes it down a notch. There’s so much drama that could have been informed by the visual metaphors that are still present in the film but seems to be taken so literal and less dreamlike to the point of almost dissipating. That might actually be a complaint in direction, and cinematography but those are pretty visionary all around, so it’s hard to find fault in them. Swiss Army Man is a film that’s going to make a lot of people hurt. It’ll dig up the shit that the systems of the modern world put them in and make them confront that in themselves in a weird, but familiar way. The weighted message of the entire piece is brought down from greatness by the literalizing of the entire thing, and the familiarity of the themes, but the potency should be extreme for anyone who hasn’t encountered these types of emotions before. The law of diminishing returns struck me, and while this is a stupendous, emotional, and beautiful film it felt a slight bit diminished. Swiss Army Man gets an 8.5 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. |