I may sound like a condescending idiot when I say that Steve Jobs is the best film of the year two days after I proclaim “Crimson Peak is the best thing I’ve seen all year.” I’m certainly not lying for any one of those, and to be honest it doesn’t matter for two reasons: 1. At that time I truly believed that Crimson Peak was the best thing I had seen all year, and 2. Contrary to what I recommended, it seems none of you actually saw Crimson Peak. Then again I seem more like a condescending idiot by actually spending the first paragraph of this review talking about this. But I have as first of all, a nice way of scolding the abysmally low box office returns of Crimson Peak, and also to segway nicely into the fact that Steve Jobs is probably going to be the best thing that I see all year — probably. I may have to a condescending idiot later, but I’m fine with that. Right now though, I’m going to talk about Steve Jobs, a film composed entirely of conversations that are more thrilling than Rogue Nation managed to be (and Rogue Nation was awesome), and heartfelt in a way I didn’t think possible. It’s a film that when you look back at its individual scenes, and try to explain them, you wouldn’t really know if they worked. Yet, in this movie they do. They work astoundingly, and that’s awesome. And at the center of it all are 2 people: Aaron Sorkin, and Michael Fassbender (not that Danny Boyle isn’t an important part of the equation). Sorkin is unquestionably the greatest writer working now (see The Social Network, and The Newsroom), and with his script, based partially on Walter Isaacson's biography, he has absolutely knocked it out of the park. As I said, this is a film composed entirely of dialogue, but it’s more thrilling than most action films. That’s actually true, because Sorkin has always been a master of fast paced, snappy dialogue, and the heat that can gather between two incredible character actors is palpable, especially with Sorkin at the helm. His screenplay is smart because he knows that Steve Jobs was a genius, and he knows we know that too. He doesn’t spend time pondering what made him that; that’s all extraneous. He simply lets us be thrilled by it. Sorkin lets every insult, and every quirk of Job’s character shine through. It certainly helps that Fassbender is so good at playing Jobs that you don’t actually notice it all too quickly. It’s a layered performance that works perfectly. Fassbender is so good, and electrifying I can’t explain his effect. He’s sympathetic, and charismatic, but a complete asshole; a person who, much like Sorkin’s script, knows he’s a genius, and just wants to thrill us with just that. Fassbender seems to be in the mind of this man who couldn’t care less about what people think of him, and knows that he is always right. That the other cast is able to stand up to him is great (but then again when you read Aaron Sorkin you’re gonna sound good anyway). Kate Winslet is a high mark, and while her accent isn’t perfect, everything else is. She’s a nice, more level headed contrast to Jobs, and it’s wonderful to see her in yet another great performance. Seth Rogen is much of the same. It’s great to see him do dramatic work, and do it well. His Wozniak gets some of the best scenes. And then there’s Lisa. She is played through the years by 3 actresses. All of them do great work. See, Lisa is the heartwarming part of this movie. She’s what binds it together. There are moments that I wanted to cry when she was on screen, and that can be attributed to both how good those three actresses are, and how Fassbender slowly hints at his affection for her. It’s poignant stuff that shouldn’t work, but it does by virtue of the cast. Now I’ve heard critics complain of the last act of this film slowing down, but let me ask this. The film through its dialogue is so incredibly paced, so incredibly acted that this film has the momentum to knockout the audience. A slower less dense third act allows the film to slow and end. Perfectly just like one of Jobs’s products. I give Steve Jobs a 10 out of 10.
0 Comments
Crimson Peak: Directed by Guillermo Del Toro, Starring: Mia Wasikowska and Jessica Chastain10/18/2015 Crimson Peak is a wondrous, beautiful, scary, and intense film. It’s simple in its story, but that’s not a bad thing. What’s happening at Crimson Peak is still scary, and with the craftsmanship of Guillermo Del Toro behind it, Crimson Peak becomes all at once disturbing and somewhat poetic. It’s the best and most affecting thing I’ve seen all year. I don’t say that lightly. Crimson Peak is the real deal. So to start, Crimson Peak is about a young woman named Edith who is swept off her feet and by a baronet (Tom Hiddleston), and taken to the old house he lives in. I sat in the theatre, and was thrilled by every second of it. This can be attributed to a couple of things: the production design, the acting style, the unrealism, and the horror. I honestly am having trouble elaborating. The beautiful colors (red mainly) pop from the screen, and immediately make the film more interesting and exciting. The house that is used in the film is beautiful, with the gothic atmosphere helping bolster the thin story that is there. I’ve heard most critics complain about how Crimson Peak is weak in it’s story, but it doesn’t feel like it. The imagery that the film shows holds up the other end of the film. Del Toro’s camera is sweeping and wonderfully epic. There’s an early scene in which Thomas Sharpe (the baronet) waltzes with Edith (our protagonist) that is so exhilarating because of the way that Del Toro uses his camera. It sweeps above the scene, and the bright colors just allow you to soak into the screen. It all just works. Then you get to the scares. Crimson Peak is not all that scary of a movie. In fact, when I was sitting in the theatre and something that I supposed could be scary happened, I was just sitting up in excited glee. The ghosts are beautifully designed, and when they appeared on screen, Del Toro’s more subtle (compared to other films) approach gives them a large impact. There’s one that crawls that is so interesting and startling that I couldn’t help but be absolutely giddy. The stuff that does work in the context of scariness is the way that the story slowly reveals itself, and the truth of what is happening. Once it was revealed I gasped. Del Toro’s signature use of well executed gore here is also evident, and this film has a beautiful (Sorry, I know I’ve used that word a lot) kill. This is a film that creates creepy world that I wanted to spend more time in. These images are affecting, and it’s true that they themselves would not support the entire movie, but they don’t. This film has an incredible cast doing hammy, but very emotional work. The characters keep their emotions like an open wounds, upfront, and center, and it’s a treat to watch Mia Wasikowska, Tom Hiddleston, and especially Jessica Chastain take roles of such emotional potency, especially Chastain, who is absolutely dynamite. I must give mention to Jim Beaver, who is given an incredible monologue near the beginning of the film. The film, for all its trodding as a horror film, is surprisingly romantic in it’s own way (can’t tell you how), and the over the top emotional performances only bolster this. And that’s all I can say. I’m honestly disappointed in this review, just the same as I was disappointed in last year’s Boyhood review. I can’t possibly capture the genius, scares, and emotion of Crimson Peak. I give Crimson Peak a 10 out of 10. Bridge of Spies is a play in two acts, and I’m going to just go ahead and review it as such. Sure, it’s a movie (directed by Steven Spielberg nonetheless), but in thematic style and pacing this is a play. The dialogue drives the action, and the entire thing is simply composed of dialogue sequences. It’s even written like a play, with the scene to scene interactions being more important (and thrilling) than the overarching plot. But this is an excellent play if I’ve ever seen one. Plus, did I mention it was directed by Steven Spielberg? That makes a difference. Bridge of Spies is about a New York lawyer named John Donovan (played by Tom Hanks...of course) who is put in charge of the defense case for a Soviet spy who has just been outed. Donovan is then lead into a negotiation of an exchange for the spy. That’s all I’ll tell you, because to be honest, I have planned on addressing this film by each of its acts, and if I described too much, then I wouldn’t have too much to say. So ACT 1. It’s pretty good. Not great. Mostly bolstered by the fact that the main actor is Tom Hanks, and when he’s “super endearing” you can’t help but love him. He’s also given the most to do in the first half. This is understandable because we really need to get to know this man to care about the second half, but also leads to the problem of the first half being just him fighting a bunch of ignorant people over whether a guy should be killed or not.. That’s actually all well and good (This is Tom Hanks we’re talking about… let’s see how many times I can use that as a valid reason), but it’s all quiet conversations about things that will set up the much better second half of the film. This makes it feel slightly unreal–as if a plate of glass is between the audience and the film–but no matter, because apart from one glaringly misjudged sequence (that I assume was written in by the more comedy centric Coen’s, seriously the moment doesn’t make sense until you realize it’s the Coen Brothers) I liked the first act. It certainly helps that Mark Rylance is pretty great as the spy walking a line of sympathy. Then Act 2 and the real awesome stuff comes in. I won’t reveal the plot elements, but I will say that a lot of very interesting characters show up, and the situation starts to feel more tense. The film’s main draw is also revealed. Donovan meets a lot of interesting people in this part of the film, and how he interacts with them turns out to be some of the movie’s biggest entertainers. There’s one scene in a car with a corrupt German lawyer that is absolutely riveting in only the way Spielberg can make happen. Then about 3 minutes later it gets topped. You may be waiting for me to say that the two parts of the film feel disjointed, but I can’t. Bridge of Spies is a riveting, talky, and rich film that shows that both Spielberg, and Hanks are still on top of their games. I give Bridge of Spies a 9 out of 10. Look, guys I have had a busy week, and I haven't gotten to see much. But this weekend there is a lot of great stuff coming out. So I will be seeing Bridge of Spies, Beasts of No Nation, and Crimson Peak (maybe). SO EXCITED!!!!!!!!!!! My opinion of Sicario has risen in the past week since I saw it. That kind of means you might want to take this review with a grain of salt. See, I walked out of this film not feeling so hot on it. I actually was profoundly disappointed. This was caused by the fact that after two very good, but not great beginning acts, Sicario didn’t quite stick the landing. It was a profound disappointment, especially since I had been anticipating the film for quite some time. But now a week later, I have broken the movie down, and the fact is that even though the film doesn’t stick the landing it’s still a solid film that with a few more minutes of character building would work. But it’s missing that profound moment, so what we have isn’t perfect. It’s impactful, but not perfect. Impactful is what it has to be, because it’s a violent thriller about the drug trade. There’s no way that that won’t hit you. It’s a lean, mean, picture that kind of invokes the feeling that Cartel Land did earlier this year. Our protagonist is Kate Macer, a kidnapping squad officer who soon finds herself down in Juarez, Mexico, trying to take down a drug lord by using another to track him. There, she meets two agents of another agency, Alejandro (Benicio Del Toro) and Matt (Josh Brolin). Then the film kind of takes a bad turn, and while what happens during this moment is one of the best moments in a movie I’ve seen, it still runs the film into the ground. That’s all I’m going to tell you, for a good reason. Now the best thing about Sicario is that it’s a character drama. The people here are interesting, and Josh Brolin and Benicio Del Toro make one hell of an impression when you watch them. They always seem slightly awkward, but you soon realize that’s on purpose. They aren’t supposed to make you feel like you should trust them. Unfortunately it’s Kate (Emily Blunt) who is not as interesting as she needs to be. I mentioned that the film is a profound minute away from being an 9.5 type of movie, and that minute I would have spent intercutting a character moment when the film takes that bad turn. Without it, the film negates Kate from a full arch. Making her seem like more an observer with no power is actually a good thing in the full scheme of things, when it’s considered, but it still doesn’t end up working as well as it should. Sicario tries, though. Again the actors are great, and Blunt, for as little as her character gets, sells it. The action is flawless. Denis Villeneuve does an excellent job with the shootouts, and he uses it to keep the film going at a good clip. It helps that he has Roger Deakins behind the camera. Deakins is a master of cinematography, and the camera in this movie moves so dynamically that it almost redeems everything that goes on. This is a wonderfully shot but broken film. I give Sicario an 8 out of 10. The Martian is Apollo 13 in deep space. This is not the moon. This is Mars, so no messing around. I’ve seen this type of movie before, but it’s excellently acted and pulled off, so that doesn’t matter. The Martian, based off of the book by Andy Weir, is brought to you by Ridley Scott (if you don’t know who this is then open Google), and Drew Goddard (same). It’s about Mark Watney, an astronaut who is accidentally left on the surface of Mars. He and the NASA crew must figure out how he can survive on a planet that has no food or water. That’s a great premise really, but what keeps the film interesting is it keeps a breakneck pace, and the fact that there are interesting things resting under the surface. Andy Weir’s book (or what I read of it) is focused mainly on the science of how things might work up on Mars, and it’s really interesting to watch as Mark figures out how to survive on this planet. To be honest, it probably would have been enough to propel the film along just to see Mark surviving, but it helps to build a deeper dramatic mood as you slowly see him start to break. It’s helpful that Matt Damon plays Watney as the most sarcastic, darkly humored person on the planet he’s stuck on (of course). Drew Goddard, who wrote the script, really exploits the hilarious use of punch lines that the book used. There’s one scene in the book that focuses on what Watney might be thinking, and it plays off just as well in the film. It’s helpful that Damon is good enough of an actor to pull off the one man show that he is running...well until about a good 30 minutes in. After that, the NASA people come in, and try to find a way to save him. The NASA group is impeccably cast, and half the actors come with their backstories already there just by showing up. For example, Jeff Daniels. He’s been so good, in so many talky movies like this, for so long, that it doesn’t matter that he’s not a fleshed out character. He get’s clever things to say, and sells it so interestingly that it’s hard to notice the that fact that he’s not all that good of a character. Actually that’s how everybody in this movie works. They are spectacular actors saying clever stuff as slight characters, and that works. It doesn’t stay with you as much as it should, but it works. What also works excellently is the direction by Ridley Scott. He already proved that he could direct sci-fi, and that he is best at doing things small scale (like Alien and Blade Runner, although the staging isn’t small scale in the latter). He makes the film pop with smooth, and subdued cinematography. It’s nice to see him working on a film like this especially since his last two films, Prometheus, and Exodus: Gods and Kings, were a little too big for even Hollywood’s most excellent technical stylist (Scott, if you haven’t caught that) to handle. The Martian is a small scale film with beautiful vistas, and really works to Scott’s strengths as a director. The Martian gets a 9 out of 10. The Walk is not a perfect film...at all. It’s got shallow characters, a thin script, cartoonish representation of Philippe Petit’s walk between the Two Towers in 1974, and a rushed plot. The film is still a perfect experience though. Wait that’s a contradiction. How could anything have that many problems, and still be perfect in someway? Well that’s what Robert Zemeckis, and Joseph Gordon Levitt are for. The thing about Robert Zemeckis is that he’s a director like Steven Spielberg. A director that directs a film with such an unabashed sense of earnestness; an unabashed optimism that it almost get’s rid of the flaws of his films. The best example I can think of this is ultimately Forrest Gump, a flawed film that through the earnestness of the direction, and the optimism of it’s star won more Academy Awards than it deserved (Forrest Gump is great, but freaking Shawshank came out that year). The Walk, I have a feeling will stand in much the same stature. A genuinely flawed film that doesn’t seem all that flawed because the ingenuity of the entire thing. Because yes the film has everything that I mentioned in the first paragraph – but it’s still a near perfect experience. I already mentioned the first element that makes this happen, but there are always a few elements needed to do it. The second is Joseph Gordon Levitt who has such optimism in the title role here that it doesn’t really matter how much of a caricature he is. Phillipe is interesting because he so eccentric and quirky, and Levitt basically makes the movie on that. The other character are actually much of the same. They are cartoonish, and only show up for their one character defining moment, and then shrink into the background to let the plot keep barreling forward. Ben Kingsley is in this movie for maybe 2 minutes, and yet he is kind of an important character. I honestly didn’t care much about these weak characters because they allow a consistent fast pace that fits Phillipe’s own personality. Yes, the pacing hurts the overarching plot by rushing all of it, but it just seems more in tandem with the characters presented. I’m afraid of heights, and seeing this movie in IMAX 3D, I can tell you that the 3D, and visuals that come with the film are excellent. I say this keeping in mind that the depth perception of the 3D is so convincing as Phillipe walks between the towers that I was sweating. Really just wincing in my seat. I hate to say it, but I think that 3D is absolutely paramount in the viewing of this film. This could prove problematic in the long run as many people will probably see it without the visual tricks, but in the form I saw it, The Walk is a near perfect experience. It’s fun, exciting, and overall optimistic. I give The Walk an 8.5 out of 10. P.S. : Yes, there is a 911 reference, but it’s not preachy at all, and is a very good subtle tribute to the majesty of the towers. |
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. |