Welcome to my 2017 Oscar blog! I joined the 2000's and bought an Amazon firestick so I can watch most movies shortly after they come out. As a result, my Oscar posts will be quite a bit more relevant.
Here we go. I am rating this years films in the order I watch them; no other reason.
HIDDEN FIGURES:
This film chronicles the three African American women who were instrumental in helping NASA launch the first astronaut into orbit. All three women were brilliant and performed many of the hardest calculations that NASA needed to perform. As this story takes place in the 60's, they were portrayed as the smartest people in the room, but couldn't share the same coffee pot or restroom as everyone else.
All three actresses, Taraji P Henson, Octavia Spencer, and Janelle Monae were fantastic. Their portrayal of these women who faced discrimination while performing some of the most important tasks in American history was perfect. You feel the absolute victory when the bathrooms are desegragated, the coffee pots are shared, the rockets launch, etc. Kevin Costner's character was excellent as well. He played the part of the supervisor who watched the discrimination negatively impact the success of the NASA program. As he watched it, he changed it to ensure that each member of the program was performing to their potential instead of focusing on whether or not things were separate or equal; depending on their perspective.
The adapted screenplay was excellent. The performances were excellent. This film was good in all aspects. This may be a serious contender (having not seen the other nominees yet).
Overall rating 4/5
MANCHESTER BY THE SEA
I watched this film last night and I went to bed thinking about it and woke up thinking about it. At some points in the film, I felt it was brilliant. At others, I thought it was poor. I'm not sure which one will win out at the end but I definitely was impacted by the film.
Without going into too much detail, Casey Affleck's character (Lee) was introduced as a character we don't really like. He is a maintenence man making minimum wage somewhere near the coast in New England. The film's first turn is when his brother dies from congestive heart failure, and he is placed as a guardian of his brother's 16 year old son. The mother was a drunk who the father divorced and they do not contact anymore so the only viable candidate for guardianship is Lee.
My first major issue with the film is that we are introduced to Lee with no frame of reference as to a possible reason that he is such a horrendous person. So I formed an opinion of him and had to shift my opinion totally about halfway through the film when we learn of a traumatic even that causes him to behave and act as ignorantly as he does. I think the film would be better served to introduce this traumatic event earlier in the film before we form an opinion aboout Lee. The trauma really serves as a starting point to the narrative and I think a stricter linear approach would have been beneficial.
Another issue that I had with the film occurs in the first of the final two scenes; a scene where Lee encounters his wife who tries to open up and start a conversation about their shared trauma (not that the director was concerned with her point of view- she merely acts a catalyst to gain insight into Lee). This scene clearly shows the theme of the movie: there are some things you just can't get over. This scene bothered me on quite a few levels. First, I thought the camera angles were off. They showed the majority of the scene from behind his ex-wife. This focus on Lee disproportionately focused on his respone to the exact same event (the trauma occurred during their marriage and caused their divorce) while ignoring the trauma it caused to her. We clearly see Lee is broken while not being concerned with the damage caused to his ex-wife who was equally devestated by the event. What the director chooses to pay attention to is Lee's refusal to have anything to do with her. The camera finally ends up focusing on the two of them but even that angle is shown to highlight Lee's escape from the conversation while his ex-wife was overcome with emotion. I thought the scene could have been filmed in a different way that would have showed the tragedy of the shared experience and their individual reaction to it. To reinforce this idea, this is the last scene we see the ex-wife in. We are left with the image of her unraveling and never find get any closure or any idea of what happens to her.
In the next major scene, the film reaches its pinnacle. Lee confesses to his brother's son "I can't beat it." His acknowlegement that he is broken is the film's high point. We see firsthand that he can't be fixed and he knows it. He is limping through life and doing his best to just maintain. As enlightening and explanatory that this scene is, his emotional opening up doesn't jive with his absolute shutting down when confronted by his ex-wife just a scene or two before. His nephew didn't really want to hear this baring of the soul while his ex-wife was begging for it. It didn't make sense to me.
As many major issues as I had with this film, there were some strengths as well. Casey Affleck's performance was oscar worthy and I find it hard to envision him not winning. I didn't care for the way the film was presented but he was absolutely perfect as the flawed protaginist.
Another piece of the film that worked very well was the score. The music to this film was excellent as well. I'm not a music major by any means but the gothic choral music highlighted the sadness and despair shown in these characters.
I am going to rewatch this film to see if it works better the second time through. I don't think this a serious contender but with some shifts in focus, it could have been.
Overall rating 3/5
LA LA LAND
I watched LA LA LAND last night and it amounted to about what I expected. It was primarily a romance movie with some excellent music. The show tunes were catchy and nice but the real musical weight was provided by the jazz ensembles that Ryan Gosling played in as an aspiring jazz musician. His character, Sebastian, falls in love with Emma Stone's character, Mia. From there we see what happens to them as they are faced with career advancements for both.
Emma Stone is one of my favorite actresses. She is excellent in everything she is in and she shines here as well; her acting talent is on full display here. She is an aspiring actress who goes to auditions and we see her run the gamut of emotions and situations on cue.
The negative to the movie is that there isn't much to the plot. Boy meets girl, they fall in love, problems ensue, etc. It is a simple love story with very little innovation. It makes up for its unoriginality in performance and production as both are top rate.
Overall, this movie will be enjoyable for everyone. It is a musical but it is not overdone by any means. There is much more dialouge than singing; especially the second half of the movie. The themes are universal and the ending is good. In short, I would recommend everyone see it regardless of whether or not you like musicals or not.
Overall Rating 3.5/5.
MOONLIGHT
I watched this a day after watching La La Land and in contrast, you couldn't find two more polar opposite films. Set in the Miami hood, this coming of age story about the son of a single mom who was a serious addict was not a feel good story at all. It showed the protagonist at three points in his life, a young boy, a high schooler, and then at about 25 years of age when he reconnects with a high school friend. This film illustrates perfectly the effects of being raised in an unnurturing, non-loving environment.
The cinematography and score were adequate, the acting good but not great (with the exception of the high school version of the boy- I thought he was excellent), the directing was good. What stood out was the script that created some very memorable scenes; especially in the high school section of the movie. They were as disturbing as they were memorable and you really feel enpathy and sympathy for the protagonist in these moments.
I thought the adult section drug a little bit as the last 45 minutes or so were almost like a stand-alone play with the majority of the scene taking place in a diner for about 30 minutes straight. The last scene was moving as well but not nearly as emotional as the high school scenes. by the way, did anyone else think it was 50 cent? I totally did and am still convinced I am being punked. The guys look exactly alike.
After watching this win the best picture award, I'm convinced that this year's class of films is the weakest I have seen in memory.
Sidenote: I think Marshala Ali was excellent in this but I think his work in Hidden Figures combined with this is what won him the award. He was excellent in both and also is an acting stud in House of Cards. Go Remy Danton!
Overall rating 3/5.
Hacksaw Ridge
I watched this film with my son who was way more excited to see it than I was. I am absolutely not a fan of Mel Gibson and this did nothing to change my mind. This film was way overstated and treated the audience as if A) they had never seen a war film before, B) they were not aware that war was dangerous or that people died, C) people who went to war often left loved ones behind and then came back as changed men, and D) they were not smart enough to figure any of these things out on their own. I was bored through thre majority of the cliches and overusage of strewn body parts and slow motion to theorhetically heighten the drama. I felt like a 9th grader in a intro to filmmaking class who was seeing a "How to Make Your Movie Dramatic" video to take and use on my first ever film attempt.
As much as I hated the basic unintelligent way that the film was made, I did appreciate the script and story. In a capable director's hands, this was a serious oscar contender. Unfortunately, after Mel Gibson ruined it, it was a throw in nominee based on the script and Andrew Garfield's performance. Andrew Garfield's performance was good; although I thought the overproduction and repetitive dramtic devices subtracted from it as the film wore on.
The film itself was 2 hours and 15 minutes long but that was because we saw 30% of the war scenes in slow motion. Had we only seen 2 or 3 body parts lying on ther ground instead of the seemingly endless stream Gibson chose to show us, this film could have been shortened down to about an hour and 45 minutes.
In short, I don't even think you need to watch this one. Read a synopsis online as the story is impressive and the man Garfield played was a true war hero.
Overall rating 1/ 5
ARRIVAL
This film inspired me to think more than any other film of this year's class (by a long shot- not even close). Without giving anything away, the suggestion made at the end of the film was a question that made me stop and consider for a long time which way I would choose. I loved that aspect of it. I though it was brilliant.
The rest of the film served as a vehicle to arrive at the big question at the end. Amy Adams plays a
speech expert who is called in when Aliens arrive on our planet. Jeremy Renner is a scientific expert who works alongside to try and establish communication with the aliens. As they learn theor language, they realize they are learning a whole new way to view spoace, time, and everything we know. As their knowledge of this alien speech increases, so does their ability to process the world around them. This leads to the big reveal at the end of the film.
Both Renner and Adams are excellent as always. The screemplay was excellent as well- especially the ending. Everything else was good as well.
This will probably be the most memorable film for me from this year by a long shot. I loved the ending reveal and the premise it raised. Everyone should see this film just for the ending. While it does fall in the science fiction genre, it isn't over the top by any means and it serves a vehicle to arrive at the ending premise.
Overall Rating 4.5/5
HELL OR HIGH WATER
As I stated earlier, in my review of Moonlight, I think this was the weakest class we have seen in a long time. I would have to go back and look to see when I thought we have had this weak of a class. This film, in my opinion, had no reason to be among the nominees. The script was average, the acting was OK- and by OK, I mean Jeff Bridges was awesome but he is awesome everytime he hits the screen). The score, set design, etc. were all good but nothing stood out to me as Oscar worthy. The basic premise is that two brothers rob banks so that the straight (before he robbed banks) borther can get out of debt and will his recently deceased mom's property to his estranged sons who live with their mom. The just out of prison for bank robbery brother sacrifices himself so his "good" brother can get away. Nothing new here; nothing out of the ordinary. In my opinion, this film was very pedestrian.
Overall rating 2/5
FENCES
This August Wilson play adapted to the big screen was acted out on the stage by mostly the same cast as the film. Their familiarity with the material was evident as they looked like they had done this time and time again and were totally comfortable doing so. Denzel Washington's character never stopped talking and at one point in the film, he had a 13 page monologue that he had to memorize. He was excellent playing a father who is mean, ornery, and miserable and has so many faults that you become unsympathetic to his character by the end of the film. Mr. Wilson tricks us into believing that he is a hard-working everyman to start with. By the end of the film, we realize that his wife, played brilliantly by Viola Davis, is the only hero in this film. My sympathy toward Denzel's charactor was gone as I watched his wife pick up the pieces of the wreckage he left and make the family's life as smooth as it could be given the situation.
Overall, this play adated to the screen felt just that way: most of the film was set either in the backyard or the kitchen of the home, there was almost no discernable "action". The entire film was based on the dialogue between characters. I am conflicted about this film. I don;t think adapting it to the big screen hurt or helped it. I think it felt like I was watching a play on TV instead of a movie based on a play. It was good but not good enough to beat Arrival or Hidden Figures in my book.
Overall rating 3/5
AND THE LAST ONE:
Lion
OK. This film was a true feel good story and may have been the best film of the bunch. The basic plot was that a 5 year old boy from a third-world, perennially poor part of India gets separated ffrom his brother and gets lost. He is adopted by a middle class family in Australia who raise, him, allow him to be college-educated and excape the poverty he would have been stuck in if he remained in India,
He eventually uses Google Earth to find out where his hometown was and returns to find his family. It was a very well made film with excellent acting and a great story. The scenes where the boy reunites with his Mom (both in the film and the real world shots they show during the credits) are truly moving.
It is truly a story of irony as he would have never used a computer if he didn't get lost and adopted to a better country. If you put yourself in the true mothers shoes, how would you feel missing your son grow upbut knowing his life would be truly better because he grew up soemwhere else? A great premise that made you think. And it was a good film in all areas.
Overall rating 4/5.
AND THE OSCAR GOES TO: "Arrival" in my opinion. Although, this year's class was WEAK overall. Not one film has stunned me as in years past. I'm a little disappointed to be honest. that being said, I think Arrival's mental questions were enough to carry it to the top. Hidden Figures or Lion would be my second choice. Moonlight (which won the Oscar) was good as well but the ending scene killed it in my opinion. I hope next year is better....
Friday, February 24, 2017
Tuesday, February 21, 2017
2016 OSCAR BLOG POST
As usual, I am a year behind but I may become more up to date as we purchased an Amazon firestick. So now I have access to movies in a much more timely fashion. Hopefully, I'll get my blogs up in the same calendar year that the films are nominated for. That being said, there were eight movies nominated in the year 2016 and I will review them as I watch them. We already know Spotlight took home best picture. DeCaprio walked out with best actor, Brie Larson won for her performance in Room, and Innaritu won best director for the second year in a row for The Revenant (last year was Birdman). That being said, here are my reviews of each film:
MAD MAX: FURY ROAD
After having not seen the original Mad Max movies in probably 20ish years (and not remembering a whole lot about them to be honest), I was a little intrigued by this nomination. I don't remember the older films being anything special besides the special effects and outlandishness of the plot, setting, and characters. After watching this film, I am pretty sure that this nomination was in recognition of George Miller's lifetime contributions to film; not for the actual movie. I wasn't expecting very much to be honest so I wasn't let down per se; just not a lot going on here. The scenery and setting were phenomenal and the special effects were first rate. Some of the chase scenes were fantastic and the cinematography was top notch. That being said, I felt no empathy or connection to any of the characters at any point and the simple "get out of Dodge" at all costs plot was thin at best. I honestly can't believe this film was nominated as a stand-alone production. As I stated earlier, this is one of those "body of work" nominations that directors get at the end of their careers. My rating is a 2/ 5. If you aren't a a fan of this genre, then I wouldn't even watch it.
BRIDGE OF SPIES
Going into this, I knew very little about this story except that Gary Powers was shot down in Russian airspace in the U2 spyplane. This is only a sidestory for the film we see though. James Donavan (played by Tom Hanks) is the negotiator sent by the US government to get Mr. Powers back. He has a bargaining chip, Rudolph Abel, a russian spy who was caught by the USA. The story unfolds as Donovan heads to East Berlin during the cold war crisis to negotiate a trade. The plot is good, the acting better, and the directing is good as well. I don't think I noticed any flaws during the first viewing. It was a well made movie. That being said, that is the highest compliment I can give it. It was a good story and a well made movie. I don't think it was Oscar material- certainly not a best picture winner. When the film ended, so did my interaction with it. No bigger picture, no deeper questions to be asked about it or the story.
Sidenote: The film did get a bonus for casting two actors who appeared in "The Wire" though. Any film gets a bump up for that.
Again, I have no complaints at all but I just didn't think it did anything to separate itself from the other well-made movies of 2015. Overall rating 3.5/ 5.
THE REVENANT
I think my opinion of this film was affected by the pre-game hype it recieved. Innaritu coming off Birdman (which I loved except the ending), DeCaprio seeking revenge, eating real Bison hearts in the middle of the wilderness, etc. Tom Hardy as the bad guy? What wasn't going to be great about this movie? After seeing the original way in which Birdman was orchestrated, directed, and filmed, I was expecting a different take on the traditional revenge story. I thought for sure Innaritu would do soemthing to dazzle. This was the first place I was let down. It was shot in a very traditional, though beautiful, straightforward method. Don't get me wrong, it was borderline perfect but I was expecting a little more. And the screenplay was lacking for sure. I kept expecting a new angle or twist on what ended up being a simple revenge story. Never happened. I was disappointed here for sure.
As a craft, the filmmaking was flawless. The movie's score was fine, the cinematography was perfect, the directing was on point. The setting was beautiful, the acting was good as well even if it was a little thin on substance. The film does get bonus points for the CGI bear that attacked DeCaprio. That was painful to watch. It made me want to stay out of the woods forever.
Taking all of the film's obvious strengths into account, I couldn't get over the weak screenplay and lack of substance in the plot. Overall rating 3.5/ 5.
ROOM
After two really good movies and a not-so-Oscar movie, I was starting to lose hope about this year's class of best picture candidates. I didn't know much about Room going in and still don't know if it is based on a real-life story or not. It doesn't matter. The plot is such that you have to watch. The problem with watching the film is that one part of you knows that you are watching a depiction of one of the worst things we, as humans, are capable of. Here is a quick plot synopsos: a 17 year old girl is kidnapped by a stranger and forced to live in his shed in his back yard. Being a forethinking psychopathic child-abductor, he has furnished it with just enough to survive; a sink, bathtub, and a small kitchenette. She lives there for the next seven years and has a son (by her captor) after two years of imprisonment. The son is not allowed to leave- he thinks the entire world is encapsulated within this "room." After about 45 movie minutes, they escape.
Logically, you would think the film would take a turn upwards after they gain their freedom. However, they both face the reality that neither of them has spent a minute in the world in 7 years (all his life for the boy). This is when the film really makes you uncomfortable; you are made to process the horror of the act that was perpetrated on the girl as she tries to fit back in with her family and society and raise a fatherless child who has no clue what the world is; much less how to fit in.
As depressing as all of this is, you also see the flip side; both mother and son slowly progress back into society. The change they make inspires you to realize that whatever crap is in your life, it can't be that bad. This film was an excellent potrayal of the human spirit and what we can accomplish when motivated.
Brie Larson won best actress for this just about everywhere. She deserved it. The kid (Jacob Tremblay) was excellent as well. It is a simply shot film that relies on the emotional impact of the situation to speak for it.
You must see this film; don't expect it to make you comfortable and don' expect to like it. Expect to learn a lesson about humanity and question what things in your life are really"stressful."
Overall rating 5/5.
THE MARTIAN
Left behind by his crew (through no fault of their own), Matt Damon's astrounaut character must figure out how to survive on Mars for four years on a food supply that should last about 90 days. He does manage to make it with the assorted hiccups and pitfalls associated with flying solo on an uninhabitable planet with nothing around but some left-over NASA equipment and good old ingenuity. When it is time for Damon to be rescued, this story becomes slightly predictable with the almost didn't make it in outer space finish. That barely diminishes the performance Damon gives as someone alone on Mars for 600 days and the worldwide effort made by humans on Earth to bring him home.
Another story of the great accomplishments people are capable of when motivated, this story is entertaining and will draw you in based on the sheer weight of Damon's isolation on Mars.
Overall rating 4/5.
BROOKLYN
A coming of age story from a turn of the century irish immigrant who comes to Brooklyn and meets the Italian boy of her dreams. She is called back to Ireland and easily falls back into the familiar culture and temptations it provides; despite being secretly married before leaving to return home to Ireland.
A decent film- not the emotional rollercoaster that Room is by any means. This movie is well made but falls short on plot, screenplay, and emotional depth when compared to the others. If you are not a romance fan, this one can probably be skipped.
Overall rating 3/5
SPOTLIGHT
This film chronicles the Boston Globe's investigative team as it examines and uncovers the Catholic Church's attempts to hide the priest abuse cases in Boston during the 60's, 70's, 80's and beyond. Releasing the article in early 2002 shook the foundation of the church and its believers as the truth of the scandal was exposed. A brilliant screenplay shines as the actors involved played their parts perfectly. The directorial prowess of "The Wire" actor Tom McCarthy (reporter in the last season) was fully visible as the pacing, setting and shooting were perfect. For a film with literally no action (not one fight, car chase, murder, etc.), this film moves quickly and never has the feel of being boring or drawn out. It is a true example of how a great screenplay can carry a movie.
The absolute criminal intent of the Catholic church is brought out beautifully in this film. There is no doubt that the church not only covered for these pedofiles but did so in a way to deceive the public and keep their legal liability to a minimum. Exposing one of the strongest organizations in the world to their roots is not an easy task for four investigative reporters to take on. Played beautifully by Michael Keeton, Mark Ruffalo, Rachel McAdams, and Brian d'arcy James, these reporters wouldn't give up and eventually exposed one of the biggest scandals of the last 100 years.
This film is my pick for the Best Picture of this year. It provides clarity to not only how the Catholic Church got away with these travesties, but how the community let it go on; despite everyone knowing on some level what was happening. A fantastic film that everyone should see.
Overall rating 5/5.
THE BIG SHORT
This film was similar to Spotlight in that its focus was to expose another corrupt situation. This one dealt with the banking industry in relation to the housing market collapse in 2009. As Spotlight did, this film left no room for interpretation or doubt about the guilty parties. The banking industry was all but unregulated as this went down due to lack of money and staff in the SEC at this time. As a result of their lack of oversight combined with unscrupulous banking practices, the housing market was allowed to completely run off the rails with the taxpayers picking up the tab for the self- destruction caused by the banks.
As far as the film itself, the shining star was Steve Carell. He was fantastic as one of the few people who saw this coming and as a result, used the system to make a ton of money. His character kept trying to find out reasons to not invest in this scheme. Through his gathering of information, the depths of the scandalous banking practices are exposed. His character flaws combined with his tenacious work ethic make him a total antihero who you find yourself rooting for anyway.
Outside of Carrell's performance, I felt the rest of the film was rather pedestrian. The screenplay was good, the plot was well-paced, the dialouge was good; not great. The other actors were fine but I didn't feel much else stood out. You should definitely watch this film just to see the depths of corruption that were perpetuated by the banks and unchecked by the government.
Overall rating 3.5/ 5
Overall, not a bad year for the Oscars: two great movies, two pretty good movies, a couple of thro-ins at the end to satisfy the fans of the genres they represent. I'm never let down by the movies nominated for best picture.
MAD MAX: FURY ROAD
After having not seen the original Mad Max movies in probably 20ish years (and not remembering a whole lot about them to be honest), I was a little intrigued by this nomination. I don't remember the older films being anything special besides the special effects and outlandishness of the plot, setting, and characters. After watching this film, I am pretty sure that this nomination was in recognition of George Miller's lifetime contributions to film; not for the actual movie. I wasn't expecting very much to be honest so I wasn't let down per se; just not a lot going on here. The scenery and setting were phenomenal and the special effects were first rate. Some of the chase scenes were fantastic and the cinematography was top notch. That being said, I felt no empathy or connection to any of the characters at any point and the simple "get out of Dodge" at all costs plot was thin at best. I honestly can't believe this film was nominated as a stand-alone production. As I stated earlier, this is one of those "body of work" nominations that directors get at the end of their careers. My rating is a 2/ 5. If you aren't a a fan of this genre, then I wouldn't even watch it.
BRIDGE OF SPIES
Going into this, I knew very little about this story except that Gary Powers was shot down in Russian airspace in the U2 spyplane. This is only a sidestory for the film we see though. James Donavan (played by Tom Hanks) is the negotiator sent by the US government to get Mr. Powers back. He has a bargaining chip, Rudolph Abel, a russian spy who was caught by the USA. The story unfolds as Donovan heads to East Berlin during the cold war crisis to negotiate a trade. The plot is good, the acting better, and the directing is good as well. I don't think I noticed any flaws during the first viewing. It was a well made movie. That being said, that is the highest compliment I can give it. It was a good story and a well made movie. I don't think it was Oscar material- certainly not a best picture winner. When the film ended, so did my interaction with it. No bigger picture, no deeper questions to be asked about it or the story.
Sidenote: The film did get a bonus for casting two actors who appeared in "The Wire" though. Any film gets a bump up for that.
Again, I have no complaints at all but I just didn't think it did anything to separate itself from the other well-made movies of 2015. Overall rating 3.5/ 5.
THE REVENANT
I think my opinion of this film was affected by the pre-game hype it recieved. Innaritu coming off Birdman (which I loved except the ending), DeCaprio seeking revenge, eating real Bison hearts in the middle of the wilderness, etc. Tom Hardy as the bad guy? What wasn't going to be great about this movie? After seeing the original way in which Birdman was orchestrated, directed, and filmed, I was expecting a different take on the traditional revenge story. I thought for sure Innaritu would do soemthing to dazzle. This was the first place I was let down. It was shot in a very traditional, though beautiful, straightforward method. Don't get me wrong, it was borderline perfect but I was expecting a little more. And the screenplay was lacking for sure. I kept expecting a new angle or twist on what ended up being a simple revenge story. Never happened. I was disappointed here for sure.
As a craft, the filmmaking was flawless. The movie's score was fine, the cinematography was perfect, the directing was on point. The setting was beautiful, the acting was good as well even if it was a little thin on substance. The film does get bonus points for the CGI bear that attacked DeCaprio. That was painful to watch. It made me want to stay out of the woods forever.
Taking all of the film's obvious strengths into account, I couldn't get over the weak screenplay and lack of substance in the plot. Overall rating 3.5/ 5.
ROOM
After two really good movies and a not-so-Oscar movie, I was starting to lose hope about this year's class of best picture candidates. I didn't know much about Room going in and still don't know if it is based on a real-life story or not. It doesn't matter. The plot is such that you have to watch. The problem with watching the film is that one part of you knows that you are watching a depiction of one of the worst things we, as humans, are capable of. Here is a quick plot synopsos: a 17 year old girl is kidnapped by a stranger and forced to live in his shed in his back yard. Being a forethinking psychopathic child-abductor, he has furnished it with just enough to survive; a sink, bathtub, and a small kitchenette. She lives there for the next seven years and has a son (by her captor) after two years of imprisonment. The son is not allowed to leave- he thinks the entire world is encapsulated within this "room." After about 45 movie minutes, they escape.
Logically, you would think the film would take a turn upwards after they gain their freedom. However, they both face the reality that neither of them has spent a minute in the world in 7 years (all his life for the boy). This is when the film really makes you uncomfortable; you are made to process the horror of the act that was perpetrated on the girl as she tries to fit back in with her family and society and raise a fatherless child who has no clue what the world is; much less how to fit in.
As depressing as all of this is, you also see the flip side; both mother and son slowly progress back into society. The change they make inspires you to realize that whatever crap is in your life, it can't be that bad. This film was an excellent potrayal of the human spirit and what we can accomplish when motivated.
Brie Larson won best actress for this just about everywhere. She deserved it. The kid (Jacob Tremblay) was excellent as well. It is a simply shot film that relies on the emotional impact of the situation to speak for it.
You must see this film; don't expect it to make you comfortable and don' expect to like it. Expect to learn a lesson about humanity and question what things in your life are really"stressful."
Overall rating 5/5.
THE MARTIAN
Left behind by his crew (through no fault of their own), Matt Damon's astrounaut character must figure out how to survive on Mars for four years on a food supply that should last about 90 days. He does manage to make it with the assorted hiccups and pitfalls associated with flying solo on an uninhabitable planet with nothing around but some left-over NASA equipment and good old ingenuity. When it is time for Damon to be rescued, this story becomes slightly predictable with the almost didn't make it in outer space finish. That barely diminishes the performance Damon gives as someone alone on Mars for 600 days and the worldwide effort made by humans on Earth to bring him home.
Another story of the great accomplishments people are capable of when motivated, this story is entertaining and will draw you in based on the sheer weight of Damon's isolation on Mars.
Overall rating 4/5.
BROOKLYN
A coming of age story from a turn of the century irish immigrant who comes to Brooklyn and meets the Italian boy of her dreams. She is called back to Ireland and easily falls back into the familiar culture and temptations it provides; despite being secretly married before leaving to return home to Ireland.
A decent film- not the emotional rollercoaster that Room is by any means. This movie is well made but falls short on plot, screenplay, and emotional depth when compared to the others. If you are not a romance fan, this one can probably be skipped.
Overall rating 3/5
SPOTLIGHT
This film chronicles the Boston Globe's investigative team as it examines and uncovers the Catholic Church's attempts to hide the priest abuse cases in Boston during the 60's, 70's, 80's and beyond. Releasing the article in early 2002 shook the foundation of the church and its believers as the truth of the scandal was exposed. A brilliant screenplay shines as the actors involved played their parts perfectly. The directorial prowess of "The Wire" actor Tom McCarthy (reporter in the last season) was fully visible as the pacing, setting and shooting were perfect. For a film with literally no action (not one fight, car chase, murder, etc.), this film moves quickly and never has the feel of being boring or drawn out. It is a true example of how a great screenplay can carry a movie.
The absolute criminal intent of the Catholic church is brought out beautifully in this film. There is no doubt that the church not only covered for these pedofiles but did so in a way to deceive the public and keep their legal liability to a minimum. Exposing one of the strongest organizations in the world to their roots is not an easy task for four investigative reporters to take on. Played beautifully by Michael Keeton, Mark Ruffalo, Rachel McAdams, and Brian d'arcy James, these reporters wouldn't give up and eventually exposed one of the biggest scandals of the last 100 years.
This film is my pick for the Best Picture of this year. It provides clarity to not only how the Catholic Church got away with these travesties, but how the community let it go on; despite everyone knowing on some level what was happening. A fantastic film that everyone should see.
Overall rating 5/5.
THE BIG SHORT
This film was similar to Spotlight in that its focus was to expose another corrupt situation. This one dealt with the banking industry in relation to the housing market collapse in 2009. As Spotlight did, this film left no room for interpretation or doubt about the guilty parties. The banking industry was all but unregulated as this went down due to lack of money and staff in the SEC at this time. As a result of their lack of oversight combined with unscrupulous banking practices, the housing market was allowed to completely run off the rails with the taxpayers picking up the tab for the self- destruction caused by the banks.
As far as the film itself, the shining star was Steve Carell. He was fantastic as one of the few people who saw this coming and as a result, used the system to make a ton of money. His character kept trying to find out reasons to not invest in this scheme. Through his gathering of information, the depths of the scandalous banking practices are exposed. His character flaws combined with his tenacious work ethic make him a total antihero who you find yourself rooting for anyway.
Outside of Carrell's performance, I felt the rest of the film was rather pedestrian. The screenplay was good, the plot was well-paced, the dialouge was good; not great. The other actors were fine but I didn't feel much else stood out. You should definitely watch this film just to see the depths of corruption that were perpetuated by the banks and unchecked by the government.
Overall rating 3.5/ 5
Overall, not a bad year for the Oscars: two great movies, two pretty good movies, a couple of thro-ins at the end to satisfy the fans of the genres they represent. I'm never let down by the movies nominated for best picture.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
