September has been a slow movie watching month for me, mainly because there was a lot of biking to get ready for a week long 300 mile plus biking "vacation" but I did see a few films.
One of the best films so far this year is the widely praised DUNKIRK which more than lived up to my expectations. I've waited (and I don't know why!) nearly two months to see it and it is well worth the wait. Director Christopher Nolan expertly floats the action between air, sea and land stories--each intense with drama and suspense, the result is sometimes nerve wracking and finally exhausting, so that the finale culminates in what was for me a very moving and poeticly resolving (and tearful) 20 minutes. Is it the best war film ever? Certainly not, but in focusing on just the DUNKIRK situation that has hundreds of thousands of British (and French) soldiers cornered on a desolate beach during WWII, awaiting certain death from the German air force, this film captures the chaos, fear, patriotism and survival themes that every great war film offers. There is no single actor that stands out, although all of them have their moments. Biggest names are Kenneth Branagh (on land), Tom Hardy (in air) and Mark Rylance (on water.) What is really effective, however, are so many individual sequences--an early scene where the small town is peppered with propaganda leaflets promising certain doom, soldiers waiting for the tide to lift their stranded boat off the mud, and being used as target practice by the Germans, and full large boats with injured soldiers trying to set off for England only to be tragically bombarded, and exciting air battles with "you are there" visuals. Each scene is filmed with an urgency and skill that only a mature, knowing director can bring, and is highlighted with a classical, memorable musical score by the excellent Hans Zimmer. This film is a highlight of a year which includes (so far) great films from SIFF including THE BIG SICK, AT THE END OF THE TUNNEL, THE NET, I DANIEL BLAKE and WIND RIVER, and unlike those more intimate experiences, DUNKIRK demands to be seen on a large screen. GRADE-----------A-
I've always been impressed with the willingness of director Darren Aronofsky to go over the top in some of his films in a way that represents extreme psychological stress and drama in such films as REQUIEM FOR A DREAM, BLACK SWAN and even NOAH, and in this newest film MOTHER! he really creates a horrific view of a mad, mad world out of control. The film has divided the critics and the public into equally strong camps of "love it or hate it", but when I read the New York Times interview with the director and actors of MOTHER! last week I knew I had to see it. The main criticism for the film is that most people have no idea what is going on in the movie--things seem to happen out of context and the symbolism seems out of control. Half way through this long interview, the "explanation" of MOTHER! is presented, apparently against the wishes of Aronofsky. In some ways I wish I hadn't read it before seeing it, but on the other hand, the film makes perfect and horrifying sense to me knowing what I was watching, and I was very stunned and impressed. ||| STOP READING HERE IF YOU DON'T WANT TO KNOW WHAT THE DIRECTOR HAD IN MIND. ||| The film is an allegory of the book of Genesis. The husband, played by Javier Bardem is a blocked poet whose creativity has hit the wall. Jennifer Lawrence is his wife, who is obsessed with fixing up the dilapidated mansion in which they live. Bardem is a God figure, open and receptive to all types of people. Lawrence is a "mother earth" character (the main point of view in the film) responsible for nurturing and growing their "garden of Eden" and the cast includes Adam and Eve, Cain and Abel, and Jesus and the destruction of the earth by those who would pollute the earth with heathen worship and destructive violence, albeit a bit heavy handedly. The film IS curious even knowing this format, and there is a dangerous theme of blood and death that adds to the feeling of dread that is created here. Aronofsky creates a world that is evil and sad, although I wouldn't consider the film to be the typical "horror" film it has sometimes been promoted as. I wouldn't recommend this film to just any one, and certainly not without some explanation, but for film buffs like me, and for Bible readers with open minds, MOTHER! is the most audacious and creative film of the year. GRADE--------B+
Led by a sympathetic yet unsaccharine performance by Jake Gyllenhaal and based on the true story of the Boston marathon bombs that destroyed both his legs, STRONGER is a satisfying drama that focuses not on the bombers, but on the recovery effort by real life character Jeff Bauman to deal with the adulation from fans that want to make a hero of him, when all he wants to do is heal his wounds. Tatiana Maslany (ORPHAN BLACK) is excellent as his girlfriend who loves him when he has problems of loving himself, and Miranda Richardson is nearly unrecognizable as his alcoholic mother who doesn't want to lose him to his girlfriend. The characters are gritty, gripping and involving all the way, lifting it about other true life stories with similar themes. GRADE--------B
French film by Luc and Jean-Pierre Dardenne is one of their lessor efforts--a young doctor doesn't answer the clinic door late one night only to discover the ringer, a young girl was found murdered the next morning, and she spends several weeks trying to find out her name and where she was from and why she was murdered. She persists with her inquiries against the advise of the local police and she is threatened by local gangsters. THE UNKNOWN GIRL is in the usual laid back manner of the Dardenne brothers other films, and I had questions about why she would be so persistent when things were obviously so dangerous for her. Also, the actress in the lead seemed so immature as to be miscast. Frustrating but not so dull, the film maintains a low burn that might work for some viewers. GRADE--------B-
A first time independent film by a new female French director, BEACH RATS has a naturalistic, tense tone that kept me interested. A young man is losing his father to cancer, while starting a new relationship with a local girl, yet seems obsessed with cruising the Internet to pick up older men for sexual encounters. He's pretty confused about a lot of things, to say the least. The film relies on too much hand held camera work, but there are a number of surprising scenes and it captures our sympathies with interesting characters. GRADE-----------B-
When this film opened in Seattle several weeks ago, I thought I hadn't seen it, but reading the review for CROWN HEIGHTS I realized I had seen it at SIFF several months back. This is based on a true story about a man accused and sentenced to prison for a murder he didn't commit--he didn't even know the victim, but because he was black, no one would believe him, except his close friend who spent nearly 20 years trying to clear his name. It's an important story, but the film making is routine, and none of the actors really stand out, and I remember watching this film thinking it should have been better. Unfortunately it is not very memorable. GRADE---------C+
VIEWED ON DVD---------------
PHILADELPHIA STORY 1940 --Amazingly, I had never seen this Katherine Hepburn, Cary Grant, and Jimmy Stewart film, despite having read several biographies about Hepburn and Grant, and I just finished reading one on Stewart (it won him his one and only Oscar for best actor.) I've read so much about the film, the making of, and politics of and the history of the story turned play turned movie, I guess I felt like I'd already seen it. The script is smartly written and there are some very funny moments, and Hepburn (who made something of a comeback after a series of flops) and Grant are pretty good. But I was really intrigued by Stewart, who plays more of a very pivotal but supporting role in this film--he is amazingly good that he manages to steal the film from Hepburn and especially Grant. He's got his usual ticks and mannerism, but his timing is super, and he was at a career peak at the time: YOU CAN'T TAKE IT WITH YOU 1938, MADE FOR EACH OTHER 1939, MR. SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON 1939, THE SHOP AROUND THE CORNER 1940--Each of this films were critically very popular and many felt he should have won the Oscar for any one of them. And he hadn't even appeared in the four classic Hitchcock films in the 1950's (ROPE, VERTIGO, REAR WINDOW, MAN WHO KNEW TOO MUCH) and the wonderful Anthony Mann westerns of the 1960's. GRADE--------------A-
REVIVAL-------------------
INHERENT VICE 2014-- Set in the psychedelic 1960's and based on a novel by Thomas Pynchon, this film by Paul Thomas Anderson is a curious comedy/drama about a detective (Joaquin Phoenix) trying to find a missing billionaire among an odd assortment of characters. I saw this at the 70 mm festival at the Cinerama--the print was good, but I wondered why it needed to be seen in 70mm--nothing seemed to warrant that type of screening. I had mixed feelings about the film--Anderson is always a challenging and intelligent director and I'm never bored, but sometimes his films just don't connect with my sensibilities, as intrigingly made as they are. BOOGIE NIGHTS 1997, MAGNOLIA 1999, PUNCH DRUNK LOVE 2003, THERE WILL BE BLOOD 2007, THE MASTER 2012. What I liked most of the above films were the actors that were featured in them: Mark Wahlberg (and Burt Reynolds, Julianne Moore, Heather Graham and others, ) Tom Cruise, Adam Sandler, Daniel Day-Lewis, Philip Seymour Hoffman--respectively. GRADE------B
COMING SOON: A REPORT FROM VIFF (VANCOUVER INTERNATIONAL FILM FESTIVAL........
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)