Change Your Image
trublu215
Latest Message Board Posts
Reviews
Manchester by the Sea (2016)
A Slow Burn Drama featuring an Unforgettable Performance from Casey Affleck.
Manchester By the Sea is a hard hitting human drama from veteran writer/director Kenneth Lonergan about a lonely New England janitor who is forced into fatherhood after the sudden death of his older brother leaves him the sole guardian of his teenage nephew. First off, this film has fantastic performances. Everything you've heard is true and then some about the performances in this film, Casey Affleck especially. The supporting cast of Michelle Williams, Kyle Chandler, Lucas Hedges and more are all phenomenal as well. It is very clear that Affleck set the tone for the film. Without him, this film would never even have gotten off the ground. The work he does here is truly special. The only issues this film has are in its writer/director.
Kenneth Lonergan is no stranger to post-production dramatics and behind the scene meltdowns. After seeing Manchester by the Sea, I know why. The man is greedy with his films. Manchester by the Sea could have easily had thirty minutes taken out of it. The issue here is that Lonergan is so in love with the film he crafted that he doesn't take into account that the film itself is actually boring as hell. The only reason anyone wants to keep watching is Casey Affleck and even then, the film is so depressing and sad that it is hard to actively want to continue to watch it.
Overall, Manchester By the Sea is more of a film about Casey Affleck's performance than it is anything else. The film itself is boring and moves extremely slow but Casey Affleck makes you want to keep watching and for an actor's performance to be so good that you almost forget your watching a boring film...that's pretty amazing to me.
Gold (2016)
Entertaining Yet Uninspired.
Gold is, by far, the oddest film of the Oscar season. It's not good enough to be featured with some other award-based films yet it is far from being a bad film. It's just a very uninspired piece of filmmaking that had an excellent script and a great cast to it, yet no flavor to the filmmaking here. It is a standardized piece that serves as a lackluster love letter to Martin Scorsese and David O. Russell without ever really admitting it. Majority of this film is spent watching McCounaughey's Kenny Wells as he maneuvers through businessmen that want him to be put down, political groups that want to steal his fortune and friends he can barely trust. It sounds like an amazing film and it could have been had Gaghan not directed this film himself. Every frame that passes, it feels like Gaghan was either worried about feeling too much like Scorsese or worried that it wasn't enough like Scorsese. Either way, we know where his influences lie here. Honestly, you're better off watching The Wolf of Wall Street, if you're hoping for something like that.
Stephen Gaghan is a very talented writer, he's given us very layered stories with very interesting characters but this particular topic feels like it went over his head. It is never engaging enough to sustain lasting power. McConaughey and the rest of the cast do a fine job, nothing outstanding but fine nonetheless. This was probably the most disappointing part of this film. Over the past 5 years, Matthew McConaughey has given us more than enough reason to love his performances. They're layered, they're relate-able and, most of all, they're acted to perfection. This performance, in which he trades in his slim physique for a bloated, overweight and balding man. Right off the bat, this may have been a physically demanding role for McConaughey and he does put his all into his performance but it still doesn't match the caliber of his previous performances. His dedication is clear but it still didn't feel like the great performance we thought he could give in this film which comes back to the issue of Gaghan's direction.
Overall, Gold is far from a bad movie. There are cool scenes in it that are bound to interest you even if it's for a little bit. But this is a film that comes down to a problem with the director. Gaghan, while being a very talented writer, has a hard time determining his own vision for a film that had many chances to be great but failed to really capitalize on any of its strengths. By the end of the film, you won't feel cheated out of your ticket money but I'm sure you won't feel all that good about it either.
Fences (2016)
This is a film for performances above all else.
Fences, based on the award winning play by August Wilson, is a brilliantly acted drama centered around a black father trying to do right by his family in 1950s Pittsburgh. Directed and adapted by Denzel Washington, Fences shows that Washington is far less interested in crafting a film than he is in showing raw human emotion. The basics of it is simple: this is the best acted film of the year. Hands down. Between Viola Davis' brilliant performance as Rose Maxon and Denzel Washington's fierce portrayal of Troy Maxon, the performances are so rich and so layered that you end up not caring about any of the film's faults.
It's hard to not look at this film like the play it is based on. It never ventures from being what it was meant to be and for that, I have to commend Washington's determination even if I thought it really ended up trivializing some of the film. The film is a compelling drama about the relationship between a father and a son and the resentment that can be a part of something like that. We've seen many films like this before but never have we seen a film with the performances this film has. I can't praise the actors here enough. They're truly mystifying.
Overall, Fences is a performance heavy film that relies on its actors to progress the film. Many films are afraid to take a chance like that but Denzel Washington nails it in ways that I don't think another director could. This is a film that will resonate with you, not because of anything that happens but because of the tenacity of the filmmaker and his quest to make a performance based film. It is the best acted film of the year, there is no question about that.
Hidden Figures (2016)
A film so concerned with being a political statement that it forgets to be a good film.
Hidden Figures tells the story of three African American women in the late sixties as they become instrumental to NASA in putting John Glen on the moon. Directed by Theodore Melfi and stars Taraji P. Henson, Octavia Spencer, Kevin Costner and Kirstin Dunst, Hidden Figures would be a good film had it not been so concerned with the idea of the empowerment of women that it forgot to be a good, engaging film. It has the proper ingredients to become a heavy hitter but trades it in using its excellent cast as more of a political statement than anything else.
The film starts off by introducing us to Katherine Johnson, Dorothy Vaughn, and Mary Jackson (Henson, Spencer and Janelle Moàne) in almost the exact same ways. We see that Katherine is a number cruncher and a brilliant woman all around...then the exact same character traits are rehashed for Spencer and Moàne's characters. There is nothing different between the women, there are 3 of the same character in one film. The only difference between the three is Taraji P. Henson's excellent performance that makes her thoroughly enjoyable throughout a film that would have been a direct-to-digital film otherwise. The film does very little to give any development to these women and keeps drowning us in the notion that "this is girl power." It became extremely redundant after awhile and left me waiting for the film to get serious but it never did. This is a film that is more about what the characters did rather than how and why they did it.
Overall, Hidden Figures is a bland film with paper thin characters that tries to make more of a political statement rather than make a good film. This is a perfect example of political climate affecting creative endeavors. If there were anything I could say it is: if you're going to see the film, see it for no other reason than Taraji P. Henson's excellent performance. Taking her out of this film in any way, shape or form would have probably stopped this film in the development process but then again, maybe that is where this should have stayed.
Assassin's Creed (2016)
A film that wishes it was half as smart as its source material.
Assassin's Creed is Hollywood's latest addition to the already dreary video game movie genre and it is a borderline disaster. I won't spoil anything here but the film is one of the most convoluted films of the year and tries so hard to be smarter than it is. Despite the best efforts from Michael Fassbender, Marion Coltiard, and Jeremy Irons along with the absolutely brilliant and daring stunt team, this is a film that misses every single chance at being something truly great.
This is especially disappointing when considering the talent behind this film. Director Justin Kurzel of last year's Macbeth and 2013's brilliant yet overbearingly brutal The Snowtown Murders, tests his luck with a tired genre. There is no doubt that Kurzel wanted this to be a down-to-earth, gritty film but what he ends with is something that looks tamed and feels more like a studio tent-pole film rather than a film that can stand on its own two feet.
Much like the video game franchise Assassin's Creed tells the story of felon Cal Lynch as he is recruited by an organization to travel back in time through his bloodline in hopes of understanding a secret society known as the assassins and then...well, considering it takes me that long to even explain the plot should give you a good idea of what I'm talking about. As you can probably tell, this turns into another lone wolf against his creator type of film. It's boring, unimaginative and incoherent through most of its bloated 140 minutes despite having all the ingredients to be something a little more than what we get. Instead, we trade in slow burn drama and phenomenally choreographed for just phenomenally choreographed fight sequences, wooden acting (even for Fassbender) and a third act that is simply abysmal.
As a casual fan of the source material, there are a few things the film does get right. Most of the fights and the fighting style are very well done and brilliantly executed. While they do not hold as much of the punch it needs, it still gets the job done. Cal Lynch is an awesome character but Fassbender plays him a little too seriously for my taste. For a film with a plot as ridiculous as this, there should be a little more humor to it. Instead Kurzel chooses to show this ultra serious when he really should have either went all in or not at all.
Overall, this film is not very good at all. There is some pretty excellent stunt work and a few action sequences that were close to being awesome but it ends up collapsing under the weight of its own overtly dark tone and needlessly confusing script. There is a good movie lurking inside this 140 minute beast, maybe one day it'll be found.
Live by Night (2016)
A frustrating film that is well intended and, at times, thrilling but never reaches what it aspires to be.
Live By Night tells the story of gangster Joe Coughlin (Ben Affleck) as he rises, falls then rises again through the criminal underworlds of Boston and Miami. Chronicling his life throughout the prohibition era in America, Joe becomes involved in the most nefarious of situations. He survives a bank heist gone wrong in which a police officers winds up dead, he survives a long stint in prison caused by the betrayal of his femme fatale Emma (Sienne Miller), he goes through so much in the film that you start to wonder less about what is going to happen than as to why it is happening. This is a film that feels incomplete, rushed and all together shallow. Ben Affleck, who has given us some pretty incredible films up until now, shows his weaknesses as a screenwriter but continues to give us more than enough to chew when it comes to his direction.
While I did want more out of this film, there is no denying that Affleck can most certainly stage some breathtaking action sequences. He knows when to get close, he knows what to show and when to show it. Live By Night is no exception to that standard in regards to how everything is shown. Some major highlights of the film include a vicious car chase through a country back road, copious amounts of bloody shootouts and brutal fights throughout yet we feel disengaged by what is going on. We don't know enough about anyone in the film outside of Joe to be connected to them, let alone feel bad when someone dies. To be quite honest, the film is 128 minutes and has about 100 characters in it...none of which you end up caring about. This comes down on the shoulders of Affleck as a screenwriter. In many ways, the film plays out like a highlight reel to a HBO mini-series such as Boardwalk Empire. It never really lets us simmer in slow burn human drama and instead gives us an action packed gangster film that is more on the level of Gangster Squad than White Heat.
If there is one thing that I've grown to expect going into a Ben Affleck film, it is that I'm bound to be blown away by the cast if all else fails. While the performances in this film are good, some of them even excellent, it really doesn't translate well when you just don't care about them. Ironically, in a film that is geared towards male characters and dominated by such, the women in this film give tremendous performances. Sienna Miller and Zoe Saldana stand out as two performances that were truly powerhouse even if their screen time collectively added up to maybe twenty minutes all together.
Then there is Chris Messina, who was a bit hard to judge here, considering he is playing a character from the 1930s underworld, but it was extremely hard to take him seriously during times when you wanted nothing more than to be able to take him seriously. At first, I figured he was the comic relief but then I was left waiting for him to drop the act and be serious for a moment. While I know Messina is a phenomenal actor, I just could not take him seriously in this role. Unfortunately, I thought he was too over the top. No matter what my thoughts on Messina were, he still did not compare to how I felt about Ben Affleck's performance as Joe.
While I am a big fan of Ben Affleck, I was severely let down by his performance in this film. I've read about the differences between the film and the novel regarding the age and honestly, I don't really care about that. The film is the film and the book is the book. That isn't my issue here. My issue is how wooden Affleck went to portray Joe. There was nothing new, nothing deep about this character which is pretty disappointing considering both The Town and Gone Baby Gone had tremendous lead characters that made us care about what happens to them. Unfortunately, this isn't the case here. This film does very little to make us care about any character, let alone our lead. Many will argue that watching a criminal empire get built is fascinating no matter how many times we see it, and I agree with that. But when you have someone as uninteresting as Joe Coughlin, something that is supposed to be fun to watch turns into a chore. That is probably the most frustrating thing about this film.
Overall, Live by Night is a throwback to classical gangster films that serves as Ben Affleck's worst directorial effort. With that being said, the film still features some truly thrilling action sequences that are bound to satisfy many even if the film is a bloated mess that should have been larger than what is or nothing at all.
Patriots Day (2016)
Thrilling, Gut Wrenching, and Absolutely Stunning
Patriots Day is a somber film, one that is soaked in contempt for its depiction and skepticism for its accuracy of the events that transpired on April 15, 2013 at the Boston Marathon and then the subsequent events that followed. Well, I can assure those of you who are feeling negative emotions over this, Peter Berg and Mark Wahlberg have created, not only a great film but a respectable one. There are no "lone hero" moments for those of you who see Wahlberg's name in the same sentence as the term Boston Bombing movie and think it will be a balls out action film. Trust me, it is not. It is so far removed from that notion that it made me like the film even more. Despite Wahlberg's character being fictitious, it still holds a great deal of reality to it all.
The film starts off with immediately. There is no sort of fluff to this film, it starts off trying to be as realistic as possible and it achieves this ten fold. It starts on the morning of April 15, 2013 as a beautiful day. Throughout the course of the marathon, we're introduced to a plethora of characters ranging from John Goodman's Ed Davis to Kevin Bacon's Richard DesLauris. Once the film is done getting us acclimated to these people...it happens and when it happens, it is horrifying. The explosion is LOUD. There is no lead up to it, it felt like it did in real life, it's a shock. From this moment on, Patriots Day kicks into a high-octane race against time thriller more in the vein of Zero Dark Thirty.
The film itself is Peter Berg's masterpiece. It is every bit as thrilling and gut-wrenching as it is heartbreaking yet uplifting simultaneously. There is a clear cut love for this film by its maker and it absolutely pays off. The drama is every bit as riveting as the brutal action sequences (especially the final confrontation). This is Berg at his best. He does an amazing job here with both directing and writing and I don't think it will go unnoticed. The score is the other half to this film. Atticus Ross and Trent Reznor do amazing work here in this and it was really cool to see a film that suited their talents as well as this film did.
The acting is absolutely excellent. Mark Wahlberg gives his absolute all in this role. The rage he feels in frame is real, the tears he cries in frame are real and the anger he feels in this is most certainly real. I think it might just be his best performance. J.K. Simmons is another phenomenal actor in this film that gives a perfect performance as Jeffrey Pugliese. To sum it up as best I can, the acting is top-notch and I'd be very surprised if the film didn't garner a couple acting nominations at this point but only time can tell.
Overall, Patriots Day is every bit as thrilling as its true story. It will have you crying, gasping for air, gripping your arm rest and sometimes all at once. Peter Berg delivers an excellent film with Mark Wahlberg giving the most honest performance of his career. I highly recommend it.
La La Land (2016)
An Exercise in Classical Hollywood Filmmaking
La La Land, the wildly beloved Oscar frontrunner, is just as mystifying as critics and audiences said it was. The sweeping cinematography, the perfect, strategically placed lighting, the performances, the dance numbers...it all makes La La Land exactly what people were NOT expecting out of 21st century musical. This is a mystifying burst of classical Hollywood filmmaking. To that effect, there is nothing new rather just a new voice to an old dialog.
Directed by Damien Chazzelle, La La Land is an analytical odyssey of the price of fame as told through the eyes of two big dreamers, an aspiring actress (Emma Stone) and a struggling Jazz musician (Ryan Gosling) as they coast through life in Los Angeles. Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling are fantastic in this film. Emma Stone gives a career best performance and seems to be riding the same prestigious wave she caught with 2014's Birdman. Gosling is equally great but we've come to expect this type of performance from him. The charismatic dreamer with a golden tongue fits Gosling a little too well at this point even if he does it better than any other working actor in Hollywood. While the film is well acted and the choreography in the dance numbers are mesmerizing, La La Land is still a hard film to recommend to anyone not already gung ho for musicals
Despite being toted as the best film of the year, La La Land is exceptionally underwritten. Trading great storytelling for grand musical numbers that are expertly planned and executed, Damien Chazzelle knows the film's strengths and weaknesses. While he plays off of the film's strengths in an expert fashion, he does very little to cover up the film's number one weakness: its script. However, despite this being a weakness, Chazzelle does a wonderful job at making us forget the problems and sinks us into enjoying the film for what its worth.
Overall, La La Land is most certainly an ambitious yet flawed musical from Damien Chazzelle which proves that Whiplash was far from a fluke. Featuring a career best performance from Emma Stone and brilliant camera work along with excellent choreography in its musical numbers, La La Land is a film that will most certainly leave you feeling satisfied even if it doesn't hold the lasting power of Whiplash.
Jackie (2016)
Natalie Portman is terrific as Jackie Kennedy even if the film never catches up to her genius.
Jackie tells the story of former First Lady, Jacqueline Kennedy, as she struggles to cope with the assassination of her husband, John F. Kennedy. While many people are concerned with the magic bullet theory, Jackie is concerned with the life of the woman behind the 35th President of the United States after she endures having to watch her husband die in that now infamous car ride in Dallas. There is no room for macho-ism here. This film is a singular burst of estrogen on screen as we follow Portman's Jackie navigate through the days after her husband's death. This isn't a film in which a woman discovers herself through a man. This is a film about a strong woman put in a near impossible situation and how she coped with that impossible situation to become exactly what she was known to most of the world as: the strongest woman alive.
First off, this film is a brilliant character study. Running at a brisk 96 minutes, the film is relentless in showing every facet of Jackie's life both before and after the assassination. Natalie Portman is astounding as the titular character. She plays Mrs. Kennedy with such honesty and tenacity that it is almost impossible to look away. This is a performance for the ages and definitely Portman's best performance since her Oscar winning performance in Black Swan. While the film features an amazing performance from Portman and the rest of the cast, including an impressive turn from Peter Sarsgaard as Robert F. Kennedy along with Billy Crudup and Greta Gerwig, it fails to captivate the audience past the phenomenal performances.
The film, despite being a brisk 96 minutes, doesn't allow for anything other than the performances to speak. The cinematography, while very nice and well done, doesn't really work like it should. It never feels as grand or as sweeping as it should for such an amazing subject matter. It hits the familiar beats of a character study and walks to the tune of a standard biopic. But no matter how familiar this film ends up feeling, for every standard point to it, there's an extraordinary performance to off set it.
Overall, Jackie is a film that was made for heavy hitting actors that can give breathtaking performances and our cast doesn't disappoint even if the film sometimes does. It hits every familiar beat that the biopic formula has created over the years. While this may sound like a negative, it does fit this film and does wonders for Natalie Portman's searing and commanding performance.
Nocturnal Animals (2016)
Tom Ford's latest is a good thriller that misses the marks of being great
Nocturnal Animals tells the story of Susan, a seemingly rich socialite with a dark past that is brought to light when she receives a copy of her ex-husband's new book. Noticing that the book is mysteriously dedicated to her, she begins to furiously read. The whole film is telling two stories. On one coin, we're being read the book. On the other coin, we're learning of Susan's relationship with her ex-husband. While I am usually all in for intricate films, this film misses the point of a story like this.
The story is highly convoluted and becomes a bit more confusing than it has to be, all the way to the end. It was very frustrating to watch because (not surprisingly) the style and look of the film is very beautiful. Every shot is set up to expose meaning but it ends up looking and feeling more along the lines of style over substance. But no matter how much the story disappoints, the cast fires on all cylinders.
Jake Gyllenhaal, Amy Adams, Michael Shannon and Isla Fisher give phenomenal performances. Each of them are brilliant in their own unique ways, especially Amy Adams. I would be very surprised if she did not score an Oscar nomination (and maybe even a win) for this. Michael Shannon is also very good in this but, at this time in his career, you more so expect him to deliver perfection and this is no exception. The only performance that had me a little shaky was Aaron Taylor Johnson. Without giving too much away, he plays his role over the top and seems to try especially hard to be sinister to no avail.
Overall, it's hard to recommend Nocturnal Animals to an average moviegoer. But if you're a fan of the technicals in film, then you'll appreciate the style that Ford shows here. The look and sleek feel of the frame emulates such films as Drive and Nightcrawler. If only the story was as good as its look, this could have easily been one of the year's finest.,