Darkest Hour

Darkest Hour

I've talked about biopics on here before, and this is exactly what I consider to be a standard Oscar biopic. It didn't anger me, I didn't think it was bad, but this was an Oscar biopic through and through.

Gary Oldman. This whole movie is about Gary Oldman. Yes, Kristin Scott Thomas and Lily James are both very good, but Gary Oldman. Gary Oldman hasn't won an Oscar before, and the only other time Gary Oldman was nominated was for Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy. Gary Oldman is going to win his Gary Oldman Oscar this year and that can finally stop being a piece of Gary Oldman trivia. He does a great job of appearing natural in all of that crazy makeup, feeling less like a Universal monster and more like an actual human being. Of course he has his big Oscar-y speeches (though playing Winston Churchill is arguably good excuse for this), but it's when he's quiet that his performance truly shines. The scene in the tube is the best part of the movie as far as I'm concerned, and it's entirely because of how natural Oldman plays it. However, if he wins best actor it'll be entirely because of how long he's gone without an Oscar. Day-Lewis, Chalamet, and Kaluuya (I haven't seen Roman J. Israel, Esq. but I'm sure Denzel is great) all gave more powerful performances in their respective films than Oldman. Now to be fair, those actors also had massively brilliant scripts to work with, whereas Oldman had the script for, as stated previously, an Oscar biopic. So he certainly had more of an up(church)hill battle to climb, which makes it more okay that he'll inevitably win.

There's really not much else to talk about. The cinematography is fairly standard, with a couple of bizarre digital shots that didn't really fit in the film, the script is solid but not memorable in any way, and the side performances are all good but ultimately outshone by Oldman. As stated in my equally short Death of Stalin review, I'm not a historian, so I have no idea what's accurate here and what isn't, but from what I've read it sounds like the filmmakers definitely did as much homework as they could.

It's a solid, typical, standard Oscar biopic. It's not bad, it's just not my thing.

The Death of Stalin

The Death of Stalin

Armando Ianucci is one of the great brilliant voices in modern comedy. From the brilliant fake British news show The Day Today, to the treasured character Alan Partridge to the up-send of British Parliament The Thick of It, to it's film adaptation In the Loop, to his mighty entrance into American comedy, Veep, this is a guy who really knows how to satirize politics and really really knows how to write endlessly creative and earth-shattering insults, and The Death of Stalin is no exception.

When Joseph Stalin dies suddenly, a power struggle explodes between the members of his staff. It gets quite a bit more complicated than that, but that's the movie in a nutshell. I'm not a history major, but from what I've heard of historians' response to this film, it's not very historically accurate. That being said, it's not exactly trying to be a documentary. The actors all keep their own accents instead of attempting Russian ones, so everyone in the film, with the exception of Steve Buscemi and Jeffrey Tambor (who are both brilliant), has a British accent.

The dialogue (which is largely improvised) is very much in line with Ianucci's other work, so fans of Veep (including myself) will be satisfied, though I actually would've liked to have seen even more insult-throwing from these historical monsters that are played by such wonderful actors.

It's much darker than Ianucci's other work, which is to be expected when it's based on history and so many innocent people are being killed, but that makes it all the more unique of an addition to his oeuvre.

I'm keeping this one super short both because I really don't have much to say about it and because I recommend checking it out for yourself. May Armando Ianucci continue his wonderfully brutal, vulgar, panicky, satirical streak across the modern comedy world.

Lost in America

Lost in America

As a fan of comedy, I feel quite embarrassed to say that I've only ever seen one other Albert Brooks film, Real Life. He's such a unique voice in comedy, having helped pioneer comedy-making-fun-of-comedy (along with Steve Martin, of course), but he's more well-known in the mainstream as a character actor, having been in Finding Nemo, Taxi Driver, Broadcast News, Drive, and several different characters in The Simpsons. What many don't know is that he's also a writer/director, and a fairly prolific one at that. His films are hugely influential in comedy, and since this one just got a Criterion release, I decided to check it out.

Lost in America is about a well-off white couple (Albert Brooks and Julie Hagerty) that live a boringly responsible life. But when Albert Brooks is told he's being transferred to New York from LA, he lashes out, gets fired, and decides that he and his wife are going to drop out of their lives and live the life of freedom a la Easy Rider instead. Things don't go well.

I don't want to spoil any jokes or situations, as I think this is definitely one worth checking out, but I'll talk about general things I enjoyed.

The filmmaking is very unique for a comedy, especially in 1985. There's lots of tracking shots, some inspired compositions, plenty of long takes, and interesting blocking. It's clear that Albert Brooks wanted to play with the visual aspects of the film and make it different from other, more standard comedies, and he does it successfully. I can see why the movie was given a Criterion release, because the filmmaking does give it a special quality that most other comedies simply don't have.

The jokes are certainly not constant, but when they happen they hit hard (there's one scene in particular when Brooks and Hagerty are trying to book a hotel suite that ends with what I consider to be a perfect joke). It's less about clever writing and more about being grounded in reality, seeing what it would really be like if two yuppies decided to live life on the road. There are many scenes where Brooks is simply trying to explain things to people that don't follow him, and they're a joy to watch. He's able to convey such a wide range of frustration in this film, whether it be polite annoyance, boiling rage, or fully ranting anger, that it's actually what inspired Nicolas Winding Refn to hire him as the scary mob boss in Drive, because Brooks' frustration isn't just being played for laughs, it feels actually real, which is why it's so funny. Julie Hagerty's reality-based comedic acting is brilliant as well, and she goes in a few different directions with it that I can't really describe here due to spoilers. It's also this basis in reality that keeps the film from feeling dated at all. It was made in 1985, but there aren't any zany 80's references, and they hardly show any 80's technology, so it feels like a movie that could be made today.

If you're bored and looking for a fun way to spend an hour and a half, I would definitely recommend this film. Give Albert Brooks the appreciation he deserves.

Black Panther

Black Panther

Yes, it's me. The last man on earth to see Black Panther. It took a full week of me having to see how much joy it brought everyone else as I stared through a misty shop window outside in the rain, cold and alone, but I finally got to see it.

Obviously for starters, the representation is great. Not only is this an almost entirely black cast, but a solid half of the characters are women. And not only are they women characters, but they're actually helpful women characters who don't constantly talk about what strong women they are (because for some reason male writers feels like strong women need to be justified), they just do strong stuff because that's what they do. For the representation alone, the film was worth making, and the double whammy of both this and Get Out doing so well in the box office will hopefully mean we get more representation in the future.

Now, as far as the actual movie goes, there's certainly some upgrades from the typical Marvel movie formula, but overall it still feels fairly studio-driven and the actual filmmaking leaves a lot to be desired.

When it comes to the characters, the most interesting part is Michael B. Jordan. He's so empathetic because of his motivation that it automatically puts him far above the large majority of boring Marvel villains (it also helps that Jordan is such a charismatic actor). That being said, I would've liked to have seen more of him, because he sort of outshines Black Panther. Black Panther is kinda like Captain America, but more awkward. I like that he's not just another smarmy, sarcastic Marvel hero, but at the same time I feel like he needed a bit more personality. I'm sure they'll play around with him more, as he's so new to the Marvel movie party, but based off this movie alone I'd say he's sort of a blank slate protagonist. Also, while I do love seeing all of these female characters on screen at the same time, I don't think they were that three-dimensional. Letita Wright is enjoyable as Black Panther's excitable Q/Lucius Fox/Oracle gadget-making sister, and Danai Gurira is cool as the badass warrior, but Lupita Nyong'o and Angela Bassett's characters don't really have any defined traits, or honestly any effect on the plot. They're both great actresses so they're able to add personality where there really isn't any, but if you put their characters in a room together I couldn't visualize the conversation in the same way I could with Wright and Gurira. Everyone else in Wakanda has the same thing of not necessarily being memorable characters, but getting to be played by good actors. Martin Freeman is solid as stern American Martin Freeman, and Andy Serkis, though given really terrible lines, is clearly having a ball getting to play an actual human for once. I think my blanket note for every character in the movie is that they could all use a personality boost.

The action is pretty standard for a Marvel movie. It's occasionally well-filmed and cool (the casino scene being the shining example), but more often then not it just feels like standard fight coverage. All of the one-on-one fights are pretty forgettable, which is strange because Coogler directed Creed, which has some really fantastic boxing scenes in it. The concept of the remote car was cool, but the car chase isn't that memorable, nor are pretty much any of the other action scenes. It was Coogler's first huge-budget movie, so hopefully next time around he can get really creative with his visuals.

The comedy is the only thing in this movie that's outright terrible. From the dated "what are those" joke to Andy Serkis singing "What is Love" for no reason, this movie REALLY needed a humor punch-up. And considering how funny every other Marvel movie is, I really don't see how this script passed that same test. It certainly has a more serious and genuine tone than all of the other Marvel movies, which is great, but that in no way assisted the occasional grab for a laugh. Marvel, you've got Community writers. Use them.

Also, I didn't think about this until my friend brought it up after the movie, but why weren't Black Panther and his sister more bummed out about their dad dying? That could've played a much larger role and given the movie a stronger emotional core.

My apologies if this review seems rushed, it took me way too long to see the film so I just sort of jotted down my main bullet points, but I also don't feel like there's a whole lot to talk about here. I think it's a solid movie, but there's definitely lots of room to grow. It definitely still feels like a studio movie, but due to its success I'm sure they'll do another one and Ryan Coogler can go full Guardians Vol. 2 on it and really make it his own thing.

Also, listen to the Black Panther album if you haven't already, because holy wow is it good.

The Square

The Square

Winner of the 2017 Palme D'or, this is one of the last couple of movies I'm making sure to see before starting my Favorites of the Year list.

This is my first Ruben Östlund film, since I still haven't gotten around to seeing Force Majeure, but based on this movie it's clear that he's a confident director with a lot of thoughts. The problem with this particular movie is that instead of committing to one thought and fully exploring it, he just tossed all of his thoughts into one two and a half hour movie.

The main theme of the film seems to be the bystander effect, where someone sees someone else in trouble and they make the choice to ignore it. There's a lot of emphasis on people ignoring the homeless, along with some more extreme examples as the film goes. Even the titular "square" of the film is an art piece that is supposed to create a space where people aren't ignored in this way, so clearly this must be the thesis of the film. Well, kinda. But not really. Technically the central plot of the film is about an art curator who gets pickpocketed, so when he tracks his phone and sees it's in an apartment complex, he puts an accusatory letter in every single apartment. This is a great idea for a movie. But then there's a different plotline between him and Elizabeth Moss that doesn't go anywhere, another where the museum puts out a controversial promotion for their next exhibit, and then there's the emphasis on the ignored homeless and the bystander effect. Three different movies are happening here: a study of the bystander effect, a man who threatens an entire apartment complex after being pickpocketed, and an art museum that puts out a horrific ad for their next exhibit. If Östlund could have picked one premise I think he could have had a really fascinating and focused film on his hands, but instead it's a messy, unfocused movie that's tough to get invested in because there are too many ideas and none of the characters are particularly interesting.

Claes Bang plays the main character as a good, charming guy who suddenly has way too much on his plate, and he plays that decline well. He's really the only character I could get a handle on. Elizabeth Moss is a great actress, but here she's given almost nothing to work with. The same goes for Dominic West, who is literally in two scenes despite being Dominic West. Everyone else in the film is fine, with the notable exception of Terry Notary, who is absolutely brilliant. I didn't realize there was more than one Andy Serkis, but this guy is it. The "monkey man scene" is definitely the highlight of the film, and it rests almost entirely on Notary's performance. See it for that scene alone. But it's so strange to me that this film had a two and a half hour runtime and yet had only one or two interesting characters. This again goes back to needing to focus on a premise and fully exploring it.

Movies aren't required to just have one idea or topic, they can have a lot, but those ideas all need to be under the same blanket premise otherwise it'll be impossible to know what the movie is about. Magnolia focuses on several different stories, but the characters are wonderful and it all falls under the blanket premise of coincidence, which it states at the very beginning of the movie. If The Square's blanket premise is the bystander effect, then what's that commercial story supposed to be about? And the apartment complex only somewhat fits within that premise. Östlund needed to find the central idea of his film and have it blossom from there.

I'm not really sure if I'd recommend this film. If you're into cinematography I'd say check it out, cause there are some gorgeous shots. If your'e into art you'll get a kick out of some of its satirization of the art world. If you just wanna see it because of all of the accolades it's been receiving (which was definitely me), then check it out and see what you think. Overall I thought it was a mess that I could never quite get invested in, but you might get more out of it than I did. Regardless, check out that monkey man scene. It's killer.

The Wrestler

The Wrestler

Leaving only the task of watching Noah before I can officially say I've seen all of Darren Aronofsky's movies, this has been a film I've been meaning to see for years (It's actually the first film I ever put on my IMDb Watchlist), and now, a full decade after its release, I finally gave it a watch.

Spoilers!

The titular wrestler is Randy "The Ram" Robinson (though his birth name is Randy Ramzinski), who was a superstar professional wrestler in the 1980's, but 20 years later he's living in a trailer that he can barely collect rent for in time, and is still taking any amateur wrestling gigs he can get. After a sort of live-wrestling-torture-show (which I don't doubt for a second actually exists), Ram has a heart attack and is told he can't wrestle anymore, taking away the one thing he had left. The rest of the film is Ram trying to reach out to people and only getting hurt, whether it's Marisa Tomei, a stripper who feels sorry for him but doesn't requite his feelings, Evan Rachel Wood, his estranged daughter who isn't ready to forgive him, or Todd Barry, his rude and disrespectful boss who Ram has no choice but to reach out to for jobs. In the end he decides to return to wrestling despite, or possibly because, he knows it will kill him, and it ends with a perfect ambiguous final shot of nothing but the ceiling and the crowd's reaction. It's both a physically and emotionally brutal film that is so grounded in the writing, visuals, and performances that it often feels more like a documentary than a fictional film.

Mickey Rourke's comeback with this movie was one of the hottest topics of 2008, and for good reason. His brilliant portrayal of Marv in Sin City got him back into the spotlight after years of being out of it, and then he topped it with The Wrestler. The whole film is a character study of Ram, to the point that there are only two scenes that he isn't in, and one of them still has him in the form of an action figure. This means the movie completely hinges on the lead performance, so luckily Rourke is perfect in it. There's never a moment where it feels like he's acting, he's just this guy. Even in his tantrum scene at the deli, which could easily come off as Oscar-bait and unnatural, he's completely present and grounded, which makes every moment of it believable. It helps that the role is so well-written, with screenwriter Robert Siegel (former editor-in-chief of The Onion) making the character so close to an actual, real person through nothing but his dialogue, actions, and relationships with other characters in a seemingly effortless way. It's a lightning in a bottle combination of writing and casting.

Marisa Tomei is heartbreaking without asking for any sympathy, excellently encapsulating the role of a mother who's been dealt a rough hand and is just doing what she can with it. Her scenes in the club are all the tougher to watch when it's revealed how mature and tough she is in the real world, because she has to force herself to be sexy and submissive no matter how terribly she's being treated, and she rides that line expertly. Evan Rachel Wood is also wonderful, with her character being put in the tough spot of forgiving the man who was supposed to raise her and instead never even showed up to any of her birthdays, and when she finally does he stands her up again. She's been put through so much and Wood conveys every ounce of pain she's feeling with every passing second she's around Ram. Her breakdown is another scene that could feel manufactured, but instead feels almost voyeuristic, like really seeing someone driven to the point of giving themselves no other option but to completely reject another human being, even when it's their own father. As a Todd Barry fan, it's initially fun to see him play a jerk, as he's just so good at it, but in the context of the film it very quickly becomes harsh and painful because of Ram's choice to ignore it and continue to plead for jobs, which means Barry gave an excellent performance. There's other cameos, including the great Judah Friedlander and Aronofsky regular Mark Margolis, and they're all great as well.

Aronofsky, a noted auteur, is far less auteur-y in his direction of this film than the rest of his highly stylistic work. It's very meat-and-potatoes direction, straightforward and to the point, but still manages to be unique and interesting because every element it uses is in service of the story and characters (the heavy use of 80's music is simply because that's the music of Ram's heyday, the signature Aronofsky camera-following-the-protagonist-shot is to put the audience as much in Ram's shoes as possible, the handheld documentary-style camera work is there to make the film feel all the more real and therefore painful, etc.). There are no dolly tracks or crane shots (from what I could tell), no music video-style editing tricks, none of that business, just telling the story.

While the movie did get a lot of awards buzz when it first came out, it all seemed to focus solely on Rourke's performance, leaving the rest of the film to be somewhat ignored. He and Maria Tomei were the only Oscar nominations the film got, though there was absolutely room to nominate it for best picture, screenplay, and director. Replace The Reader, Frost/Nixon or, honestly, Slumdog Millionaire, none of which have stood the test of time like The Wrestler. It's insane that such a grounded, real, painful, emotional film didn't get more awards attention, especially when Aronofsky and Siegel had never been nominated for Oscars before. Then Rourke didn't even win, losing to Sean Penn for Milk, which, granted, I still have to see, but come on. Not that any of these awards matter. But come on.

Overall this is a horribly sad movie and I really loved it. You've definitely gotta be in the right mood to watch it, but I highly recommend it as a story of humanity and pain.