Annie Hall, Woody Allen: 3 / 4
I watched this twice in three days, although the second viewing was in preparation for an essay I wrote regarding Kierkegaardian themes in the film. This film centralizes around a compelling relationship between Alvy and Annie. Their relationship seemed to be a manifestation of Alvy's dream/fantasy relationship; at least it's what we'd expect someone like Alvy to fantasize about. Annie was someone fun-loving, semi-mainstream who'd listen to Alvy's wannabe-hipster-but-actually-solidly-left-establishment ramblings. Diane Keaton played Annie's character wonderfully, I'm not sure what more we could ask for. This film is also loaded with cultural references, which I found delightful. It's also heavy with absurdist/existential themes which is the Kierkegaard tie-in. Two of the scenes really stuck in my mind. The scene right at the beginning with Alvy and Annie in line for The Sorrow and the Pity was phenomenal. As Alvy loathed the man behind him, who was spewing oral magnificence I was elated. Even sophistry can be beautiful. My favorite scene was Christopher Walken's, the one where he slowly released a tide of insanity that was entirely relatable and perhaps entirely sane. One should watch this film, and detach from the atmosphere of it, if only for that scene.
The Seventh Seal, Ingmar Bergman: 2.5 / 4
This was an involuntary watch for a course, but one I may have stumbled across anyway. It was released in '57 so there were definitely things which I haven't quite come around on. (some serious Rashomon-style acting) But the thematic elements here are profound. It's crusades time, it's 'all the people buy into the Deuteronomic Equation completely' time. The idea of God in this film is powerful. The knight engages in a chess match with death, to find answers, to understand the idea. The people possess fear, fear of their eternal damnation, so the equation is upheld, and enforced by themselves. Be prepared for the darkness in this film, for it is all-encompassing.
Only God Forgives, Nicolas Winding Refn: 3 / 4
Following my first viewing, (this was my third) I immediately read the plot summary on wikipedia (fuck imdb btw) because I was sure I'd missed something.... I hadn't. This was style. The plot lacks, but with Refn's magical use of the camera and Cliff Martinez's score, there's barely a need for one. The slow-motion sequences, the lighting, the colors.... it's all outstanding. What's actually happening is secondary. Refn also engages in some aestheticized violence which requires a bit of a stomach. I love Gosling and he's a very similar character to Drive and The Place Beyond the Pines. [incoming spoiler] He's reserved and mysterious, but most importantly: he's got an Oedipal complex, and not in that Freudian subconscious way; it's outwardly visible. So if you're feeling Tarantino but stylistically superior and without dialogue, here you go, you'll thank me later.
Renoir, Gilles Bourdos: 3 / 4
An instinctual viewing, one I'd hoped would turn into a Lore-type. It was nothing of that sort, a modified biopic of Pierre-Auguste Renoir, the French Impressionist. There were three characters who seemed to be the lead at different points in the film: Pierre-Auguste, his model/actress Andrée Heuschling, and his son Jean Renoir. This film explores the relationship between these three characters as their situation becomes quite intriguing. However, upon seeing the end result, there is much left to be desired. Pierre-Auguste is an intriguing character, as is Andrée (to a degree), but Jean's character just didn't do it for me. Perhaps because this is based on a true story, they're limited, but the plot mostly failed. The film makes up for it stylistically, an atmosphere for transcendence is created, even if not utilized.
21 Grams, Alejandro González Iñárritu: 3.5 / 4
I've somehow gotten through them all, Babel, first, then Biutiful, Amores Perros and Birdman, and now 21 Grams. I consider this an achievement considering the depressive nature of Iñárritu's film. (not you Birdman! you uplifting ___________) Of the Death Trilogy + Biutiful (why not? it totally fits.) my favorite is this one, 21 Grams. Maybe it's the star power, the trifecta of brilliance from Penn, Watts and del Toro. Death is a central theme here, as each of the three is dealing with it from a different perspective; there is the guilty one, the grieving one, and the dying one. In classic Death trilogy and Crash (forgive me, once guilty pleasure) format there is the convergence, the intersection, and the reconciliation. The critical moment that shapes this film, the car accident, is filmed indirectly, reflecting Iñárritu's greatness. I was reminded of the techniques of Haneke in Funny Games. It's tough to pinpoint my reasons for loving this film, they're all macro, yields of the collective work. I'm looking forward to The Revenant, whether its style is similar to this or Birdman's it doesn't matter, I'll be thrilled either way.
2.28.2015
2.25.2015
2.17.2015
Film: 2/8-2/14
Rosemary's Baby, Roman Polanski: 3.5 / 4
This is an exceptional horror flick. One that showcases the greatness of Mia Farrow. Her character is intensely lovable, yet there aren't any characters who consider her best interests at all. As the suffering of Rosemary (Farrow) builds, Polanski takes us through a devastating trail of anguish. Rosemary sinks deeper and deeper, until she reaches a point at which there is truly no escape. The result: an inexpressively grand statement on ideas of hate, and especially love.
Funny Games, 1997, Michael Haneke: 2.5 / 4
The viewer is forced into a perpetual state of discomfort. There's no other way to explain this film. The terror never ends. I experienced little to no enjoyment from this film, yet some of its defining characteristics cannot be overlooked. Haneke expanded the boundaries that a truly great film is permitted to work from. His choice to showcase violence prominently through sound was entirely powerful, if only for the potential of such an idea. His use of the camera was undoubtedly unique, searching deeper within characters to find even more. The style used seemed to force improvisation by the actors/actresses. But the idea that had the most influence on me, led to an occurrence that was utterly shocking. The villians' complete control of outcome, their ability to literally rewind, it left me with a certain emptiness.
Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, Stanley Kubrick: 2.5 / 4
I watched this in a more social environment, also without subtitles. I wasn't able to follow the film to the degree that I would've liked. But based on my prior viewing of this film, I can attest to certain great qualities. The idea of the "Doomsday device" is fascinating to think about. Dr. Strangelove himself is an incredible metaphor for something, I'm not sure what. I feel a strong desire to watch this again, after all, Can one really regret watching a Kubrick?
Midnight In Paris, Woody Allen: 3 / 4
For some reason, I've yet to see Annie Hall, the pinnacle of Woody Allen; I continue to watch some of his other films. I chose this one simply because of the great cover and my continuing journey through Léa Seydoux's work. Her role really isn't significant here and I found myself loving this film for other reasons. I loved the idea of Owen Wilson's character, a former sellout turned aspiring artist. Once Gil (Wilson) enters into the past and encounters some of the great icons of art (I use art loosely here, capturing literature as well), I was in. The interactions of the greatest minds of our time is peak cinema (at least idealistically). This film made me want to read Hemingway. This film showed an idealized Paris, but nonetheless one that seems to offer the highest potential for an artist. Although this film lacked transcendence, its execution of the premise alone wins serious points.
The Great Gatsby, 1974, Jack Clayton: 2 / 4
possible Gatsby piece, exploration of two films, novel.
Blue Ruin, Jeremy Saulnier: 3 / 4
A well-executed revenge flick that modifies itself into a tale of two distinct families. It's a creative screenplay that's exactly as the title suggests it is. The interesting aspect of this film is the elevation of one man to levels he probabilistically shouldn't have achieved. One he's there, it makes for an incredulous situation where soul-searching must occur.
12 Years a Slave, Steve McQueen: 3 / 4
possible review incoming
This is an exceptional horror flick. One that showcases the greatness of Mia Farrow. Her character is intensely lovable, yet there aren't any characters who consider her best interests at all. As the suffering of Rosemary (Farrow) builds, Polanski takes us through a devastating trail of anguish. Rosemary sinks deeper and deeper, until she reaches a point at which there is truly no escape. The result: an inexpressively grand statement on ideas of hate, and especially love.
Funny Games, 1997, Michael Haneke: 2.5 / 4
The viewer is forced into a perpetual state of discomfort. There's no other way to explain this film. The terror never ends. I experienced little to no enjoyment from this film, yet some of its defining characteristics cannot be overlooked. Haneke expanded the boundaries that a truly great film is permitted to work from. His choice to showcase violence prominently through sound was entirely powerful, if only for the potential of such an idea. His use of the camera was undoubtedly unique, searching deeper within characters to find even more. The style used seemed to force improvisation by the actors/actresses. But the idea that had the most influence on me, led to an occurrence that was utterly shocking. The villians' complete control of outcome, their ability to literally rewind, it left me with a certain emptiness.
Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned To Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb, Stanley Kubrick: 2.5 / 4
I watched this in a more social environment, also without subtitles. I wasn't able to follow the film to the degree that I would've liked. But based on my prior viewing of this film, I can attest to certain great qualities. The idea of the "Doomsday device" is fascinating to think about. Dr. Strangelove himself is an incredible metaphor for something, I'm not sure what. I feel a strong desire to watch this again, after all, Can one really regret watching a Kubrick?
Midnight In Paris, Woody Allen: 3 / 4
For some reason, I've yet to see Annie Hall, the pinnacle of Woody Allen; I continue to watch some of his other films. I chose this one simply because of the great cover and my continuing journey through Léa Seydoux's work. Her role really isn't significant here and I found myself loving this film for other reasons. I loved the idea of Owen Wilson's character, a former sellout turned aspiring artist. Once Gil (Wilson) enters into the past and encounters some of the great icons of art (I use art loosely here, capturing literature as well), I was in. The interactions of the greatest minds of our time is peak cinema (at least idealistically). This film made me want to read Hemingway. This film showed an idealized Paris, but nonetheless one that seems to offer the highest potential for an artist. Although this film lacked transcendence, its execution of the premise alone wins serious points.
The Great Gatsby, 1974, Jack Clayton: 2 / 4
possible Gatsby piece, exploration of two films, novel.
Blue Ruin, Jeremy Saulnier: 3 / 4
A well-executed revenge flick that modifies itself into a tale of two distinct families. It's a creative screenplay that's exactly as the title suggests it is. The interesting aspect of this film is the elevation of one man to levels he probabilistically shouldn't have achieved. One he's there, it makes for an incredulous situation where soul-searching must occur.
12 Years a Slave, Steve McQueen: 3 / 4
possible review incoming
2.08.2015
Melancholia, Lars von Trier
My first (and only) experience with Lars von Trier began in the wee hours of 2015, when I embarked on Nymphomaniac: The Director's Cut Vol. I. It was an immediate desecration of any film innocence I had left. When I finished Vol. II the next night, (Sorry, the only way I could rationalize watching it was by separating it) I was somewhat disgusted with myself. For any future emboldened souls, please steer clear of the director's cut, especially Vol II. There is one scene which I barely had the fortitude to endure. I still am unsure how I made it through. In Nymphomaniac, it's like Lars von Trier's out to get you; no viewer can escape. This film watching experience gave me reluctance to experience any of von Trier's other work. But several days ago, as I chose Melancholia over Coppola's The Conversation, I began one of the greatest film experiences in my life.
Note: There will be spoilers. Please watch before reading; let your experience be pure!
The opening montage's beauty evoked memories of Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey. From there, it was a blur. Each character was acted magnificently; each scene was saturated with emotional gravity. The premise: the parallel disintegration of Kirsten Dunst's character Justine and life itself, as the rogue planet Melancholia approaches Earth. Justine has a perfect life in front of her: a creatively satisfying job and an extravagant wedding with her attractive and caring soon-to-be husband. Yet she's lost, lost in her own mind. As her behavior becomes increasingly erratic, she attempts to find someone to cope with, but everyone's just beyond her grasp. Her evening becomes a real-life nightmare. The hopeful moments of her existence are her gazes into the sky, as if a savior resides in the stars. After the wedding Justine loses control; her depression emerges and consumes her. The morning following the wedding begins the second half of the film, where the characters' reactions to the incoming planet, Melancholia, are explored. Justine's caretaker, Claire, played by Charlotte Gainsbourg, is her anxiety-riddled sister. Claire's terrified of Melancholia's potential collision with earth, while her husband John reassures her the worst will not occur. John, played by Kiefer Sutherland, is a scientist whose calculations conclude Melancholia will not collide, but simply fly by. He's convinced that this moment will be aesthetically beautiful and will spur great advances in science. This view is assuredly explained to Leo, John and Claire's son. Upon discovery of the inevitability of planetary collision, each of the characters' reactions is disparate. John commits suicide, as everything he lives for will soon cease. His calculations were in err, the advancement of science is for nought, his son will be dead. Claire entered survival mode, her purpose became prolonging Leo's life, even if there was no rational method of doing so. Justine experienced serenity; she finally understood, her savior had arrived. The end was coming, it was present, and it was beautiful. The beauty was more than sensory, it was contextual. Each moment's significance was magnified. Sensationally, the beauty of life lies in its finiteness, its eventual death.
4 / 4
2.07.2015
Film: 2/1-2/7
The Kids Are All Right, Lisa Cholodenko: 3 / 4
It's a non-traditional family dramedy, one that needs to be watched. The dynamic of a two-mom household was an intriguing idea to me, and its portrayal in this film certainly seems accurate. My two favorite performances in this film were Mark Ruffalo and Mia Wasikowska, but Julianne Moore's also deserves recognition.
Liberal Arts, Josh Radnor: 3 / 4
As I re-entered the universe of this movie, hours after its completion, I raised its rating from 2.5. This film raises questions about how one can find happiness in his/her life. This idea is explored prominently by the characters portrayed by Josh Radnor, Allison Janney, and Richard Jenkins. I also spent much of the movie trying to figure out what book Dean was reading. When it was confirmed to be David Foster Wallace's Infinite Jest I was elated. This book was perfect for the context of the issues being discussed. Dean's character also felt legitimately intelligent, even if only based on vibe. There's nothing I hate more that a faux-intellectual in a movie (hyperbole, but whatever). See Tommy Lee Jones' character in The Sunset Limited. I only managed to watch a half-hour of that. Anyway, Liberal Arts is a pleasant surprise from HIMYM's Ted. I'm looking forward to watching Happythankyoumoreplease.
Stoker, Park Chan-wook: 2.5 / 4
Upon discovering access to this film, I immediately watched. I had high expectations, largely because of the involvement of Mia Wasikowska and Nicole Kidman. Mia's character India was baffling and I spent the entirety of the film trying to understand her. The conclusion didn't offer much help. While I appreciated Park's style in the way this was filmed, I didn't feel the fear I expect in this sort of film. Maybe that's largely due to Wentworth Miller's screenplay, [SPOILER INCOMING] but I couldn't sense any danger for India's character; it just seem like Charlie threatened everyone but her. I didn't really care about Nicole Kidman's character, although she was well-acted. The eventual complete revelation about Charlie felt pretty standard; I thought there was potential for more.
Sister, Ursula Meier: 3 / 4
My descent into Léa Seydoux's work left me with this....I'm not sure how it should be classified. There are two central characters: Louise, played by Seydoux, and Simon, her younger brother. Their relationship is tragic, but distinctively human. This film also explores an astonishing class distinction at a tourist point. Initially, I rated this 2.5, but that's largely a product of my rating system. The ratings I give are based (perhaps disproportionately) on the immediate emotional response I have. The darkness in this film made me uncomfortable, but in retrospect, I can see this film's greatness.
Melancholia, Lars von Trier: 4 / 4
review
Fish Tank, Andrea Arnold: 3.5 / 4
possible review incoming
The Interview, Seth Rogen & Evan Goldberg: 2.5 / 4
An instinctual watch, one I surprisingly didn't regret. Its satirical nature allowed me to simply enjoy the comedy rather than obsess over its political statement. I particularly liked the slo-mo shot of the helicopter explosion with Firework playing in the background. This movie was 3 / 4 if it ended with [SEMI SPOILER] Dave and Aaron leaving N. Korea with Seal Team Six. I thought the turmoil it left N. Korea in would've been perfect. Dave's book was meaningless, I despised the announcement of democratic elections in N. Korea: PEAK HAPPILY EVER AFTER. For some reason, the last few minutes of this felt like a bullshit (may I add, unneeded) political statement. The people in N. Korea immediately flocking to a concept like democracy is laughably unrealistic. Trying to determine what would happen in this scenario is nearly impossible, that's why I'd have advocated for it ending with Dave and Aaron's departure.
Note: I'm still deliberating over how to format my reviews. I feel certain films deserve a more thoughtful review. The three possible films I could review:
It's a non-traditional family dramedy, one that needs to be watched. The dynamic of a two-mom household was an intriguing idea to me, and its portrayal in this film certainly seems accurate. My two favorite performances in this film were Mark Ruffalo and Mia Wasikowska, but Julianne Moore's also deserves recognition.
Liberal Arts, Josh Radnor: 3 / 4
As I re-entered the universe of this movie, hours after its completion, I raised its rating from 2.5. This film raises questions about how one can find happiness in his/her life. This idea is explored prominently by the characters portrayed by Josh Radnor, Allison Janney, and Richard Jenkins. I also spent much of the movie trying to figure out what book Dean was reading. When it was confirmed to be David Foster Wallace's Infinite Jest I was elated. This book was perfect for the context of the issues being discussed. Dean's character also felt legitimately intelligent, even if only based on vibe. There's nothing I hate more that a faux-intellectual in a movie (hyperbole, but whatever). See Tommy Lee Jones' character in The Sunset Limited. I only managed to watch a half-hour of that. Anyway, Liberal Arts is a pleasant surprise from HIMYM's Ted. I'm looking forward to watching Happythankyoumoreplease.
Stoker, Park Chan-wook: 2.5 / 4
Upon discovering access to this film, I immediately watched. I had high expectations, largely because of the involvement of Mia Wasikowska and Nicole Kidman. Mia's character India was baffling and I spent the entirety of the film trying to understand her. The conclusion didn't offer much help. While I appreciated Park's style in the way this was filmed, I didn't feel the fear I expect in this sort of film. Maybe that's largely due to Wentworth Miller's screenplay, [SPOILER INCOMING] but I couldn't sense any danger for India's character; it just seem like Charlie threatened everyone but her. I didn't really care about Nicole Kidman's character, although she was well-acted. The eventual complete revelation about Charlie felt pretty standard; I thought there was potential for more.
Sister, Ursula Meier: 3 / 4
My descent into Léa Seydoux's work left me with this....I'm not sure how it should be classified. There are two central characters: Louise, played by Seydoux, and Simon, her younger brother. Their relationship is tragic, but distinctively human. This film also explores an astonishing class distinction at a tourist point. Initially, I rated this 2.5, but that's largely a product of my rating system. The ratings I give are based (perhaps disproportionately) on the immediate emotional response I have. The darkness in this film made me uncomfortable, but in retrospect, I can see this film's greatness.
Melancholia, Lars von Trier: 4 / 4
review
Fish Tank, Andrea Arnold: 3.5 / 4
possible review incoming
The Interview, Seth Rogen & Evan Goldberg: 2.5 / 4
An instinctual watch, one I surprisingly didn't regret. Its satirical nature allowed me to simply enjoy the comedy rather than obsess over its political statement. I particularly liked the slo-mo shot of the helicopter explosion with Firework playing in the background. This movie was 3 / 4 if it ended with [SEMI SPOILER] Dave and Aaron leaving N. Korea with Seal Team Six. I thought the turmoil it left N. Korea in would've been perfect. Dave's book was meaningless, I despised the announcement of democratic elections in N. Korea: PEAK HAPPILY EVER AFTER. For some reason, the last few minutes of this felt like a bullshit (may I add, unneeded) political statement. The people in N. Korea immediately flocking to a concept like democracy is laughably unrealistic. Trying to determine what would happen in this scenario is nearly impossible, that's why I'd have advocated for it ending with Dave and Aaron's departure.
Note: I'm still deliberating over how to format my reviews. I feel certain films deserve a more thoughtful review. The three possible films I could review:
Come and See
Melancholia
Fish Tank
2.01.2015
Film: 1/25-1/31
Although I put up ratings immediately after I watch, I figured I'd write summaries for the movies I watched each week. So here goes...
Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance), Alejandro González Iñárritu: 3.5 / 4
I went to the theatre not knowing what to expect. I'd seen nearly all of Iñárritu's previous films (save 21 Grams), but this is a comedy, and certainly doesn't have the bleakness of his other films. I was particularly interested in the idea of a movie about theatre. The performances of Michael Keaton, Ed Norton, and Naomi Watts were particularly memorable. This is a film I'll surely re-watch.
The Social Network, David Fincher: 2.5 / 4
review
Aguirre, the Wrath Of God, Werner Herzog: 2.5 / 4
I watched this movie almost solely because of its supposed influence on Apocalypse Now. While there's certainly obvious plot similarities, I didn't enjoy nearly as much. Aguirre is unquestionably a complex and interesting character, just wasn't able to get emotionally invested in this movie. I found the depiction of animals in this movie to be perhaps the most unique facet of it. There was a particular camera shot near the end which reminded me of Nicolas Winding Refn's Valhalla Rising. So I'll potentially re-watch after I view Valhalla again.
Come and See, Elem Klimov: 3.5 / 4
I'll write a review on this one eventually.
The Untouchables, Brian De Palma: 2.5 / 4
I'll recommend this movie for two performances: Sean Connery (critics agree) and Robert De Niro (critics disagree). I can understand one's distaste for De Niro's performance, but I was certainly intrigued by his depiction of Capone; I certainly found his character more interesting that Costner's.
Palo Alto, Gia Coppola: 3.5 / 4
review
Django Unchained, Quentin Tarantino: 3 / 4
I chose to watch this movie because it's purely enjoyment. It's a great example of Tarantino's greatness in the humor (opening scene) and aesthetic (first Candyland shootout) in his depiction of violence. There are many good performances in this movie, two that stood out were Bruce Dern (albeit brief) and Samuel L. Jackson. Jackson's Uncle Tom was incredibly fascinating, especially in his interaction with Calvin Candie. Despite the setting, I find this movie to be very light, mostly because of the satirical nature of Tarantino's work.
The Grand Budapest Hotel, Wes Anderson: 3 / 4
This is the second Wes Anderson film I've watched; the other being Moonrise Kingdom. I liked this one less, mostly because of my attachment to the characters in Moonrise. This movie was pleasant stylistically, but that's about it. I enjoyed Léa Seydoux's character, the maid, and Agatha, especially her birthmark resembling Mexico. Also, the snow chase is phenomenal.
American Sniper, Clint Eastwood: 2.5 / 4
This movie really shifted my day. I spent several hours trying to determine my feelings on it. I wish I'd watched this movie without any prior knowledge of the actual story. That way I wouldn't feel obligated to have certain opinions about the movie. I certainly thought Kyle's (I'm speaking of the character) moments of indecision in pulling the trigger, notably the RPG kid, were valuable. I thought Bradley Cooper's Chris Kyle was well-acted. I just wish there'd been a better attempt of trying to portray the actual Chris Kyle. From what I've read he seemed like an great complex character that could've been written (at least better).
Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance), Alejandro González Iñárritu: 3.5 / 4
I went to the theatre not knowing what to expect. I'd seen nearly all of Iñárritu's previous films (save 21 Grams), but this is a comedy, and certainly doesn't have the bleakness of his other films. I was particularly interested in the idea of a movie about theatre. The performances of Michael Keaton, Ed Norton, and Naomi Watts were particularly memorable. This is a film I'll surely re-watch.
The Social Network, David Fincher: 2.5 / 4
review
Aguirre, the Wrath Of God, Werner Herzog: 2.5 / 4
I watched this movie almost solely because of its supposed influence on Apocalypse Now. While there's certainly obvious plot similarities, I didn't enjoy nearly as much. Aguirre is unquestionably a complex and interesting character, just wasn't able to get emotionally invested in this movie. I found the depiction of animals in this movie to be perhaps the most unique facet of it. There was a particular camera shot near the end which reminded me of Nicolas Winding Refn's Valhalla Rising. So I'll potentially re-watch after I view Valhalla again.
Come and See, Elem Klimov: 3.5 / 4
I'll write a review on this one eventually.
The Untouchables, Brian De Palma: 2.5 / 4
I'll recommend this movie for two performances: Sean Connery (critics agree) and Robert De Niro (critics disagree). I can understand one's distaste for De Niro's performance, but I was certainly intrigued by his depiction of Capone; I certainly found his character more interesting that Costner's.
Palo Alto, Gia Coppola: 3.5 / 4
review
Django Unchained, Quentin Tarantino: 3 / 4
I chose to watch this movie because it's purely enjoyment. It's a great example of Tarantino's greatness in the humor (opening scene) and aesthetic (first Candyland shootout) in his depiction of violence. There are many good performances in this movie, two that stood out were Bruce Dern (albeit brief) and Samuel L. Jackson. Jackson's Uncle Tom was incredibly fascinating, especially in his interaction with Calvin Candie. Despite the setting, I find this movie to be very light, mostly because of the satirical nature of Tarantino's work.
The Grand Budapest Hotel, Wes Anderson: 3 / 4
This is the second Wes Anderson film I've watched; the other being Moonrise Kingdom. I liked this one less, mostly because of my attachment to the characters in Moonrise. This movie was pleasant stylistically, but that's about it. I enjoyed Léa Seydoux's character, the maid, and Agatha, especially her birthmark resembling Mexico. Also, the snow chase is phenomenal.
American Sniper, Clint Eastwood: 2.5 / 4
This movie really shifted my day. I spent several hours trying to determine my feelings on it. I wish I'd watched this movie without any prior knowledge of the actual story. That way I wouldn't feel obligated to have certain opinions about the movie. I certainly thought Kyle's (I'm speaking of the character) moments of indecision in pulling the trigger, notably the RPG kid, were valuable. I thought Bradley Cooper's Chris Kyle was well-acted. I just wish there'd been a better attempt of trying to portray the actual Chris Kyle. From what I've read he seemed like an great complex character that could've been written (at least better).
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)