Promising Young Woman (a movie review post)

 

I think it's not unreasonable to suggest that the greatness of a movie can be judged by how long it lingers in your mind after you've watched it. How much time you spend ruminating over what you watched and, possibly, what it means. Unless you're talking about Christopher Nolan. No one should spend any time thinking about his movies after the fact, especially Inception. When the man admits that the movie ends ambiguously because he couldn't make a decision about how to end it, it doesn't deserve any thought. That's just sloppy bad writing.

However, with other movies, how much time you spend thinking about them is a totally valid measure of how good they may be. Promising Young Woman hung around in my mind pretty steadily for days. Not in a way that would probably make you want to watch it again, because I'm pretty sure it's not a movie I really want to watch again, though that might not be true. It's that kind of movie.

I'm betting you want to know what kinds of thoughts I was having, but I'm not going to tell you because there's not really a way to do that without being spoilery. I am going to say, though, that this is currently my pick for Best Picture this year. It's a powerful movie and deals with a powerful subject. If you're a man watching this and not uncomfortable, minimally, doing so, there is something wrong with you. And you're probably part of the problem. If you're angry about the movie, you are definitely part of the problem.

And if you make comments about how Carey Mulligan is not pretty enough to be believable as a rape victim, you are more than definitely part of the problem and you don't know how rape works.

Don't be part of the problem.

Speaking of Carey Mulligan, she's fantastic. She more than adequately carries the movie, which is significant, because the whole plot rests on her and her believability. She gives the role a nuance that still has me wondering about some things here and there, which is why I possibly might would watch it again just to see what I thought after a second viewing. But it's a hard movie to watch, especially the ending.

Emerald Fennell, the writer/director, probably also deserves the Best Original Screenplay Oscar. It's very difficult to have a powerful movie without a powerful script, and this one is powerful. Not to mention the creeping dread the movie causes as you hope what's going to happen isn't what's going to happen. You don't find people who can create that kind of feeling very often.

I think this is a must-watch movie, especially if you're a white male. Or just white. Women participate in rape culture, too, because, well, just gonna say it: Patriarchy and "christianity." Get rid of those two things and rape culture would probably just go away.

Ma Rainey's Black Bottom (a movie review post)

 

This is not a free-use picture but, as far as a can tell, it's supposed to be usable for reviews.

Since this is a review, I'm using it.

Is there a way to legitimately talk about this film without dealing with the death of Chadwick Boseman? I don't think so. Boseman's performance was, of course, stellar. It would have been stellar for a healthy man. Chadwick Boseman was dying. Though, honestly, he did most of his work while receiving treatment for his cancer, and who knows for how long it was affecting him prior to 2016. He was an amazing talent by any standard but that he did it while also undergoing cancer treatment is just mind blowing.

On the surface, the conflict of the movie is between Levee (Boseman) and Ma Rainey (played by Viola Davis), the conflict between the new and the old and those who refuse to change. [Look, I'm resisting the urge to point out that Ma Rainey and her refusal to change with the times is just like Republicans... oh, wait...] Also that Levee is flirting with Ma's girl, and Ma doesn't appreciate that, either. These are the conflicts that supply the emotional tension of the movie. But...

But before I go on, let's talk about Viola Davis. She was unrecognizable in this role. Ahead of seeing the movie, I had forgotten that she was in it and, so, wondered, more than once, as we were watching, who it was playing Ma Rainey. Thus I was surprised when we got to the credits to find out that it was Davis. She was amazing. The number of actors who can submerge into their roles so that you can't see the actor at all is very small, and most of those guys are fucking weird (Sacha Baron Cohen, Daniel Day-Lewis). Davis doesn't seem to suffer from any weirdness with her ability to... become.

What I'm saying here is that the acting in this film was extraordinary, and Davis and Boseman both deserve Oscars for their performances.

Though I don't think the film itself is Best Picture-worthy. Nomination worthy, certainly, but it's not quite Best Picture material, I don't think. Mostly because it's, basically, a filmed play. It's a very good play, but I'm pretty sure that when you turn a play into a movie that you should turn it into a movie and not film it as if it's a play. Maybe that's just me.

However, it does deal with an ongoing problem in American culture, the exploitation of the talent of African Americans for the benefit of fucking rich white men. That's the true conflict of the movie and part of Ma's resistance to change. She has achieved a slice of power within music culture and is desperate to retain that small amount of power she has. It's exemplified at the beginning of the movie when Ma's driver gets into a fender bender. The (white (do I really need to say it?)) police officer is ready to throw Ma in jail for her attitude: He doesn't know who she is. But Ma is "rescued" by her white agent, because the crash was in front of the recording studio, who exercises his whiteness on behalf of Ma, just so that Ma can then press him under her thumb with ridiculous demands. But she makes the studio a lot (a LOT, evidently) of money, so he's really responding to the money, not to any respect he has for Ma.

One of the more interesting aspects of the movie is the difference between the relationship that Ma has with the studio and the relationship that Levee has with it, because Levee wants to be the next big thing. And that's about all I can say about that without getting into spoilers. At any rate, it's definitely a movie worth watching. And I have to admit that I was more than a little skeptical about watching the movie to begin with. I'm not a blues fan, and the title... just isn't very inviting. Which is not to say that it's not appropriate, because the song is what the conflict is centered around. The performances alone make it more than worthwhile.

The Favourite (a movie review post)

To say that The Favourite is an odd movie, especially one coming out of Hollywood, and especially one that has Oscar hopes, would be an understatement. It is, in fact, a very odd movie. And extremely brilliant. And, amazingly, historically accurate, at least in the broad strokes. It's historical fiction, so the details have been filled in, but there are amazing bits in the movie that we were surprised to find were actual things that happened. Because, after watching the movie, I think you'd be surprised to find that any of it happened. My initial reaction -- because I didn't know anymore about the history other than that there was a Queen Anne and, vaguely, how she became queen -- was that this was more historical fantasy than historical fiction, so I'm just going to say it again: It is surprisingly historical.

The acting from the three primaries is amazing. I'm not overly familiar with Olivia Colman, but she was great. And she's going to be playing Queen Elizabeth in the new season of The Crown so, now, I'm really looking forward to that. Anne suffered a great many ailments, and Colman made them very believable, including what may have been a stroke at some point during the movie. They never make a thing of it but after a certain point in the film, one side of Anne's face becomes droopy, and I'm so curious as to how they pull that off. Even if it's just a shot of something, the actor still has to perform that way, so it's impressive.

Rachel Weisz was great but, then, she really is always great. She knows how to command a room, and she was the center of virtually every scene she was in. But, then, she is the protagonist. And she knows how to deliver a line. There's one point in particular where she says to Emma Stone's character something along the lines of, "I don't think we're playing the same game." It's brilliant. It's brilliant because Weisz controls that scene even though she could easily have handed that control over to Stone without ever meaning to.

Speaking of Emma Stone, and I like Emma Stone; I think she's great. But, in this, she's surprisingly great. It's one of those moments where you see an actor rise above the level of anything she's done previously, and Stone certainly does that in this movie.

So, yeah, great movie. I actually want to see it again, I think, which is a bit odd for me because, on  the surface, it's not the kind of movie I'm usually interested in. Period pieces and stuff about royalty are not, as they say, my jam. But this movie is intricate and puzzling, and I think there are things I will see on a re-watch that I didn't see the first time through.

Now, having said that, I'm not guaranteeing that you'll like it. It's not your standard fare, and I know a lot of people are put off by things that are even a little bit different, and this one is a lot different. But, you know, if different is your thing, your jam, you should check this out.

Widows (a movie review post)

There are times when I read a book or watch a movie then refer back to the blurb about the work and wonder if the person who wrote that blurb actually partook of the material. I've come to decide that the answer to that is "no." The writer of the blurb watched, maybe, the first 10 minutes of the movie or read the first chapter or two of the book, enough to give them an idea of what they assumed the work was about, then wrote the summary based on that. And, you know, maybe that actually works for some material, maybe even most material, but, for anything complex, it does not. So, despite the talk to the contrary, Widows is not a heist movie [and, just to say it, The House on the Corner is not a haunted house story (or a heist story)]. Sure, it has a heist in it, but that doesn't make it a "heist movie."

What, then, is the movie about? In a word, I'm going to say that the movie is about betrayal. Betrayal and the far-reaching effects of it. I would say more, but anything else would be all spoilery, and you should really see this movie without it being spoiled for you. I mean, Gillian Flynn co-wrote it, so you know it's gonna have some twists in it, and I don't want to ruin those for anyone.

The movie does begin with a heist, a heist gone wrong. Tragically wrong. Which is what sets in motion the events of the rest of the movie, as the widows of the men killed try to pick up the pieces of their lives. The women, all of them, are interesting and complex characters and each is extremely well acted.

The movie rests on the very capable shoulders of Viola Davis, whose character, Veronica, is dealing with two tragedies plus the threat of violence against her. She is cold and hard and determined, and every part of Davis exudes these characteristics. She is more than believable in her role.

As may be expected by Steve McQueen (remember, he made 12 Years a Slave), the movie deals with themes of racism, while not actually being about racism. It's also politically relevant, pitting Jack Mulligan (played by Colin Farrell), who could pass for a somewhat progressive Democrat (at least, he's trying to do things for the betterment of the people whom he wants to represent), against his father, Tom Mulligan (Robert Duvall), a flaming racist Republican who only wants power for the sake of the power and not allowing African Americans the chance to have any. There's a great scene between the two of them... Well, that's all I'm going to say about that.

Also, I'll admit to having a Duvall bias. Between The Natural and Lonesome Dove, I came to love him as an actor while I was a teenager. And I tend to always think that Colin Farrell doesn't get the attention he deserves. He's not necessarily great at picking roles, but he's a great actor.

On the other hand, Liam Neeson has become a cardboard cutout of himself. Fortunately, this is another of those roles for him where he just gets to be that same kind of guy. Which is to say that he was just fine and did everything that was required of him in the movie.

Of the movies being talked about for Best Picture nominations this year, this is not my pick. However, of the movies my wife and I have seen so far of the probable nominations, this is the one we have talked about most since seeing it. I'm telling you, this movie has layers. It is the only one that we've decided that we actually must see again (though that will likely not be in the theater) because, now, knowing how it ends, we want to see some scenes again with that knowledge in our heads.

Also, I don't know that I'd say this is a "must see" movie, but it's very good and worth seeing. At least it is if you like movies that aren't quite as straightforward as they may seem and that will make you think, because this movie is likely to make you think. You probably can't ask more of a movie than that.

Can You Ever Forgive Me? (a movie review post)

My question as I'm sitting here staring at my screen and thinking about this movie is this:
Are comedians somehow more -- "qualified" is not exactly the word I want to use, maybe "adept"? -- more something, at any rate, than other actors in dramatic and tragic roles? They certainly seem better at disappearing into those roles than other actors. But, then, comedy has tragedy at its heart, so I suppose it makes sense.

What I know for certain is that Melissa McCarthy is great in her role as Lee Israel, a down on her luck author who turns to literary crime to support herself. I bet you didn't know literary crime was a thing, did you? At least not a thing you can make money at, but, then, you can look at some of the best sellers and see that, sometimes at least, crime really does pay. Of course, that's not the kind of crime I'm talking about here. Israel's crime was forging letters from famous, deceased authors and actors and selling them off to collectors.

To its credit, the movie did make me want to read the book it's based on... or, at least, it made me want to want to. Knowing myself, I know that I will never actually read it because I'm not quite curious enough to follow through on that, but, if I had the book right here in front of me, I would give it the chance to suck me in. After all, it is by and about an author and her author journey. Sort of.

Anyway... Melissa McCarthy. She's great. Funny, funny lady. We, my wife and I, love her, though I'm sure my wife loves her more. I'm not sure I would have been interested in seeing this movie without her in it. It's an interesting story, but McCarthy makes it captivating. Obviously, I never met Lee Israel, but it seems from the things I've read about Israel and the things she said about what she did
that McCarthy really captured her spirit. She's worth the movie, which is good since she's the star.

Richard Grant, who plays Israel's sidekick (of a sorts), is also wonderful. Charismatic and charming and, again, tragic. He captures it all. They're a good team. And their relationship is heartbreaking.

It's not my pick for Best Picture, but I do hope it gets nominated. And McCarthy for best actress. She deserves it. And she may be my pick for that category. You should probably see it.

Fences (a movie review post)

I think I want to start by saying something that could be a bit controversial: This is not a "black" movie. Yes, there are some things in the movie that deal specifically with race issues but, mostly, it's a movie about a man, a very likable but horrible man, trying to deal with his life and his relationships and the disparity between those things and how he sees himself. Basically, he is so caught up in his view of how he has been unjustly kept down that he can't see how unjust he is being to those around him, especially his son.

I felt like Troy Maxson could have been my own father. [Which is why I'm saying it's not a "black" movie, because I think that gives the impression that you can only relate to the movie if you're African American, but I think Fences very facilely rises above that. Anyone not in the 1% should be able to relate to this movie.]

Although I don't think this is a Best Picture quality movie -- I had some issues with the ending -- though it will probably (and should) get nominated, the performances were amazing. Seriously amazing. This is possibly the best performance of Denzel Washington's career, which is saying a lot, I can't think of a better performance by any other actor in any movie I've seen this year. He was tremendous: likable and horrible. He was a guy you'd want to hang out with, stick with, as his friend Bono said, because he would take you places. And, also, give you an example of what things not to do, how not to be.

Viola Davis is great and certainly deserves best actress for this. She perfectly portrayed the wife trying to keep her wayward-leaning husband doing the right thing... even though he consistently managed to thwart her efforts without any seeming effort of his own. Her body language conveyed every frustration she felt while also communicating her failure to resist his charms whenever she would stand up to him. She was perfect.

Stephen Henderson, Jovan Adepo, and Russell Hornsby were all great. Hornsby has a lot of charisma so was really able to lean into the character of Lyons, the son trying to get by on his good looks and charm and the fact that he's a musician. But it's Adepo who really pulls off the dynamic of being the son of a father like Troy, the struggle of abandoning the search for approval from someone who never thinks of anyone other than himself.

Possibly the best performance of the movie, though -- and possibly the best performance of anyone this year -- was Mykelti Williamson as Gabriel, Troy's brain damaged brother. Williamson has been around for a long time, so you've probably seen him in stuff. I know him best from Justified. He was phenomenal. If he doesn't get best supporting actor for this role, it's definitive proof that there is something wrong with the world, not that we don't already have that, but, if he does get it, it might show that there's still hope. Seriously, he was great.

Fences is a good movie, a really good movie, but you shouldn't see it for the movie; you should see it for the acting.

Arrival (movie review post)

Right up front: This review is going to be full of spoilers, because I don't know how to do the film any justice in a review without talking about it, and you can't talk about this movie with spoiling it. The only way to do it is to say, "Go see the movie. It's really good," and leave it at that. And, actually, go see the movie. It's great.

It's not often you see a movie about linguistics. The idea of needing to translate something is really more of a gimmick that shows use to increase tension and complicate the plot. Like when a word is incorrectly translated causing the hero to do the wrong thing. Hmm... So, thinking about it, I can't think of any other movies where linguistics were the core of the plot. There might be some, but I don't know what they are (and I'm not going to go look because it's not that important).

The idea of translation, of communicating well and effectively, is one of the vital strands of the movie. I say "strands" because Arrival has several that are all effectively woven into one strong rope of a plot, something at which most movies fail. Which is why most movies are pretty straightforward with just one main idea. Taking several themes and weaving them into a whole is difficult, but director Denis Villeneuve and screenwriter Eric Heisserer pull it off with aplomb. The story is stronger for what they have done and would suffer if any of the strands were pulled out to make it simpler.

Not that the movie gets down into the minutiae of linguistics, but it clearly demonstrates the importance of words and meanings right from the very beginning by telling us what the Sanskrit word we take to mean "war" really means: a desire for more cows. It's a not so subtle foreshadowing of one of the central conflicts of the movie involved in translating the language of the aliens. Oh, yeah, there are aliens, which I was taking as a given but maybe it's not.

The other linguistics issue the movie deals with -- and it's a central theme -- is how language shapes the way we think and how learning other languages can sort of re-wire our thoughts and how we see things. They don't really go into the theory in the movie -- choosing rather to show us as Louise learns to speak the alien language -- but I'm aware of the basics of it. A good example is how we describe things in English, placing the adjectives in front of the noun (the fast little red car), as opposed to the Romance languages (French, Spanish, etc.), placing the adjectives after the noun (the car red fast little). This very simple variance shifts the way we look at the world, and does it in ways we can't see from inside ourselves.

I'm sure there's a metaphor in there.

This whole idea leads into the non-linear aspect of the movie, and this is probably the best non-linear movie I've ever seen. It hearkens back somewhat to Slaughterhouse-Five -- at least, it feels the same tonally in my head, but, then, it's been a while since I read Slaughterhouse -- but much more personal and intimate. It's beautiful and heartbreaking.

And leaves us with the other big question of the movie: If you know that something beautiful is going to end in pain, the kind of pain that will leave you wishing you could die, do you accept it anyway? That's a hard question to answer, and the movie doesn't exactly answer it for us, but it does push us in the direction it wants us to go.

Getting beyond the story, the acting is great. Amy Adams delivers a stellar performance. [It's the kind of movie that makes me want to say that she deserves a best actress Oscar for it, but I don't think her performance in this stands out amongst her body of work overall. American Hustle, yes, but this felt pretty "normal" for her.] Jeremy Renner was great, too. They were a good match on screen. Basically, all of the performances were good and solid, lending to the quality of the film as a whole. As such, no one stands out to me as having given the "best performance of his/her life;" it all just works together perfectly.

Of movies that are likely to get nominated for Best Picture (of the ones I've so far seen), this is my pick. Knowing myself, this will probably stay my pick. I don't think it will win, but I'm going to guess that Arrival will stay my favorite.

Moonlight (a movie review post)

So it's Oscar time again... That means that my wife and I have started our yearly venture into trying to see all of the potential best picture nominations ahead of the awards. Yes, that means lots of movie reviews will be coming up. I'm already behind.

When someone asks you what a movie is about, there are two ways of answering: You can give them a synopsis of the plot, or you can tell them what the movie is about. Generally, I choose to do the latter. Anyone can look up a plot synopsis (or, if we're talking books, read the back cover), but that's not necessarily going to tell you if you want see the movie. Sometimes, though, all you can do is give a plot synopsis.

What is it I'm saying here? Well, don't ask me what Moonlight is about, because all I can tell you is that it's about a black boy and his journey to adulthood and figuring out who he is.

Is it good? Well... it's okay. Okay, no, it's good. Yeah, it's good, but it's just not really more than good. I mean, it's been more than a week since we saw it, and I still can't tell you what it's about. Not anymore than that it's about growing up. And, well, I suppose that's enough, but I don't feel like I came away from the movie with anything that I didn't go in with. Honestly, upon reflection, it reminds me too much of Boyhood but without having taken twelve years to film.

The acting was good, though, especially Mahershala Ali. Unfortunately, there's not enough of him in the movie.

The movie is told in three sections, each one dealing with a different life stage of Chiron: childhood, adolescence, and adulthood. Each of the actors for the three chapters does a good job with the role. They are all believable. However, Ashton Sanders, who plays Chiron the teenager, may be the best of the three. He is awkward and fumbling and doesn't seem to know how to wear his own skin, much less his clothes, but, then, with a drug-addict mother, he's somewhat fortunate to have any clothes at all.

Really, this isn't a movie for everyone. Or, even, for most. It has moments, and I'm glad I saw it, but it's not a movie I'll want to watch again or, even, a movie I would suggest to anyone that they needed to see. It's the kind of thing that's worth a watch if you're presented with the opportunity to see it, like the book you pick up in the airport because you might as well, right? Probably don't rush out to see it in the theater is what I'm saying.

I Am Not My Own Demographic

My wife and I went to an Oscars event at a local theater not because we wanted to actually see the Oscars, this year -- both of us were rather underwhelmed with the nominations -- but because we (especially my wife) wanted to see Neil Patrick Harris host the Oscars. In that, we were not disappointed. He made it worth it to me with his opening line, "We are here to honor the best and the whitest..." That followed by his opening number made the expense of going to see the Oscars at a special venue completely worth it even if it was all downhill from there, though I was gratified that Birdman got best picture and Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu got best director for it. Oh! The performance of "Glory" from Selma was also amazing.

However, Eddie Redmayne as best actor? Give me a break. All he did was sit in a chair and drool. John Travolta (who is not an actor I enjoy at all), did a better job of presenting than Redmayne did as Hawking. But I digress...

Yes, it was required that my wife and I go out to see the Oscars, because we don't have "TV." We could have followed the results online, but we couldn't actually watch the show without going out... somewhere... to do that. But it was a charity event, so that was kind of cool.

But here's the thing: It was full of people that are of the demographic I should belong to... but really don't. My wife and I were among the youngest people there. Well, maybe there were some people in their late 30s but, mostly, it was white people in the 40s and up. This is the group of people that I should theoretically belong to. And, I suppose, the fact that I was there at all means that I must overlap a some points other than relative age and race, but it certainly didn't feel that way.

For one thing, my wife and I reacted to a lot more of the political talk than pretty much anyone else there in terms of agreeing with it. We laughed at more of the jokes and, I think, appreciated more of what was going on. Especially when it had to with inequities within the Academy itself. [Just to point out, the Academy is more than 90% white and nearly 80% men. Rich, old white guys with OWDS.]

But it was the ongoing disdain from the host and the crowd against super heroes and comic books that really allowed me to see how I just don't fit in with "my" crowd. There were multiple comments about how glad we should all be that no super heroes were nominated for... anything. I just want to point out that super heroes have never been nominated. For anything. However, Guardians of the Galaxy and Captain America: The Winter Soldier were better than at least half of the nominees. Seriously, Whiplash? What a piece of crap. The Theory of Everything, too. Both worthless movies.

Benedict Cumberbatch, though, shined the brightest light on the issue. The host, a little Susan Sarandon number (seriously, if she had said, "Hey, I'm Susan," I might have actually believed her), had a serious thing for Benedict. During the commercial breaks, she was asking trivia questions (for prizes), and she got to this one:

What Marvel character is Benedict Cumberbatch signed on to play in an upcoming movie?

And there was... silence. Which was quite a contrast to all of the other questions which had had people immediately yelling answers. After enough of a pause that it was obvious that no one was going to say anything (and I think she was about to tell the answer), I shouted, "Dr. Strange!" And, see, she was surprised that I knew that. She had not expected an answer. Then, she said, "I don't even know what comic book that is," (or something like that), and I said, "Dr. Strange!" And she was surprised again. Seriously.

There were a couple of hundred people there, and no one else knew that. That's as basic as water to me. Or air. But it's not that I have a specialized knowledge set that that group of people didn't have; it was the reaction to my specialized knowledge set that was the issue. The host was both disdainful and dismissive of it, and she was fairly representative of the class of people that were there. It made me feel as if I was an anthropomorphized raccoon sitting there in the theater.

Okay, so not really.

Because I really am an anthropomorphized raccoon.

Okay, fine! I'm not.

I am Groot.

>sigh<
Fine!

Anyway, the point is that I don't really fit into this group of people I'm supposed to fit into, and I probably do a lot better job of it here in California than I ever would have done in the South. I'm sure that's why I don't live there anymore. According to my wife, anyway. It might help if I wanted to fit in with the group of "white dudes" or "rich, old white dudes" or whatever. Not that I wouldn't take "rich," I suppose, at least up to a point. But, my gosh, when the only recognition a movie like Selma gets is for the song, then something is wrong. Granted, it's a great song. Again, I'm just going to say, at least Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu got acknowledged for Birdman.

Gone Girl (a movie review (without the book) post)

Well... Here we are at the beginning of the Oscar Run. That's my new term for the beginning of what is kind of Oscar season. Technically, there is no "Oscar season;" however, it's also true that most of the movies that are nominated for best picture come out in November and December. At any rate, we went to see our first of the potential nominees.

First, I have not read the book. My wife has, but she was careful not to tell me anything about it other than read to me the "cool girl" speech. Still, I knew that there was a twist (because everyone is always talking about Twist in this one) even if I didn't know what it was. It didn't catch me. Maybe, it's because I knew there was one and was just anticipating or, maybe, it's because of how the movie starts, which is what I suspect. And I'd love to talk about it, but I don't actually want to spoil it for anyone else. So I'll just say it like this:

When you have a character alone and that character is reacting to something in a particular way, since there are no other characters around to witness the reaction, the audience is inclined to trust that the reaction is genuine.

I think that's what "ruined" the twist for me, because I had already accepted one particular reaction from one of the characters as genuine, so I wasn't able to go down the path that the director wanted me to go so as to be surprised by the truth.

My wife tells me that I would have been fooled by the book. Now, we'll never know.

Okay, all of that aside, I did really enjoy the movie. Ben Affleck is excellent. It's a rather subdued role, but he played it really well. He's a guy who isn't happy in his marriage, has financial issues, and... well, I don't want to tip anything off. Affleck is very adept, though, at switching his charm on and off, and he uses it well in this movie. Mostly, he's a disheveled mess, but he has those flashes of charisma that seemingly come out of nowhere and are instantly gone.

Rosamund Pike was an excellent choice for Amy Dunne. She has that rather cold, detached demeanor that worked really well in this role.

Beyond the two leads, I liked Tyler Perry as Tanner Bolt. A lot. I'm not really familiar with Perry beyond knowing his name, so it was good to see him in something. I don't know if his portrayal of Bolt is anything like the character in the book, but I really enjoyed him on screen.

And, you know, it's good to see Neil Patrick Harris in anything, though I don't think there was anything remarkable about this role for him other than to be reminded that he is capable of more than just being Barney, which is to same Awesome.

I won't be surprised if Gone Girl gets nominated (they seem to have slim pickings this year from what I can tell from the early lists), but it's not going to win. ]Yeah, yeah. I know last year my pick didn't even get a nomination, but I still stand by it.] It's a good, solid movie. Interesting. If you haven't read the book, you are likely to get caught up in trying to figure out what's really going on. And there's a lot in it to keep you talking about it for a few days. It's definitely worth seeing, though it's not a movie you really need to see in the theater.

Nebraska (a movie review post)

Before I get into the actual review, I want to say that this makes 9 out of 9 seen of the movies nominated for Best Picture, this year. We've never managed to see them all ahead of the Oscars before. I'm not sure if we'll ever actually try to get them all in, again, the way we did this year. It just sort of worked out.

Nebraska is another of those movies that I would never have gone to see (or probably even rented) if it wasn't nominated for Best Picture. I don't think it's a "best picture," but I am glad I saw it. Of all of this year's best picture nominees, it is probably the one that will linger the longest in my mind despite it's very subdued quality as a movie.

And it is subdued. Slow moving. And black-and-white, which adds to the subdued quality. I've been trying to figure out what the movie would be like in color, and I can't really imagine it that way. Color would change the tone of the movie, which is kind of weird to me, but I think it would. It would make it not quite so somber, and it needs the somberness, the sense of depression and desperation, to make it work.

Being black and white, though, it won't appeal to a lot of people (my daughter (and, yeah, she's just a kid, but I've known plenty of adults with the same attitude) refuses to watch b&w movies out of principle. The fact that it's slow, including scenes of people just sitting around not talking, will also make it unappealing to pretty sizable chunk of people. But some of those scenes of people just sitting, or sitting and watching football, reminded me of being a kid in East Texas, and those scenes really resonated with me which has caused me to continue to think about it even though it's not at all spectacular.

The other part of that is that the movie is not what it's about. On the surface it's a movie about an old guy that seems not quite all there trying to walk to Nebraska to pick up $1,000,000 that he thinks he's won, but it's not about that. I mean, it's not about growing old and losing your grasp on reality. It's about relationships and how we don't always know people as well as we think we do, even when those people are our parents.

The acting was great. I'm not sure Bruce Dern deserves the best actor nomination, but he was very good. He really sold the depression and desperation. Okay, maybe he does deserve the nomination. The role is so... normal; it makes it hard to tell. Will Forte was even better as his younger son, David. He brought the helplessness and exasperation to the role. They were great together. And Forte was also great with Bob Odenkirk who played his older brother. They had great chemistry. June Squib was frightening and hilarious as Woody's wife.

I'm going to hold myself back, at this point, and not talk about the relationships and family dynamics, because it would require all kinds of spoilers, and I think this is the kind of movie that each person should come to on his/her own, so to speak. It probably has something different to say to any given person based on what that person is bringing into it, like my resonance with the old men in my family sitting around, mostly silently, watching football.

This one probably won't appeal to a lot of people at the outset. There are no explosions, no gunfights, and no car chases. But, if you let yourself follow along, I think it's one you'll find yourself pondering at odd moments for weeks (or at least days) after you see it.

The Oscar Challenge

Some of you may have noticed the spate of movie reviews on my blog, lately, and the more astute of you may have noticed that most of these (nearly all) have been for movies that are nominated for Best Picture at this year's Academy Awards. See, several years ago, my wife and I decided to actually try to see the movies that were nominated before the awards were given out. [She's not all that into the big, blockbuster-type summer movies (with some exceptions (Avengers)), so this our movie thing that we do together.] It didn't go so well that year, because we waited until after the nominations were announced, and many of the movies were no longer at the theater and not yet available on DVD. Since then, we've been working on our technique.

Last year, we managed to see six of the nine nominated films before the awards ceremony (we've seen all but one, at this point). Although I was glad that Argo won (for Affleck's sake), I think Lincoln was the better film. At least, Day-Lewis won for best actor, though, because anything other than that would have just been wrong.

This year, we are up to six of the nine nominated films (as I write this, because I think we'll be at seven before this actually gets posted). Of course, my belief is that the count should be seven of 10, because Saving Mr. Banks certainly should have been nominated. Some of what I've read suggests that it didn't get nominated due to Meryl Streep and that she was actively campaigning to keep that nomination from happening. And I get that a big part of the Academy Awards is political, but that kind of stuff just bothers me. And, no, I don't know Meryl Streep, so I can't say that that's true, but I did read about her anti-Disney speech, and I do know that that film should have been nominated.

But maybe it wasn't nominated so that it wouldn't win. I mean, if it was nominated, it would be difficult to justify picking a different movie over it, like, say, 12 Years a Slave, but, if it's not nominated at all, then it can't win. Which is messed up logic, too, but the Academy people do like to go with "important" movies and, maybe, it's still too close to The Artist's win in 2011 for them to go with another Hollywood-ish film even if this one is deserving (as opposed to The Artist, which wasn't).

Anyway...

At the moment, from the nominated movies, I'm going with 12 Years a Slave as the eventual winner. I don't think it's the best film, but I do think it's the most likely to win. Of the ones I've seen, I think Dallas Buyers Club is the most deserving of the Best Picture Oscar, but I don't think it will win. I do hope that Matthew McConaughey gets Best Actor, though; he was tremendous in a similar fashion as Day-Lewis in Lincoln.

Did I say there should be 10 nominations this year? Actually, I don't really think that. I think there should only be nine, because The Wolf of Wall Street doesn't deserve its nomination. It's this year's Beasts of the Southern Wild, the movie that people can't bring themselves to say that they don't get. Sometimes, when a movie doesn't make sense, it really just doesn't make sense. Don't pretend you get it by talking about how deep it is and how other people just don't understand, especially if, then, you're not going to bother explaining because, you know, if you didn't get it on your own, you just can't get it. Do people still believe that line? I suppose they must.
Anyway, I've already been through that class, so it doesn't work on me. Heck, I've been on the other end of that, so it really doesn't work on me. [Seriously, one of my English profs in college would give A's to any paper that was just outside of his understanding. Or, you know, if it was too confusing but you could make him think he just wasn't "getting" it. Rather than look like he didn't get it, he'd just give the paper the A.]

Captain Phillips is this year's Life of Pi for me. It's the movie I just can't manage to make myself want to see. We knew when it was out in theater that we should go see it. We talked about it a lot. It always came down to, "Well, do you want to see it?" "No, do you?" "No..." And, so, we never went to see it, and there's probably no way, now, to see it before Oscar night without buying it, and I really don't want to do that. Although, if we manage to get in the other two beforehand, we might break down. It has been mentioned.

And, yeah, I did, eventually, see Life of Pi, and, yeah, it would have been a cool movie to see in the theater just for the visual aspect of it, but, beyond that, I wasn't overly impressed (you can click the link and read the review if you want).

I guess the real question from all of this is, when all is said and done, "Do I feel, really, like I've watched the year's best movies?" Yes, actually, on the whole, I do, especially this year. There are movies I enjoy more just for the thrill of watching them, but I don't have any illusions of that making them better movies than they are. As with food, enjoyment does not equal quality or goodness (for you). Look, I loved Thor: The Dark World, and I would (and will) watch it again, but Dallas Buyers Club is a better movie. I'll probably never watch Dallas Buyers Club again; it's not the kind of thing you want to watch again (most people, anyway); but I'm really glad I saw it the one time, because it was a powerful and moving movie.

So, mostly, yeah, I think they do a pretty decent job of picking out the "best" movies. The movies with something to say. Except 2011. I don't know what was going on that year. At any rate, that we watch these movies allows me to step a little outside of the movies I would normally watch. It's like (exactly like) reading a book outside of your favorite genre, and it's always good to experience new things. Some of them will suck (Wolf), but some of them will be extraordinary and you'll be really glad you stepped outside of your box even if you're just going to get right back inside (because I totally plan to see Robocop). The thing is, if you do it enough, you'll find that your box isn't quite cube-shaped anymore, and that's a good thing.

Oh, and just to throw it out there, my wife is totally going for American Hustle. I think it's the hair.