2014 was not
the best year for film. For me, it is a year defined by disappointing
submissions by very capable directors and a string of clichéd, over-hyped
biopics that proved the flaws of the format. And in some cases, the two
overlap.
I am going
to do my best to not be overly critical here. The last time I reviewed a year
in cinema that was this poor, I got several E-mails and comments about my
negativity (Sorry, 2009 was really that bad and I hold firm on that).
There is
some reason to celebrate this crop of films. In fact, the very best films in
2014 would be stand outs in any year.
The most
creative films were the ones that stood out most in 2014. I am usually one to
stand against the oedipal nature of art and will almost always prefer quality
over uniqueness, but this year will be the exception, because that uniqueness
was only a part of why these films were so good.
Anyway, like
last year I am juggling a lot of projects so I will keep these relatively
short. If you are new to these reviews here is how this works: These are a list
of films I feel strongly about in one way or another. It is not every film I
have seen, and it is not a countdown from worst to best (though it is in a
rough order that follows that thinking). There are always a lot of films that
come out each year that don’t need commenting on. I usually steer clear of the
Hollywood Blockbusters as good as they sometimes are (For instance, I will not
review Guardians of the Galaxy or Captain America: The Winter Soldier, though
they are both Marvel’s best films to date and that company is starting to hit a
serious stride). I usually lay off sequels as well. I also missed a few this
year that I may edit into this once I remedy that (Nightcrawler, Still Alice,
Two Days, One Night). And, in an attempt to be less negative, I will leave off
a handful of terrible films I was somehow recommended to see (I’m talking about
you Snowpiercer).
Let’s start
with some of this year’s big disappointments and work our way to some of the
better films.
Noah:
As anyone
who has read these reviews in the past knows, I am a huge fan of Darren
Aronofsky. Each of his films before this one had been better than the last and
the way he has evolved into one of, if not the best filmmaker working today,
has been a joy to watch.
But this
film did not work.
Passion
projects sometimes go this way. He wanted it to be epic, and in a sense, that
scale is what weighed it down and made the story that much more ridiculous.
Every artist
will have some dogs that plague his or her career, and I think this will be one
that sticks for a while. Even the reliable Clint Mansell score was weaker than
his previous installments. A couple bright spots were Russell Crowe, who manages
take everything seriously enough to pull you into the story and characters and
Emma Watson who steals every scene she is in. Aronofsky can always be counted
on when bringing great performances out of his actors, but that couldn’t save
this film from an overuse of CGI and ridiculous Rock Giants.
Gone Girl:
Again, I am
a fan of David Fincher and usually will make a point to see any film of his in
the theater. I even saw Panic Room. So this one is another big disappointment
by a very talented (I hate that word) director.
I tried
reading Gillian Flynn’s very popular novel last year and stalled out early on.
After talking with a couple friends on New Year’s Eve I decided to go back and
finish the job before seeing the film. I was not a big fan of the book but I
also didn’t hate it. It had moments of satire about modern media built around a
fluid prose of a he-says she-says storyline. It spirals in a way where you
don’t quite know what is opinion, paranoia or reality and ends on a sour note
with a loose analogy of modern marriage.
Then I saw
the film. I know it was adapted by the author, which makes it that much more
frustrating that the film takes a way too literal interpretation of the text.
There is no room for point of view arguments, and you’re left with this
misogynistic, ugly film with one of the most unsatisfying, unrealistic endings
I can remember.
If this is
in any way an analogy of modern marriage, then I have to assume that every man
is a blank slate, waiting to adapt himself to the likings of the woman he
fancies, and will slowly revert back to the sloth like nothing once the
courtship has ended. And every woman is a varying level of self-important
sociopath who will routinely use victimization and falsify rape to meet their
simplest whims and needs.
That is a
pretty bleak world view.
Usually if a
film affects me this much, even in a negative way, I tip my hat at the
artistry. Not this time. In the book, things have a bizarre normalcy at the end
that has a tinge of humor and satire. In the film, the characters seem to
change and do things that nothing in the film previously would lead you to
believe they would do.
If I am to
take some positive away from this film, Rosmund Pike continues to impress. It
is a meaty role for her and she is fantastic in it. So good, that the stain of
the rest of the film does not harm her performance.
Hopefully
Fincher will bounce back with his next film.
American
Sniper:
This film
and the next one on this review share a shockingly similar flaw considering how
different each subject is from the other. But before we get into that, let’s
get one thing out of the way – my disappointment in this film is not a
political one. People claiming this film is irresponsible propaganda for a war
that is ending and should not be glorified, maybe they have a point. But it is
not one I am going to make, because this is a film not just about Chris Kyle,
but a story from his point of view. And whether or not you share that view is
irrelevant. Clint Eastwood, if he is going to make this film, from this
autobiographical source, has an obligation to maintain this world view. But
unfortunately, this is also why the movie was so bad.
Maybe, in 20
years or more, when families and friends are not still suffering so much loss,
this material could be revisited in a different light. Because (like The Theory
of Everything), there is a story here if the director didn’t have to be so damn
complimentary. For a film set in wartime, there is no real conflict in this
film. No moral grey areas or questions of right and wrong. Everything Chris
Kyle does is with clear eyes and a true heart. Which is not drama, and makes
for a terrible film. And that is a shame because, with a little distance that
ending could have been shaped to be about a patriotic figure who could see well
enough to shoot an enemy a mile away but was unable to see the damage and
negative aspects of war which eventually cause his end. Instead, we get an
homage of this larger than life war hero that can do no wrong, never questions
his actions and is never portrayed in a bad light. In other words, no drama.
I know some
people saw it differently but I feel, if Eastwood was going for a Fog of War
angle, he missed the mark by a mile (see what I did there). The other controversy
about this film is a lack of American sensitivity, both in its subject and the
idea that it shattered the January box office records while being about a
sniper and opening on Martin Luther King Day (While another Biopic, about King,
was also in theaters). Does that bother me? Ugh maybe a little. But people are
always going to see what they want, not feel obliged to see what would paint
them in a better light. For me the bigger question is how Bradley Cooper got
nominated for an Academy Award for this film.
The Theory
of Everything:
Another
Biopic that refuses to give its subject any humanity, opting instead for homage
and a safe, complimentary view of all parties involved. And, just like American
Sniper, misses that fact that there is a story there to mine. As much of a fan
of Clint Eastwood that I am, this film is the greater disappointment of the two
because of the subject, Professor Stephen Hawking, but it is also a better
film.
First the
bad – this film reduces Hawking’s story into My Left Foot territory and typical
actor Oscar bait. There is little cosmology, math or science touched upon
throughout the film for fear of alienating a larger audience, which is a
peculiar way to go with a figure that broke boundaries such as these and has
sold millions of books to a wide audience, many who were never interested in
his field of study. But fine, make the film about the side of the man the
public doesn’t know, and about his wife Jane (who wrote the book the film was
based on). But for God’s sake, have the courage to make it compelling and
interesting and fully develop these characters so that we have a vested
interest in their struggles. Fleshing out Stephen as a brilliant but distant
atheist, tackling his illness with a cold realism vs his overly romantic and
religious Girlfriend/Wife’s blind faith and how they attempt to balance each
other would have been compelling and interesting. Scenes of Stephens shaken
resolve, or the questioning and realization in Jane that her teenage ideals and
over romanticized views of love and drama may have lead her down a path she was
not prepared for – that would have been dramatic! Instead, neither ever
question their love and strength and are incapable of wrong. Their relationship
failed because of time and outside forces and I’m not really clear what else,
because it just kind of dies onscreen in a safe and boring way where no one can
take any blame. Again, like American Sniper, a refusal to show these characters
in any poor light, even though it would make them more human, relatable and
even likable, cost this film its heart and drama. The conflict instead simply
became the illness and nothing else.
Now the
good- There were times, especially early on, that the direction, the visuals
and the way the music built up at just the right time, made me forget all the
things that bothered me. It is a great looking and sounding film. The
performances do what they can with such limited range. Felicity Jones is a bit
of a weak spot, as her character and some of the lines she has to speak are so
simplistic and one dimensional. A shame too, because she was fantastic as
Dickens mistress in The Invisible Woman. Eddie Redmayne is the current favorite
to win the Academy Award for this role, and while he is outstanding in the
film, I am firmly rooting against him. I am sick of the cripple role being
automatic Oscar bait, and there were other outstanding performances this year
that far exceeded the range of this flawless and polite impersonation.
Inherent
Vice:
This is two
films now by Paul Thomas Anderson that have left me disappointed. But I did not
hate this film like I did The Master. In fact, there is a lot about this film I
really liked. But on a whole, it did not quite know what it wanted to be and
took far too long trying to figure that out.
A bit
Chinatown by way of Hunter Thompson, I can’t decide if this film needed more
comedy or less. But it is one of those. Or maybe some of the comedic beats were
just off. Either way, I am usually the last person to be calling for clear
labels and the need to categorize genre, but because this film never fit any
structure, I was left waiting for something, anything to happen that made sense
of it all. But it never came.
I think I
would be much more forgiving of Inherent Vice if my expectations were not so
high and if it wasn’t such a grueling commitment. This is a film that could
have easily have been an hour and a half to maybe two hours. Two and a half
hours was way, way too long to have next to nothing to say.
There was a
cool 1970’s feel and humor to this film that made it enjoyable, and the very
physical performances by Joaquin Phoenix and Josh Brolin added to the comedy
and were a better fit here than the over-the-top acting in The Master.
I wanted
more from this film. It just misses being something different and memorable. I
can only fault it so much for the attempt and maybe this is one worth seeing
for yourself.
Foxcatcher:
A two hour
long political cartoon pulled from The New Yorker, where shades of wealthy
American exceptionalism are shown through hunched over impoverished primates
and marble-mouthed, giant nose-in-the-air rich elitists. It is also a scathing
account of wealth in sports, where rich white men live vicariously through more
able-bodied gladiators.
This was an
amazing story. It works on so many levels, and the way it is filmed with such a
disconnect from its subjects, as if we are looking at humanity through some
third party perspective, heightens the performance and the inevitable tragic
ending. And that social science experiment aspect of this film is what allows
you to take the make-up and prosthetic enhanced, overly physical performances
seriously. At least, after a little getting used to.
This was
another film that was almost great. Is this a biopic, based on real people?
Yes, but it doesn’t suffer for it. These are not public figures and icons, and
almost no one comes out of this film in a flattering light. And the true story
aspect may help the more bizarre elements from being questioned.
Unfortunately
what drags this film down is a simple rule in screenplay writing – each scene
needs to set up the following one in a series of ups and downs and highs and
lows to pull at the audiences emotions and keep their attention. This film flat-lines
for an hour and a half. It is excruciatingly slow moving. And because of that,
the clever moments of comedy and heart never catch the right beat and stick the
landing.
Worth
watching, and the performances (especially Mark Ruffalo) and directors praise
is well deserved. With better editing and a more polished script, this could
have been extraordinary.
The
Imitation Game:
My feelings
towards this film are my feelings towards the genre of biopics in general. And
the Award Season campaign for this one sums up the problem perfectly. The pitch
for awards made by The Imitation Game is this – “Honor the Man, Honor the
Film”. This is so absolutely abhorrent in any medium of art that it makes me
angry. But I will try not to take it out on the film itself. If you believe in
that statement, the Oscars should basically be split up beforehand between
Selma and this film and you can just skip the movies themselves. Unless someone
makes a film about Jesus, in which case we can all just go home.
This, unlike
many of the biopics this year, is a story that is worth telling. Alan Turning
is a name not everyone is familiar with, and that is a problem. He was as
influential to the twentieth century as Einstein, Adolf Hitler, Martin Luther
King Jr, Gahndi and whoever else you think belongs on that list. In fact, he
probably had an even greater impact than those men. Beyond his impact on
fiction from Isaac Asimov and Phillip K. Dick to The Matrix and The Terminator,
he is often referred to as the father of the Computer, maybe the biggest
advancement in mankind’s history since electricity or even the wheel. And,
(AND!) he has the distinguished honor of being the most influential single
figure in winning World War Two, saving an estimated 14 million lives. If you did
not know his name before, you should see this film and find out why that is.
Enough
honoring of the man, let’s talk about the film. Is it possible for a film to be
both melodramatic and wooden at the same time? There is a coldness here that
somehow makes the clichéd embellishes throughout the story seem all the more
out of place and ridiculous. Every time the story was shaped to fit genre
expectations, these characters lost their humanity. And by the end, the impact
was deadened and fell well short of what it could have been.
It is a
strange film (which may be fitting for its idiosyncratic subject). At times it
has big budget CGI war scenes, and in others there are crude montages of old,
real footage. It’s as if they ran out of money half way through production. And
at the very end, much like the weak ending to American Sniper, The Imitation
Game goes for a more “tell, don’t show” wind down.
Biopics can
be good films, and this is one worth seeing. But, unless they are done without
reverence, without concerning the feelings of the subject or the subject’s
family, and without caring about how the world views the specific subject and
instead worries about what makes a better movie, biopics cannot reach any level
of greatness. This is a dead horse I am sadly going to be beating throughout
this year’s reviews…
The Drop:
It is a fine
film, and the acting here is certainly underrated. But I implore you, read
Dennis LeHane’s novel of the same name first, or at the very least the short
story, Animal Rescue, that it was adapted from. The reason being (beyond the
obvious book to film reasoning) is that one major change from the novel hurt
the film greatly. But I can also see why they made it. Sort of…
James Gandolfini
is a phenomenal actor, and I know a lot less people would have seen this film
if he was not in it. He is probably the reason the film got funding to begin
with. And it is a great performance. But he was also the reason they set the
film in The Bronx. Both the short story and novel are set in The Polish
Triangle in Dorchester MA, and the neighborhood is as important a character as anyone
in the story. If I hadn’t known that going in would I still care? Maybe not?
But certain things just don’t make sense, from the closing times at the bar,
the neighborhood mix of Irish Catholics and Eastern Europeans, etc. And the
film lost its personality because of that.
The
abandoned pit-bull storyline, which was the focus of the short story, takes a
back seat here as well which I thought was a strange decision. I felt it had
such an impact on what the characters do at the end that it left something
missing.
Still, good
performances by the three leads, and it stands as a fine visual for a very good
read.
Interstellar:
I saw
Interstellar months ago but am still trying to process it. There is a lot about
this film I love. There is a lot about it I thought missed the mark. It is
nearly impossible for me to place it among other films this year because it is
so different from the rest, and the aspects I loved about it should put it at
the very top of this list. Unfortunately, there were some things, from a
filmmaking standpoint, I feel were mishandled or could have been much better,
so it is hard for me to put it higher than films I thought were nearly
flawless. Like Nolan’s other Sci-Fi head-scratcher Inception, this is a film
that will rattle around upstairs for years to come.
Is this film
hard-sci-fi, like so many other people have noted? I’m not so sure. For all the
science, there is also a prevailing argument throughout the film for
quantifiable love and the need to have a family to fight for vs cold and
calculated reasoning. Those are not aspects that fit the mold. And yet, it is a
film that focuses so much on the science of gravity and time and shows
exploration in as wonderful (and at times terrifying) a light as possible.
This film is
an artistic response to the defunding of NASA and the loss of imagination that
comes when you stop exploring. And for that, I loved it.
This was
also a beautiful film. If you saw it in the theater, I hope you saw it in IMAX.
The music, the photography and the special effects are in a class by themselves
this year.
Now you are
probably wondering why I have this film so low on my list. Again, sometimes
it’s about expectation. Christopher Nolan is one of my favorite filmmakers
working today and I expect the level of creativity and greatness from the films
he works on.
From the
start, I though Mathew McConaughey was wrong for the lead. He is a fine actor,
but just seemed like off casting. I know they were going for Hal Jordan here,
but it never fit. But the worst casting was Matt Damon (and acting too. Maybe
the worst, phoned in performance I can remember. And I think he is a very good
and capable actor).
I can get
into a lot of issues I had but instead of making a list of complaints I will
just paint them on with broad strokes. There is a scene towards the end, when
there is a lot of exposition to muscle through, but it is overshadowed by
Cooper screaming his daughters name and throwing a fit. It is classic
misdirection (film school students will know it better by “The Pope in the
Pool” scene). But that exposition was important. And this film had and needed
so much of it that the story suffered. People came out confused and glassy
eyed. And there was only so much subtext you can milk out of scientific
explanation to an audience of laypeople.
Am I glad I
saw this film and do I recommend it? Absolutely. But it is far from perfect. It
needs to be given credit though for being one of the most ambitious films in a
long while.
A Most
Violent Year:
The biggest
criticism I have for this film, and I am not alone in this, was the way it was
marketed and, because of that, the expectation going in. I hate to start with
the negative, because this was a very good movie, but anyone who thought they
were going into a Scorsese like gangster movie was left waiting for the
violence promised in the title and probably left the theater a little confused.
But, I say
again, this was a very good movie. The acting was fantastic, and in a year
where any decent females roles were few and far between, Jessica Chastain’s
role as the overcompensating tough-guy gangsters daughter was, arguably, my
favorite to come out of that weak pool. This film, like 2011’s Drive, was a bit
of a slow burn. A building tension that keeps you on the edge of your seat. The
final payoff is somewhat predictable, a little bit of a letdown for anyone
still expecting this to be a violent shoot em’ up, but rooted in a realism that
makes the film work as a whole.
Just be
warned, this is a film about corruption being the norm and one ambitious
immigrant fighting for his somewhat naïve belief in the American Dream. This is
not a stylized gangster movie.
Whiplash:
This is a
small movie, and I mean that in a good way. There is an almost Cormac McCarthy
like talking heads aspect, as if the film was one conversation. And, because of
the wild tension and drama, it keeps you focused throughout.
J.K. Simmons
channels Lee Emrey is a great performance, even if it has become a little bit
of typecasting for him. Either way, he is a great actor and is deserving of the
praise.
In any other
year, the jazz beat that defined the film would stand out as visionary and creative,
but unfortunately one other film managed to do it bigger and better. And that
is not the only comparison to Birdman I will make. Both films had a
behind-the-curtain aspect to them, but Whiplash shied away from unique and
creative story and character arcs. My big complaint with this films is that it
had a “Prime time scripted drama” feel, like an episode of Law and Order. You
know the structure so well from having seen it before. You know how it will
end. You just watch for the incidentals and character moments.
Whiplash is
a pretty good film. I’m a little surprised at the Best Picture nomination, but
this year’s crop was a strange one. I will be very interested to see what
writer-director Damien Chazelle does next.
Selma:
Call it the
racism of expectation, but I unfortunately have to admit to judging this film
before seeing it. I knew it had not received much awards buzz and had a handful
of detractors complaining about the historical accuracies, so I saw it as a
film that could wait until I was caught up on what I expected to be the best
films of the year. I read the reviews (something I try not to do before seeing
a film like this), and saw the dispassionate, across the board praise that I
immediately assumed was because no one wanted to criticize a film about Martin
Luther King Jr.
I, in a rare
case, was happy to be wrong. Selma, while far from perfect and definitely
falling into several of the traps many other biopics this year suffered from,
is a very good film. One with moments of greatness and worthy of its important
and still very topical subject matter.
David Oyelowo had a great year, with roles in Interstellar
and A Most Violent Year, but his portrayal of Dr. King, such a recognizable
icon, will be what he is remembered for from 2014. Probably for his whole
career. There are moments where he is larger than life, and the film certainly
focuses on those, but it is the smaller moments of Kings doubt, anger and all
the other flaws that make him human where Oyelowo shines. Those scenes and
flaws are what make his character so exceptional.
The critics that point out the embellishes of history could
complain about almost any historical film, but their criticism of Tom
Wilkinson’s LBJ are not without merit. I’m not sure what he was like behind
closed doors, but Scooby Doo villain would not be my guess. That may be harsh,
but I do know that he had a Texas accent, and Wilkinson plays him with something
that sounds Chicago-Polish by way of New York. His entire storyline, and the
awkward scenes with Coretta Scott King just bog the film down.
Luckily, the rest of the film was as dramatic and
emotionally engaging as anything else this year. I am shocked Selma wasn’t a
bigger presence this awards season.
A Most
Wanted Man:
How did this
film fall through the cracks this year? I know it came out in the wrong season,
but so what? It is topical, written by one of the most beloved writers of both
novels and films in history, and is the final starring role of one of the best
actors of the last 2 decades.
Granted, I
am huge fan of John Le Carré. I have read several of his novels and seen almost
all the films adapted from them. I had not read A Most Wanted Man though and I
hesitated on whether or not to see the film first. His resume is so long though
and it was admittedly down the list on books I am currently reading and am
planning to read. I cannot comment on the novel (I’m sure it is fantastic
though), but the film was great. Phillip Seymour Hoffman plays an eastern
European version of Le Carré’s George Smiley, and shows why he was an actor with
few peers. And the rest of the film fits that world where James Bond is a
ridiculous fantasy and spies are more likely to drink themselves to death alone
than die in an epic shootout. The world of The Spy Who Came in From the Cold,
The Honorable Schoolboy and Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy.
If you are
not familiar with these previous films, A Most Wanted Man is a fine place to
jump in. Gray areas abound and you will question yourself and what you believe
in. This is as engaging a film that came out this year and it is a shame that
so few people have seen it and it was not considered for any awards.
Mr. Turner:
Of all the
many, many films this year about very famous, real life people, Mr. Turner is
the one stand out that doesn’t fall into cliché biopic territory. And that is
because of the director, Mike Leigh, and the way his films never quite fit the
mold of any genre that came before them. Leigh makes films that are intimate
character pieces, devoid of plot and story structure, famously choosing to
avoid screenplays entirely. Some of his films are great and some don’t quite
hit the mark, but the freedom he grants his actors in Mr. Turner, especially
Timothy Spall in the title role, pays off huge. And this is probably his best
film yet.
Mike Leigh
is as British as they come, so making a film about Turner just seems logical.
The relationship that the Brits have with Turner has always been amusing in the
art world, crediting him with the birth of impressionism and the Barbizon
School to Abstract expressionism and everything in between. Many films have
made light of this in the past, and seeing a very British film reduce him to
the stature of an honest-to-goodness human being is an accomplishment in
itself. Not only that, they let Spall take him to some great depths and heights
of eccentricity. Looking at this film from that viewpoint, Mr. Turner is
Leigh’s The Last Temptation of Christ (and in the British art world, may be seen as
just as blasphemous).
My only
complaint about this film was that, because of the experimental nature of the
story, some scenes did not feel entirely necessary. And when a film reaches 2 ½
hours, those unpolished moments are harder to sit through. If the editing was a
little tighter, this could have been a masterpiece. As it stands, it is a great
film that will hopefully open the door to similar subjects, far enough removed
by time that they will not fall into the same traps that films about real life
people so often stumble into.
The Trip to
Italy:
This film,
the second in what will hopefully be several more in the series, captures
almost all of what made the first film, The Trip, one of my absolute favorite
viewing experiences in years. Almost I say, because with any sequel you lose
that originality, and that was a major aspect of what made the first one so
great. Before I say anything about this film I need to tell you, if you have
not seen The Trip, do so right away.
The Italian
countryside will certainly be a bigger audience draw than quaint English Inns
and restaurants, and the scale is bigger as well as the HD camera work. If this
wasn’t two talking heads doing self-deprecating humor in between Michael Caine
impersonations this film could have been shown in IMAX. If you enjoy traveling,
Rick Steves, Anthony Bourdain and any of the other countless HDTV travel slash
foodie shows then this will be an enjoyable overdose.
Beyond the
food porn and beautiful landscapes though is what makes both these films so
unique and wonderful compared to everything else in the theater these days. It
is mature in its handling of male friendships and humor. You may not understand
without seeing these films, but almost everything out there is juvenile,
man-child humor and it has been like that for decades. This is different and
should be applauded for showing another side of male humor and comradery, beyond
the dick and fart jokes that dominate the industry.
Boyhood:
I will say
again, uniqueness does not trump quality or even necessarily count as quality
in art. So, knowing the gimmick behind the filming of Boyhood had me prepared
for a film that skated by on said gimmick and nothing else. But in this case, the way it was filmed was
not a simple gimmick, and was the entire reason the film worked as a whole.
There is not
much of a plot or drama in Boyhood. No discernable story structure, no
antagonist or character goals. The only thing that moves and motivates,
challenges and rewards these characters is unknown to them and only viewable
from our position. And that is time. The passage of time is the source of all
the drama in this film, and it works in a way that words cannot describe.
The idea of
this film, on paper, does not work. But when the lights came on and people
stood up in the theater, we were all emotionally exhausted. And in a good way,
as if we had just sat through and shared some epic drama and not some small
Indy film with talking heads and realistic, analogy and subtext free dialogue.
That is the power of seeing these characters change and age over such a length
of time. You cannot help but become invested and attached to them.
Here is a
case where the uniqueness of the film is its quality. And it is one of those
films that can be talked about and discussed in ways that don’t necessarily fit
the norm of acting, score, cinematography etc. Discussion about this film is
about the lives of the characters, which I think is a great accomplishment.
The Grand
Budapest Hotel:
There comes
a point, when an artist peaks and reaches a level of recognizably in their
style, where everything that comes after seems like self-parody on the way back
down to earth. Beyond that point is where I would have placed Wes Anderson, so
I did not rush to see his latest when it came out in theaters. Considering it
was staring Ralph Fiennes, who may be my favorite actor working today, that should
show you where my expectations were for The Grand Budapest Hotel. But unlike
most artists, Anderson stayed the course and owned that recognizably. He
embraced it, and ultimately took a step towards perfecting his craft. This may
be an unpopular statement amongst the rabid fans of Rushmore and The Royal
Tenenbaums, but I think The Grand Budapest Hotel is Wes Anderson’s best film to
date.
From a
production standpoint, this and Birdman are alone when it comes to set design,
art direction, costumes etc. They are beyond impressive in both scale and
design. The details and willingness to use such elaborate stages as secondary
visuals, quick takes and background only shows a confidence in the filmmaking
that is really extraordinary. This is even used as a gag in the film but also
fits the narrative about a changing world and the loss of certain aesthetics,
shown subtly with the use of artwork by Austrian masters like Egon Schiele and
Gustav Klimt.
But what
sent this film over the top for me was Ralph Fiennes. M. Gustave is a character
that will stand the test of time, and it is absolutely criminal that he was not
nominated for an Academy Award. It is an amazing performance.
This is a
film I look forward to visiting again soon.
Birdman:
The best
film this year. And, when I saw it I knew nothing coming out in the follow
months had a chance of taking that spot. This is a decade defining masterpiece
that deserves every single bit of praise it has been receiving. And, the best
part is that people actually are praising it across the board, which is so
surprising and goes against everything I would have predicted.
I don’t want
to wax poetic about this film for a thousand words because words cannot do it
justice. That is why it is uniquely a film and not an adaptable source or
medium. Just know that, when I saw the trailers and heard the descriptions, my
first thought was that all those gimmicks will not work. But they do.
Everything comes together so perfectly, from the insanely long takes, edited
together to make one long and emotional journey through claustrophobic hallways
and metaphorical doors, the tribal drum beat that moves you along the way, to
the mesh of each actor weaving in and out of character while somehow still
wearing their hearts on their sleeves.
Words cannot
do it. See it for yourself. I envy you for being able to experience it for the
first time.
So there you
have it. As always, thank you for reading and please let me know what you
think. Arguing the merits of other peoples art continues to be my favorite
pastime, so don’t be shy.
Oscar picks!
Best PictureShould Win: Birdman
Will Win: Boyhood. Though Birdman could still win.
Best Director
Should Win: Alejandro González Iñárritu for Birdman
Will Win: Richard Linklater for Boyhood.
Best Actor
Should Win: Michael Keaton
Will Win: Eddie Redmayne. It was a good performance but I am sick of the cripple rule. If they could have combined Benedict Cumberbatch’s performance and this one, so that Steven Hawking had been in the closet and fought Nazis, the head would have blown off the Oscar.
Best Actress
Should Win: Julianne Moore
Will Win: Sadly, I have seen so few of these that I will not comment.
Supporting Actor
Should Win: Edward Norton for Birdman.
Will Win: J.K. Simmons. Though Mark Ruffalo could steal this one.
Supporting Actress
Should Win: I really like Emma Stone in both Birdman and Magic in the Moonlight. But Patricia Arquette is a fine winner.
Will Win: Patricia Arquette
Adapted Screenplay
Should Win: Weak category. I’ll say Whiplash
Will Win: The Theory of Everything.
Original Screenplay
Should Win: Birdman
Will Win: Birdman
Cinematography
Should Win: Emmanuel Lubezki for Birdman, Robert Yeoman for The Grand Budapest Hotel or Dike Pope for Mr. Turner would all be fine choices.
Will Win: Emmanuel Lubezki for Birdman but the great Roger Deakins might steal this for Unbroken.
Editing
Should Win: Barney Pilling for the Grand Budapest Hotel. I am still trying to fathom Birdman not being nominated.
Will Win: Barney Pilling for The Grand Budapest Hotel.
Original Score
Should Win: Hans Zimmer is finally eligible and he absolutely deserves it for Interstellar.
Will Win: Jóhann Jóhannsson for The Theory of Everything.
And again, I could go on to Make-up, costumes etc, but those are secondary in my opinion. And I really hate the Animated film category.
Thanks,
Ryan Black
February 21st, 2015
