Printable View
I am still formulating my full-length reviews of these films, but in the meantime I would highly recommend going to see them.
In short, all three of these films are totally worth seeing in the theater:
Knives Out - 4/5
Motherless Brooklyn - 3.5/5
Parasite - 4/5
PARASITE
4/5
The metaphorical aspects of this film are like a well-baked baklava: they just keep flaking off and revealing yet another tasty layer underneath.
On the surface writer/director Bong Joon-ho’s latest cinematic endeavor is an intriguing, constantly shifting slow-burn which floats effortlessly between being a dark comedy, a light-hearted drama, biting social criticism, and an unnerving thriller. Yet it somehow manages to be deeper than the sum of its combined genres.
Things start out innocently enough, feeling like a South Korean take on a Coen Bros. familial comedy. We are initially introduced to a quirky and poor family scheming their way through life; “borrowing” wifi, taking menial odd jobs, and generally trying to get by doing the least amount of work possible. From these humble beginnings the film evolves into a twisted grand con which ultimately culminates in a battle of wits as our “heroic” grifters get grifted, the rich get punished, and everything just goes to shit. Things are escalated further when it all explodes in a blaze of emotion fueled raw violence.
Bong keeps the pacing taught, letting the story unravel with a precise smoothness that keeps the viewer’s attention riveted to the screen. But perhaps the most alluring aspect of it all is that the film twists and turns with a diverting sense of subtlety so that you never know if you are watching a turgid drama, a black comedy or something else. In fact the best thing about the film is the bubbling tension that Bong creates. There is a scene where the four central protagonists/antagonists are enjoying a meal together and getting drunk. On the surface it is the simplest of scenes, but the underlying tension will have you wringing your hands in anticipation of something drastic happening in the ensuing moments.
The whole thing might have come tumbling down like a lopsided house of cards if it weren’t for the top-notch cast, ranging from Korean film stalwart Song Kang-Ho who plays the father figure of the “parasites” on down to the ditzy rich matron portrayed by Cho Yeo-jeong. Choi Woo-shik as the deceptively meek young son in the fraudster family is fantastic, displaying a subtle mischievousness. And Park So-dam as his coy sister is beguiling to watch. Lee Jeon-eun and Hyae Jin Chang round at the core cast as tenacious and insanely hilarious matrons (Lee as a cloying housekeeper, Chang as the queen mother of the grifter clan).
While the bravura acting and escalating outlandishness of the story line are at the center of the film, there are other elements at play here. The cinematography, for one, adds considerable nuance to the proceedings; it is laced with a slick and vibrant sheen, one that lends just the right amount of off-kilter surrealism to the proceedings. Things appear normal on the surface, but there’s always a strange undercurrent rolling between the frames. And the score is used to expert effect, playing quietly underneath when called for and hitting all the proper dramatic and horrific notes when appropriate. It, as with the look of the film, adds dramatically to the overall effect.
To put it into the simplest of terms at its core this film paints the rich as vane and clueless and the poor as cunning and ruthless. But it also points out the folly of greed and entitlement regardless of class distinctions. And the metaphors, man, the metaphors! Abundant and glorious they be.
RIYL: Mulholland Drive; Oldboy (the original Korean version);
Outstanding movie!Quote:
Originally Posted by PNWbrit
Think I appreciated it more because I saw this recently as well
https://www.netflix.com/title/81218074
Lot of little details in the movie that line up but they didnt go on about. Will also give you great back stories on some of the supporting characters & motivations. Like Phil Remington, genius. https://www.caranddriver.com/news/a1...ton-1921-2013/
KNIVES OUT
4/5
Utterly predictable in parts, yet oh so deliciously entertaining. In fact, this film is beyond wickedly engaging, so much so that one can almost forgive writer/director Rian Johnson for only sparingly releasing the red herrings instead of tossing out a whole bucket. I lieu of fake fish, Johnson’s modus operandi is to wow the audience with serious bouts of intricate dialogue, lottsa warped humor, and a protagonist who is akin to Columbo, that is if he had been less schlubby and disheveled and more aloof Southern beau.
First things first. This is a murder mystery. And guess what? I picked out the culprit within the initial moments of the first act. That said, I must admit when the reveal came at the end of the film I was immediately disappointed because my guess had been correct and I felt momentarily cheated. I mean how could the villain have been so freaking obvious? But that feeling was fleeting. It was quickly replaced with one of vindication: I had solved the case! Okay, perhaps I didn’t guess all the particulars that our intrepid gumshoe Benoit Blanc--James Bond hisownself, Daniel Craig, judiciously playing up his hidden droll side--mapped out, but I had been right in surmising who had committed the crime.
The reveal isn’t the icing on the cake, though, as Johnson’s finale is littered with killer callbacks galore. While the next-to-penultimate callback is also predictable, it’s no less satisfying when it’s revealed, thus allowing you to revel in your super sleuthdom (provided you figured it out, that is!). Ditto for the penultimate callback, which was clever, but also foreseeable a mile away. Yet the final callback was sublimely subtle. For those who like to solve puzzles, let’s just say that Johnson heavily favors foreshadowing; so keep your eyes and ears peeled, my friends!
While not possessing nearly enough twists and turns for my taste (but the ones that it does deliver are swell), the film succeeds by giving the audience everything they could possibly need to solve the case on their own, both in terms of visual and audible cues. Yet it’s the latter that Johnson uses to great effect to divert your attention. Hints are dropped with regularity, but they are mixed in with such flights of verbal fancy that its easy to get lost in the witty wordplay.
The sight gags are equally plentiful and hit with punch and verve. The rampant visual jokes range from a game of fetch with the guard dogs to a frumpy mink shrouded grandmother to a running gag involving projectile vomiting. They not only provide some deft humor, but additionally serve to draw your attention away from the more serious matters at hand.
In terms of the cast, I’m not gonna lie: at first I thought I would be distracted by the presence of both Captain America (Chris Evans) and 007 (Craig). Heck, the gentleman next to me loudly whispered to his companion “See, I told you that was Captain America” the first time Evans graced the screen. That both men were able to break free of their franchise shackles and create wholly different characters is a testament to their acting chops. The rest of the cast is equally up to the task. From Ana de Armas, a bona fide chameleon of an actor (I have found her damn near unrecognizable in every film I’ve seen her in), who deceptively plays her role like a mouse caught in a Landcruiser’s high beams to the “comeback kid” Don Johnson (his recent string of low-key roles in off-kilter films like this has been stellar). Christopher Plummer serves up a rich and captivating performance as the domineering patriarch of the film. A few folks, though, were underutilized: Lakeith Stanfield, while all deadpan grace, could have been used to better effect. Ditto for Jaeden Lieberher and Michael Shannon. And Laurie Strode, erm Jamie Lee Curtis, seems like A-list window dressing. Then again that’s always the problem with a large ensemble cast; some folks get more screen time than others. In the end, even those who could (and should) have had more frames to their name deliver memorable performances.
But when all is said and done the real star here is the dialogue, which is snappier than the wet towel that douche-bag of a bully used to crack on your bare ass in the showers after gym class. You’re gonna have to stay on your toes to catch every morsel uttered by the stellar cast.
So, yeah, if you’ve watched your share of Murder, She Wrote or read enough Christie and Queen there’s a good chance you may potentially see the final reveal coming from afar. But the journey to the confession of the killer is a rambunctiously good one . Then again, on the off-chance that you might not see any of it coming, not only the journey will be memorable, but also the arrival at the final destination will be exciting and illuminating to say the least.
RIYL
Drag Me To Hell; Clue; Sleuth (the original with Michael Caine and Laurence Olivier); Mousetrap
MOTHERLESS BROOKLYN
3.5/5
If it were a triangle, writer/director/actor Edward Norton’s interpretation of Jonathan Letham’s 1999 novel of the same name would certainly be of the scalene variety. While a cohesive whole, it’s a bit uneven and lopsided throughout its 144 minute running time.
Norton certainly has a great eye for composition and manages to elicit wonderful performances from all the actors involved. Yet for every spate of memorable moments there’s at least one that falters and seems out of place.
But let’s not get ahead of ourselves. The story is a neo-noir centered around Lionel (portrayed by Norton), a neophyte detective who suffers from Tourettes. Yup, our protagonist is prone to yelling out swear words and nonsensical phrases at the most inappropriate of times. This, naturally, lends a quirky sheen to the overall plot, which is more or less a turgid murder mystery.
The other interesting aspect of the film is that the source material took place in the ‘90s, but Norton has staged his version in 1957 where race and affluence play a major role in the wheelings and dealings of New York City. The story is a labyrinthian swirl of underhanded politics and racial tension taking place on the cusp of a new decade. (FWIW, I read the novel back when it was first publishe din 1999, but I did not re-visit it prior to watching the film. I plan to re-read it shortly and then compare the differences).
In regards to the look of the the film, Norton proves to be rather skilled behind the camera, delivering deft action sequences like the taut opening concatenation which mixes engaging dialogue with a sinister meet and greet that ultimately ends in a terse car chase and dastardly gun violence. The tension he creates in this long introductory scene is fantastic. He re-manifests this same sense of energy and excitement later in the film with a wonderful altercation between our “hero” Lionel and a behemothian thug. The entire escapade takes place in the confines of a narrow apartment hallway and on a rusty fire escape. With these scenes Norton displays a knack for staging lean and mean action scenes. Norton also has a great eye in regards to the composition of scenes. Many shots in the film are beautifully staged as if they were meant to be still photos exhibited at a gallery. He also makes wonderfully creative use of reflections and shadows throughout the film.
When it comes to the acting, Norton has seriously stacked the decks in his favor. The entire film, especially the nuanced dialogue, comes alive thanks to the likes of Alec Baldwin, Bobby Cannavale, Ethan Suplee, Willem Dafoe, Michael K. Williams, Gugu Mbatha-Raw, Fisher Stevens (when was the last time you recall seeing him in a film, right?), all of whom are supplemented by a host of amazing character actors. The aforementioned dialogue is sharp and witty causing you to dwell, with extra concentration, on every syllabel uttered. In fact much of the time it feels as if Norton has given all the best lines to his co-stars, in addition to coaxing undeniably great performances from them.
For all his excellent composition of scenes and keen knack for eliciting top notch performances from the cast, Norton himself often seems out of step with the proceedings. There are several scenes which just feel stilted and awkward. These often involve Norton and another actor interacting face to face and they ttend to be shot from the side in profile. While his fellow actor is often delivering an impassioned stream of dialogue, Norton himself looks uninterested, dare I say bored. Yet when Norton is the only one on screen he shines. It’s almost as if he focused all of his attention into nabbing great performances from his co-stars, but forgot to afford himself the same favor.
There are also a few scenes that are just too long and, well, awkward. One such scene features Norton and Mbatha-Raw dancing at a jazz club; it’s just too slow and dull, mostly due to wonky pacing and a feeling of detachment. There are a few other scenes like this sprinkled throughout the film which could have either been shortened or left out entirely. To this end the film could easily have been edited down by 15-to-20-minutes and still not lost any of its allure or punch.
Another incongruity which pops up is that while most of the actors appear dressed for the period, Lionel’s fashion sense seems odd; his hairstyle appears way too modern for the era and his sartorial choices often look out-of-step with those around him. Perhaps this was a conscious decision to separate him from the rest of those around him, painting the character as a true outsider. If that was the case, fine, but it didn’t really work for me. Keeping in line with this ill-matchedness is the inclusion of a Thom Yorke song in the score. That it’s prominently featured only further heightens its discordance in regards to the overall look and feel of the film. (FWIW, I caught an NPR interview with Norton where he discussed the song and how he liked that it created this rift in the feel of the film. Sure, it’s undoubtedly a great song on its own, but it just doesn’t fit the mood, time period, or vibe of the film and ultimately serves to disrupt the flow of the film. But that’s just my humble opinion...and I dig Radiohead and Yorke’s solo work, too). The rest of the score, however, is fantastic. A cool, mid-tempo expanse of jazz crafted by Daniel Pemberton, it burbles and swoons underneath the scenes creating a smoky vibe throughout; one that really compliments the overall ambiance of the film.
Sure, at times the unevenness of the film makes for a sometimes frustrating--but never ever dull--experience. Yet when all is said and done, the strength of the supporting cast along with some expertly staged and filmed action sequences, artfully composed scenes, and a bevy of crisp and rich dialogue make this an adaptation seriously worth a watch.
RIYL
Road to Perdition; History of Violence;
Rolling Stone's picks for what to see in the Cineplex or arthouse theaters this December:
https://www.rollingstone.com/movies/...zJc4WZBX11-Il8
[If you are keen to read a much longer and more in-depth review go here:
https://spencesez.blogspot.com/2019/...ory-film.html]
PAIN AND GLORY
4/5
Pedro Almodovar's latest film is a wonderully droll melodrama heightened with just the right amounts of robust satire and meta fiction.
I must admit that I have only seen 5 of the Spanish autuer's films over the years, but I have enjoyed every one. The funny thing is that whenever I hear of a new film from him my initial reaction is "Uh, okay." Then I inevitably see his latest film, am awed, and wonder why I don't keep him on my radar more diligently. He's a great filmmaker with a keen visual sense and a way with wonderful dialogue.
This film is anchored by a fantastic performance from Antonio Banderas and a stellar supporting cast (for those who care about such things, Banderas won "Best Actor" at Cannes this year).
Additionally, Almodovar's use of color to create warm and comfortable tones is fantastic, as is his use of the wonderfully understated score by Alberto Iglesias (he won "Best Soundtrack" at Cannes this year, btw).
The first act is teeming with great comedic moments and while the middle part of the film tends to drift into overwrought maudlin territory, the third act--and especially the ending--are fantastic. In fact, this may be one of the best endings I've seen in a film in a long time; it is poignantly meta and changes your entire view of what you have been watching the whole time.
Highly recommended.
In Spanish with English subtitles.
Uncut Gems
Movie felt a little uncut at times but it's chaotic and compelling.
Sandler is very good chanelling his inner Turturro.
3.5 carats out of 5
John or Nick?Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Pow
Star Wars getting middling reviews on RT.
I'm surprised the previous two got good reviews.Quote:
Originally Posted by From_the_NEK
Jumangi was just OK. Stay for the credits if you do go..
Honey Boy is heavy.
Shia LaBeouf is becoming a powerhouse thespian and one of my favorite actors to watch. Between this and The Peanut Butter Falcon dude slayed the silver screen in 2019...
:)Quote:
Originally Posted by dookey67
John
Wasn't overawed by The Peanut Butter Falcon.Quote:
Originally Posted by dookey67
It was good, but will soon be forgotten about.
Just saw this.
Really awesome meditation on contemporary class attitudes and revenge fantasies. Brilliant.
^^^ I liked it.
Saw it today.Quote:
Originally Posted by Mike Pow
I could go 4 out of 5 just because Sandler was off-the-nuts.
The film rakes through a ton of familiar tropes from Racing Against The Clock to The Transparent Adulterer, The Compulsive Gambler, and The Vindictive Loan Shark, but the Safdie Bros. keep the pacing slick and toss jn just enough twists and turns to keep it gripping and feeling fresh.
AidaQuote:
Originally Posted by dookey67
Saw 1917 the other day. Really enjoyed it. In some ways it’s your normal war epic, but the way it was done was really interesting.
It’s filmed in two long, continuous shots and it happens in real time. (If you look you can see them use camera pans and CGI to stitch some disparate shots together, but may seem to run minutes with no interruption. Kudos to the actors and the continuity team on that one.)
They also really bring to life the utter hopelessness of WWI, especially for those on the front lines.
I’m not expert enough to know if it’s Oscar worthy or not, but it was entertaining and emotional throughout.
Definitely will be seeing this soon. The New Yorker (Richard Brody) hated it. Said it made war look pretty, or as he put it: picturesque. Hmmmmm, I have yet to see a war movie that made me think, "Hey, instead of skiing today, I'll go to a war zone."Quote:
Originally Posted by Supermoon
Quote:
Originally Posted by plugboots
:eek:
Planning to see it on Wednesday this week.
Co-worker saw it and has been raving about it. I told him the trailer reminded me of Saving Private Ryan, but during WWI. His response, "Not even close. Spielberg doesn't do edgy and violent; this film was edgy and violent..."
I am more intrigued by the "fake" 1-shot take-style that it was filmed in...
It was definitely picturesque in a sense that it was visually stunning and at points they were in a beautiful place, but they do a pretty good job of showing the shit that those guys went through in the trenches.
Don't go to movies often. Like 1-2x/year but I need to see this one on the big screen. As well as this other one I keep hearing about...Star Wars I think it is.
There is nothing he can do to atone for his complicity in the Transformers series. Lifetime ban.Quote:
Originally Posted by dookey67