When you’ve seen as many movies as I have, you come across a
few that are this close to being great, but have one or two things that hold it
back. Maybe there was some element baked into the film that you flat-out hated
(a certain scene, a certain character, an underlying message etc.), maybe it
doesn’t live up to the hype surrounding it, or maybe it just doesn’t appeal to
your particular taste. Keep in mind that I do like all of these movies to some
degree. Most of them were even in the running for my year-end list. But there
was something in the way that kept me from outright loving them. Many a fan and
critic have lined up to court these movies, but I’m perfectly content with just
staying friends.
Why it’s good:
Blade Runner 2049 is a technical
masterpiece and hands down the most visually stunning movie I’ve seen in a year
that was not short on visually stunning movies. The cinematography is some of
the best in Roger Deakins’ career (which is saying a lot), it’s one of the greatest arguments for the artistic power of CGI ever put to film (the intimate scenes
between Ryan Gosling and his hologram girlfriend alone make this worth seeing),
and it expands greatly on the original’s themes about the importance of
memories and what it really means to be human in a technology-driven world.
Why it doesn’t do it
for me:
I think the main reason I wasn’t as blown away as everyone else was
my disconnection with the original Blade
Runner (which I finally got to see since then). Watching it with little
prior knowledge was a good exercise in criticism, but at the same time it felt like I was doing
something wrong, and thus couldn’t appreciate it on the same level as people
who have seen it. The film was also incredibly long and deliberately slowly
paced, and after a while you really start to feel its length. I feel like this
is a movie that rewards multiple viewings, so I’d be willing to watch it again to
see if everything to click the second time around.
Why it’s good:
This
is a must-see for anyone who’s even a little curious about The Room, or even the art of filmmaking. The passion and deep
understanding that James Franco has for everyone’s favorite bad movie and Hollywood’s
favorite idiot savant Tommy Wiseau is abundantly clear. His performance as Wiseau
is stellar, the care they put into recreating some its most infamous scenes is
inspiring, it’s a rather subtle deconstruction of auteur theory, it’s funny,
heartfelt, and even if you don’t give a damn about The Room, it’s a fascinating inside baseball look at the madness of
the filmmaking process, and a touching story about pursuing your passion, even
if you absolutely suck at it.
Why it doesn’t do it
for me:
When it’s not getting into the weeds about the craziness
surrounding the making of The Room,
it’s hamstrung by James Franco’s limited abilities as a director, making it feel
like a middle of the road Apatow film on a good day and an overdrawn Funny or
Die sketch on a bad one. And while I’m usually not one to harp on movies based on books
for not sticking to the source material, the memoir is more insightful, informative and
heartfelt, leaving only the wisps of what could’ve been. But even in the realm
of movies about making movies, it doesn’t leave us with anything that wasn’t
already stated better by Ed Wood or Living in Oblivion. It also delves
pretty deep in self-indulgence. It begins with a group of celebrity talking
heads recalling their first encounter with The
Room, and ends with side-by-side comparisons of their recreated scenes to
the originals. (Pro-tip: anything that reminds me of Fuller House is not looking at a good write-up from me.) There’s
also the unshakeable feeling that this movie is highly preoccupied with
becoming part of its legacy as everybody’s first exposure to The Room, which wouldn’t be so bad had
Adult Swim, Nostalgia Critic and Rifftrax not beat them to the punch by eight
years.
Why it’s good:
At
its best, Mother! is a deliciously
horrifying spectacle. This is a mad artist locking his audience in a room,
ripping his head open to let the demons fly out of his skull and terrorize everyone,
laughing maniacally as his captives scramble for the exits. It feels at once
like the kind of thing that can only come about when a bunch of creative talents with
real skin in the game are let off their leashes and given the keys to the
castle, and like some dark, feral part of their psyche that we weren’t supposed
to see, or something that shouldn’t have been allowed to exist. And it was nice
to be reminded of why the world fell in love with Jennifer Lawrence before all
the overexposure.
Why it doesn’t do it
for me:
When people talked about this movie, the words “controversial” and “experience”
got thrown around much more than “good”. For a movie so divisive by design,
with people either praising it to high heaven or burning it alive before it lays eggs, the most shocking thing about it was that my final response was a
big resounding “meh”. Once upon a time, Darren Aronofsky’s particular brand of pretentious
auteur madness was the kind of thing I lapped up. Hell, I once considered Requiem for A Dream to be one of the
greatest films ever made. But here it doesn’t go into full nightmare mode until
the third act, the technical aspects were nothing to write home about, and the
symbolism was more obvious and on the nose than Pink Floyd’s Animals. Like I said in my initial
review, maybe I’m just harder to shock than I used to be. Plus, the knowledge
that Darren Aronofsky and Jennifer Lawrence were dating at the time does add an
extra layer of uncomfortableness to certain scenes. It’s not surprising that
they broke up after this, or that Lawrence decided to take a break from acting.
For the record, most of my feelings about Mother! can also be applied to The Killing of a Sacred Deer.
Why
it’s good:
Greta Gerwig’s directorial debut is a very funny, tender, and
earnest movie. It presents its characters as they are, warts and all, and doesn’t
insist that you like them. Likeable or not, they are relatable. Everyone knows
someone like Lady Bird, or maybe even sees bits of her in themselves. (I saw
this with my sister and kept thinking someone followed her around with a camera
and made a movie about it.) Everyone knows the feeling of angst, frustration
and boredom of teenhood that we see her go through. Lady Bird herself is a
brilliantly written character brought vividly to life by Saoirse Ronan, and the
believable relationship between her and her mother is the crux of what makes
this movie work so well.
Why it doesn’t do it for me:
Honestly,
that’s kind of all it has going for it. Lady
Bird doesn’t really do anything wrong, but it’s a very modest film at its
core. There’s nothing necessarily wrong with that, but it does make it hard to
reconcile it with the rapturous praise it’s been getting. I’ve seen plenty of
year-end lists where this was put at the number 1 or number 2 spot, and it’s like
watching a crowd go nuts for a bottle rocket after a huge fireworks display. And
I get it. Not every movie has to be a game-changer or shatter the mold, but when
it gets this much hype backing it up, it better sure as hell deliver. I like
you, Lady Bird, but there are just about
twenty or so movies from this year that I like more. Hell, there are even other
coming of age in the suburbs movies that I like more. So, no hard feelings?
Why it’s good:
To put it bluntly, Wonder Woman, along with Get Out, were the American movies of
2017, capturing the zeitgeist of the current era unlike any other. It was a
beacon of hope in a time when we really needed one, it perfectly encapsulates the
character and everything she stands for, Gal Gadot is a revelation as Princess
Diana, the venture into no-man’s-land is a landmark scene in the superhero
genre that makes it worth seeing alone, but most surprisingly of all, it’s the
lone bright spot in the slow-motion trainwreck that is the DC Extended
Universe. (Mikey Neumann explains it a lot better than
I ever could.)
Why it doesn’t do it for me:
Some
people didn’t like what I had so say about this movie. In fact, some people really didn’t like what I had to say about
this movie. Admittedly I was a bit unfair in that review and probably too hung
up on its status as the first major female-led superhero film (the first good
one, anyway) and its place in the superhero genre and the DC Extended Universe
specifically to judge it on its merits. The thing is I respect Wonder Woman more than I like it. When
you divorce it from all the noise surrounding it, the movie itself is kind of
average. The cinematography is drab, the fight scenes are clearly being
overseen by the stern headmistress of the Zack Snyder school of fight
choreography (which is a given), the plot beats can be seen from a mile away, the
acting is hit or miss, and the final act is an ugly mess. I also must admit
that, much like Blade Runner, Wonder Woman as a cultural touchstone
never meant that much to me. But she clearly means something to a lot of people,
and I wouldn’t dream of taking that away from them.
No comments:
Post a Comment