The Pitch: There's a thing that follows you. If it catches you, it kills you. If you have sex with someone, it moves to that person.
How I Came Into It: I'm always looking for a good horror movie. I heard about it earlier this year when it got a surprise release to theaters. It was originally supposed to be a VOD release and got enough of a response to get pushed to theaters. I missed my chance to see it then, so I was saving this for a movie marathon at some point. I made sure to look up as little as possible beforehand about it so it could be completely fresh.
Why I Saw It: I'm baffled by how simple the movie is. That simplicity is what makes it so effective. It never stops chasing you. You can easily outrun it, but you're never safe. That makes this a very uneasy movie, one that's more concerned with the chase than getting answers. Too many answers tend to ruin a horror movie. The beginning of the movie is when it's the strongest. When Hugh/Jeff chloroforms Jay, you think it's going to be a much different kind of movie. That reveal is disorienting and confusing. Then there's the moments when Jay first realizes what is happening both at the school and her house. It doesn't get more tense than that. I didn't recognize anyone in the cast. They were pretty good though, especially Maika Monroe at the center. I loved the decision to have her friends on board without too much convincing. It's better to make this about the chase than people thinking that she's crazy. Making It take up physical space certainly helped to convince them.
Why I Wish I Hadn't: I got the feeling that writer/director David Robert Mitchell didn't know what to do with the idea once he had it. While the early parts are very effective, the movie has trouble finding a way to escalate the story. It ends up relying on some lazier moves like the first guy Jay sleeps with being stupidly causal about this confirmed threat or that hopelessly foolish plan with the pool. Nothing about this tanked the movie for me. It's more like it held it back a gear. I still quite loved this.
Verdict (?): Strongly Recommend
The Pitch: A documentary about the life and work of stand-up comedian and activist Barry Crimmins.
How I Came Into It: This is one of those cases where the only reason I saw the movie was because I already knew about what's in it, but going in blind would've been the optimal way to see it. I knew a little about Crimmins from previous specials I've seen about the Ding Ho and the Boston comedy scene in the 80s, but I wasn't greatly familiar with him in particular. I've also enjoyed the previous movies of Bobcat Goldthwait's (World's Greatest Dad, God Bless America).
Why I Saw It: Barry Crimmins has had a fascinating life. He had a troubled childhood. He grew up to be one of the people most responsible for the 80's comedy boom in Boston. From there, he got into activism and even worked to protect the internet in the early days from pedophiles. It's interesting learning about everything he went through and how he used it to do good in the world. The level of access that Goldthwait gets is impressive. At times, it's an emotional punch in the gut.
Why I Wish I Hadn't: This is going to sound a little lame, but I don't think he's a stand up I'd like. I didn't find him or his style at all appealing. That doesn't really affect my end opinion of the movie much, but it does a little.
Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend
The Pitch: A documentary about seven siblings, secluded from the world, who use their love of movies to keep them going.
How I Came Into It: This was one of the documentaries that came out of Sundance this year that I heard the most about. One of those where you don't entirely believe the concept going in.
Why I Saw It: It's about these seven siblings who live in New York. Their father is super protective and almost never let them out of the house. They have access to hundreds of movies and bond over a love of them. They shoot line for line remakes of their favorite films with homemade props and costumes. They are a deeply fascinating family. It's hard to believe that director Crystal Moselle found them at all, given their seclusion. She manages to start following them just as they are just starting to leave the apartment and experience the city for the first time (first time at the beach, first movie in a theater, etc.).
Why I Wish I Hadn't: This family is more interesting than the documentary. I have so many questions about them that simply aren't covered. At one point, then reference a SWAT team breaking into the house, suspecting they had weapons in there. That's barely explored. That happens several times. Moselle occasionally starts going down paths, then pulls back before fully exploring them. I imagine this was a beast to edit down to only 90 minutes. It feels edited. Even though documentaries aren't written in the traditional sense, they should still be telling a story. Overall, this is an impressive debut for this filmmaker.
Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend
The Pitch: A trans woman with the help of her friend tracks down her boyfriend who cheated on her while she was in prison.
How I Came Into It: This is the time of year when I start hunting down all the Sundance movies I can find on Netflix in order to add a few more movies to my year end list for my top 10. This is one that I've heard rumblings about for months, especially from repeated recommendations by a friend of mine. I honestly didn't know what to make of it.
Why I Saw It: I don't even know where to begin. What struck me the most is how utterly conventional the story is within this very unconventional world. It's just a movie about hunting down a cheating boyfriend that climaxes in a crazy confrontation. Kitana Kiki Rodriguez and Mya Taylor are very strong at the center of all this. The soundtrack is full of life, and for what's clearly a low budget production, the use of locations is impressive. This is an energized and funny 90 minutes. Most indie movies end up being downers about #WhitePeopleProblems. This is a refreshing change of pace.
Why I Wish I Hadn't: There's a lot of actors in this who simply aren't very good. Rodriguez and Taylor act circles around people repeatedly, which kills the flow in some scenes.
Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend
The Pitch: What if Cobie Smulders was your personal trainer and a complete mess?
How I Came into It: It's December, that wonderful time of year when there's no new shows and I realize that there's all sorts of movies from Sundance this past winter that have made their way to Netflix. Might as well get to a couple low investment dramedies.
Why I Saw It: It was fun constantly having to remind myself that Guy Pearce wasn't 1993 Jean-Claude Van Damme. Cobie Smulders gets to use all the most sour aspects of Robin Scherbatsky, which is kind of fun.
Why I Wish I Hadn't: This is a pretty forgettable "White People Problems" movie. I got to the end and my only thought was "why?" I still don't have and answer to that question. It's not bad or a slog to get through. I just don't get the point. This definitely fits in that category of Sundance movies that feel more like tryouts for the next project than a committed effort.
Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend
Formula: (The Wolf of Wall Street + Wall Street) * A lot of anger
Cast: The foursome of Christian Bale, Steve Carell, Ryan Gosling, and Brad Pitt bring a clout to this that is inarguable. This is a huge cast that goes far beyond them. Just a few of the other names I recognized: Marissa Tomei, Hamish Linklater, Max Greenfield, Melissa Leo, Karen Gillan. Then there obvious cameos from people Margot Robbie and Selena Gomez.
Plot: This tracks the housing bubble crash in the mid-2000s from the perspective of the people who saw it coming and bet against it.
Thoughts:
This is the hardest time I've ever had with one of these Reactions. You see, I found this movie funny, easy to watch, and interestingly done, and I pretty strongly disliked it. I can't really talk about this as a good or bad film because I'm not sure I found this artistic. This is an angry essay performed by actors.
It's clear that Adam McKay and Christopher Randolph worked very hard to make this into a script could be followed. The banking industry is a byzantine maze of bullshit, which is kind of the point of the movie: it's a load of bullshit and most people don't even realize the first thing about it. I know I don't. I appreciate the attempt to educate people so that that can be angry at how fucked up it all was. It's clear, crystal clear how pissed off McKay and Randolph are about.
This is a terrific example of a filmmaker getting too precious with an idea. The idea of explaining the housing and credit bubble collapse trumps everything else in the movie. First of all, that's how the movie ends up too long. Second, one of those first rules of writing: show, don't tell is completely ignored. Ryan Gosling's narration ends up being a crutch, used repeatedly for exposition dumps. There's no time to develop and antagonists. Anyone who isn't one of the "protagonists" gets about two lines at most before they say something so completely douchey that there's no mistaking them as anything but a villain.
Then there's the things that are personal pet peeves of mine. I didn't even know a screenplay could be smug, but this one certainly is. This is the story about the few people that saw all this coming and the script, especially Gosling's narration, couldn't be more cocky about that. And, the narration repeatedly stepping on the beats of the story. Stop it! Just let a scene play out. The only reason for chiming in so much is because you are admitting the script isn't tight enough or you don't trust the audience. Either case annoys me.
On the plus side, I finally found the movie this year that's getting Oscar buzz that I'm going to be rooting hard against. There's almost always one. I thought I was getting out of it this year, then this comes in right under the wire.
Elephant in the Room: This sounds like it might be a bit of a political movie. I guess it is. I'm pretty sure the debate about the housing and credit market collapse has more to do with why the banks were able to act like assholes, not if that banks were being assholes. This movie is mostly concerned with how the banks were being assholes, which is certainly something I'm happy to hear about.
To Sum Things Up:
This is a movie more concerned with proving how smart it is than good storytelling. The cast and humor will be enough for most people to enjoy it.
Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend
Formula: The Theory of Everything + gender identity
<NOTE: I apologize now for any terminology that I get wrong regarding this. I've been careful about my wording, but I'm sure I've phrased something wrong>
Cast: It's Eddie Redmayne and Alicia Vikander vs. the world. In this case, the world consists of Ben Wishaw, Amber Heard, and Matthias Schoenaerts (who are actually all on their side, thus negating my opening sentence, which sounded better the way I said it).
Plot: Einar and Gerda Wegener (Redmayne and Vikander respectively) are married painters of some renown in Denmark. One day, Einar pretends to be a woman as a ruse for a party. This awakens feelings that he has long suppressed that he was born in the wrong body. Einar Wegener becomes Lili Wegener. Gerda and Lili then try to understand what that means for each of them and their relationship.
Thoughts:
Sometimes the easiest way into a movie is through a comparison. In The Danish Girl's case, I was very surprised by how similar this felt to Redmayne's The Theory of Everything. Both are about couples trying to last through changes in Redmayne's body. The central relationships feel very similar. In both cases, the lead actors are better than the movie around them.
Eddie Redmayne is tremendous. He is one of the best actors around when it comes to the details: those small twitches and looks that fill out a performance. It starts as a something very subtle and ends as something much bigger and it flows seamlessly. Alicia Vikander might be even more impressive than Redmayne. I was already a fan of her from Ex Machina this spring. This is something completely different. She's a loose and open person, but the emergence of Lili rocks her to her core. This is a very reactive performance which is every bit as difficult as what Redmayne is doing. What made the movie for me though is their relationship. They are such a great couple in the beginning. It's heartbreaking as they realize over the course of the film that things can't be the same anymore. I just want those two to be happy, even when I'm not sure what that means.
Sadly, the excellent performances don't have a script to match. The story moves in fits and spurts. Some parts get too much time to breathe, like Lili's relative seclusion in Paris, while others skip by several dramatic beats, like Lili's decision to get her sex reassignment surgery. With lesser actors this movie could've been in serious trouble.
Elephant in the Room: I'm confused. I know. I came out of that movie with as many questions as I did answers. I lost track of nuances at some point. I was confused by things like the status of Gerda and Lili's relationship once Einar was gone. At one point, I followed this with a list of questions that could almost all be answered with something like "sexuality is fluid", so I opted to not even ask. I guess I would've really liked the end to move a little slower. because things were moving faster than I could keep up with. I was just glad that, despite everything, Gerda and Lili never lost their emotional connection. That's what made the movie.
To Sum Things Up:
See this for Alicia Vikander and Eddie Redmayne and maybe a good cry. Don't get too wrapped up in the exacts of the story. It handles a complex topic delicately. Another impressive movie from Tom Hooper.
Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend
Formula: Silver Linings Playbook - bipolar disorder
Cast: Jennifer Lawrence is Joy. Robert De Niro, Diane Ladd, Virginia Madsen, and Edgar Ramirez are all in her extended family. David O. Russell good luck charm Bradley Cooper is there too. Isabella Rossellini and Dascha Polanco (from Orange is the New Black) are there too.
Plot: Joy is a clever woman who life has been holding back. One day, she gets the idea for a new kind of mop and bets everything on it. This is the story of how she eventually succeeds.
Thoughts:
I don't hide the fact that David O. Russell is a filmmaker who I struggle to find the appeal of. The movies just don't click with me. He gets good performances out of his actors though (11 acting Oscar nomination between his last three movies). The strength is normally with the ensemble. In Joy, he doubles down on Jennifer Lawrence.
Jennifer Lawrence is great but unconvincing in this movie. She commits to the character and does everything that's asked of her. She also never stops being Jennifer Lawrence, never disappears into the character. I really don't want to say she was miscast. She's too young. Joy is supposed to be a woman worn down by her life after years of disappointment. Lawrence is so clearly still young that I can't buy it. But, when she just gets to be a kick-ass character, she's great. The context is all wrong, not Lawrence. I feel like I'm sounding contradictory. I swear it makes sense in my head.
This is a funny movie, which is no surprise. Russell is great at throwing in some odd jokes throughout his movies. Nearly every supporting character is a caricature and they embrace it. The movie is nearly a soap opera (sometimes literally turning into one), so the wild swings in reality are fitting. There's a lot of quirkiness just to be quirky, like the mom (Madsen) falling in love with the plumber. One could look at all that as details that enrich the world or as filler. Russell's fans would call it the former, I lean toward calling it the latter, and I think that sums of the divide between us.
The movie is so concerned with making sure that Joy is the hero that it sinks nearly everything else. Her family is a little too nasty. The QVC people (except for St. Bradley of Cooper) are all a little too dismissive. The manufacturing company shaking her down twirl their mustaches a little too much. When Russell can't find a way to be delicate, he throw an anvil at a situation.
Movie Theater MVP: This has to go to the lady sitting behind me who I have dubbed "Target Audience Tracy". Every once in a while, I see a movie and am lucky enough to sit near someone who the movie was designed for. Tracy [not her name] was at every test screening and answered every single "what would you like to see more of" question. She laughed at every joke she was meant to. She gasped in disbelief when Joy's family was awful to her. She yelled "You go girl!" when Joy beat the evil businessman at the end. She was the only one who clapped when we got to the credits. I envy her for her experience watching that.
Elephant in the Room: Tell me more about this mop. Look, if I needed to buy a mop, you better believe that I would get one of hers. The hands-free ringing. The 300 ft. of absorbent cotton. Washing machine safe. This thing is a dream come true for only $19.99 (circa 1990).
To Sum Things Up:
Jennifer Lawrence is great despite not being a perfect fit for the role. This is a nice story about not giving up when things get hard. It's funny. It's engaging. It doesn't all fit together in the end, but that mostly doesn't matter.
Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend
Formula: Brooklyn + The Hours
Cast: Cate Blanchett is the eponymous Carol and Rooney Mara the store clerk she falls in love with. Kyle Chandler is Blanchett's husband. Jack Lacy is Mara's suitor. Sarah Paulson is an old friend of Blanchett's.
Plot: In 1950's New York, a store clerk named Therese (Mara) falls for an older woman (Blanchett) who is in the middle of divorcing her husband. The two women have to figure out if they can work together.
Thoughts:
2015 has been an odd year. It was bucking a lot of trends for the first 51 weeks. It took this last weekend to start checking off boxes for all the standard award season movie trends. With Carol,I have the movie that plays like it was designed to be a best picture nominee: the Oscar bait. I don't mean that as a pejorative. Last year, The Imitation Game was Oscar bait and I really liked that. Carol is this year's version of that, although the similarities end there.
If anything, this reminded me a lot of Brooklyn. It's a similar setting (New York in the 1950s). Rooney Mara is also on her own and working in a department store, when she is swept off her feet by this woman she meets. However, Carol is about both sides of the relationship, Mara's and Blanchett's. There's also the forbidden romance aspect which serves as the source of nearly all the tension.
Cate Blanchett is, no surprise, the stand-out performance. Carol is a woman with everything and could have an easy life if she wanted to lie to herself. The husband she is divorcing is still in love with her. She has a daughter she loves. She is very well off. Before the movie even begins, she's realized that that isn't enough because so much of it is a lie. She's only confident about how she feels and has no idea how that's supposed to work in that social climate. Rooney Mara is the main character of the movie in the Nick Carraway sense. She's the POV character, but so much of her story is internalized that she's not quite the focus. She does good work but isn't showy.
There's really not a lot to the story, as it's more of an actor's showcase. I won't go as far as saying that it's dull. The pacing is deliberate. There's emotional heft if you're willing to stay with it. The period setting looks great and the supporting cast does good work, especially, Kyle Chandler, the exasperated husband, and Sarah Paulson, Carol's confidant.
Elephant in the Room: Do you like looking through windows? I'm certainly harping on this more than it's worth, but they really love reflection and shooting through windows in this movie. I noticed it early and couldn't stop noticing. Director Tadd Haynes loves shooting scenes from the other side of a window. I get that it's tied to Therese being into photography, but they went to town with it.
To Sum Things Up:
Carol is a movie that does just about everything right without offering anything new. Blanchett is as great as ever. The story is just missing that last gear to go from good to great. I enjoyed it a lot without finding it very memorable.
Verdict (?): Weakly Recommend
What I Guessed It Was About: Bette Middler and Lily Tomlin play twins. They were separated at birth. They grow up. Then they meet. Crazy things happen.
How I Came Into It: I never heard of this movie. I didn't get the title before. I don't get the title after.
Why I Saw It: (Club 50) Middler and Tomlin are having a lot of fun with this. They do a solid job of showing how their respective twin sets are distinct but similar. The script does splendidly at keeping track of all the moving parts involved with keeping up the ruse until the last possible moment.
Why I Wish I Hadn't: This level of farce is not a brand of comedy I enjoy much. When it can be done through honest mistakes and timing and gaps in communication, I applaud it. The British Coupling is marvelous for things like that. I remember National Lampoon Presents Dorm Daze having an impressively complex series of moving parts too (then again, I saw that a decade ago and at 3 in the morning, so I reserve the right to recant that statement if I ever rewatch it). Big Business goes too far with it. The writing solution for everything is "add another coincidence" or "make sure everyone is talking as vaguely as possible". That's too easy. I'd rather be able to see the writer sweat a little.
Verdict (?): Weakly Don't Recommend
