Rate That Movie 3.5 - Don't Die Too Hard

[Ron Burgundy]

Intersteller
Just go home from the cinemas. Wow, im still a little lost for words. Ill keep it short and spoiler free. Nolan really has got the hang of his job, the 2nd part of the film was incredibly well done. I felt so many emotions throughout the film, from curious (obviously) to nauseous. The cast was spot on, and some effects were mesmerizing. Overall im pleased, even if like Inception i thought there were a couple of things that didnt tick the box, im sure a repeat viewing possibly could change that.

8.5/10

[numbersix]

Looking forward to seeing Interstellar after that review, Ron.

Nightcrawler: 7/10
This was an odd film. In a way it's crazy it got wide releases here and in the US, as it plays like a cult movie, the kind you'd watch in small cinemas at midnight. It certainly doesn't have any likeable characters or have any sort of character development (as JohnE pointed out), and in that sense it didn't feel wholly satisfying. But kudos to the makers for not holding back and making us following a complete sociopath who places himself in increasingly insane situations once he decides to become a cameraman chasing breaking news stories - accidents, homicides, etc. Gyllenhaal is great as Louise Bloom, whose drive totally overshadows any sense of morality. I would have liked to have seen him lose it more as his career hit obstacles, but otherwise he was great. Riz Ahmed offers decent support as the nearest we come to a person with a sense of right and wrong.

The film is of course a satire on the media, but says nothing Network or any similar film or TV show has done before. Indeed, by avoiding exploring his background the satire gets robbed of its point. Yes, this is a cutthroat world, but what is this film saying about the kind of people who do this - where is the class/political/religious/etc angle on this? At best I saw it as a sort of mockery of corporate-speak, as Bloom spouts out motivational nonsense and jobspeak at every opportunity, often hilariously so.

But it all comes together in its weirdness. I'd like to see more style in a film like this, as it's so off-the-wall at times (and this would help bypass the questions of whether Bloom would get away with some of the things he does). But the 2 hours never dragged, particularly when the film focuses on one particular case and how Bloom starts to control the news rather than follow it. It's a fascinating film, one that doesn't quite work but yet someone hangs together in its intensity.

[numbersix]

Interstellar: 6/10
Gave myself the night to think this over. Ultimately, your enjoyment of this film will all boil down to whether you feel the themes present are enough to compensate for all the evident flaws the film has. This is a film about two things, that are somewhat tied. On a small scale it's about the bond between a father and daughter, and how a father has to abandon her in order to ultimately do the right thing, yet how that love can actually transcend so much - including our understanding of space and time. On a grander scale it's a film about adventure and knowledge, about never letting the boundaries of our understanding confine us physically, and how exploration and risk is tantamount to saving humanity from our many ills.

You have to give credit to Nolan. The space sequences are beautiful, and the use of models over CGI gives it all a more tangible feel. I never felt I was in a green-screen studio like Gravity, and Interstellar does have a few brilliant nail-biting space sequences. And the father-daughter element is pretty much the most emotional any of his films have ever been. I loved the scene where he watches the videos of his kids growing older. Yet the film doesn't quite come together, and the more you put the pieces together the more you realise they don't quite fit. And this isn't just abut plot holes (it's a film about space travel and wormholes after all), but about elements that were glossed over, ignored, or focused on for the wrong reasons. The whole Matt Damon sequence didn't work because his motivations never quite made sense. It reminded me of the last act of Sunshine where the villain goes out of his way to justify his evil actions, but the never quite convince. It's a shame that out of Nolan's supposed vast imagination the three planets explored are pretty much Water Planet, Ice Planet, and Desert Planet. Where's the unimaginable worlds? In the 2008 script I read they only visit one planet and what goes on there is utterly unique (an ice planet with an underground world for of spore-like creatures who morph into huge structures who battle for the radiation of the sunlight that feeds them). The idea of Cooper going through a wormhole and ending up in a weird dimension that's just the back of his daughter's bookshelf also feels like Inception nonsense, and ultimately a forced way to connect Coop's life with Murph's to fit in with the love theme. And Zimmer's score is even more overbearing than normal.

I think it is funny that this film is getting criticised so much when a lot of its problems were pretty apparent in Nolan's previous films, and it's a shame that the Nolan sheen is wearing off just when he has made a grand, ambitious sci-fi like this. Despite its monstrous flaws, I'd rather see more films like this than Gravity''s rollercoaster shallowness.

[Ron Burgundy]

ive come to enjoy your reviews more than the average critic six. I think you hit the mark and i certainly want to watch this over Gravity any day of the week, its got a much larger scope and takes risks. Yes, there are small plot holes, but to be honest, they dont shift the focus of the film. You favourite scene was indeed a good one, personally i liked the penultimate scene.

PS- i got my younger brother to watch Inception last night. And can someone please explain to me what the final scene means? I still dont understand what really happened to Cob, but i have my own thoughts

[numbersix]

ive come to enjoy your reviews more than the average critic six. I think you hit the mark and i certainly want to watch this over Gravity any day of the week, its got a much larger scope and takes risks. Yes, there are small plot holes, but to be honest, they dont shift the focus of the film. You favourite scene was indeed a good one, personally i liked the penultimate scene.

PS- i got my younger brother to watch Inception last night. And can someone please explain to me what the final scene means? I still dont understand what really happened to Cob, but i have my own thoughts

The spinning totem? Well, I think the point of the film-makers was to deliberately make us question the reality of what we were seeing, as it cuts before it stop (or never stops). Though to me that's just a cheap attempt at an open ending. I think the film would lose almost all of its power if it was trying to say this was all just Cob's imagination.

[Buscemi]

Besides, Scorsese already used the "it's all in his mind" ending with Shutter Island the same year.

[silversurfer19]

Catching up on a few movies I've seen recently.

First up was The Judge - 6.5/10, a movie that is made much better by Robert Downey Jr and Robert Duvall in particular. The story of the prodigal son returning to aid a father who he doesn't get along with is very familiar, and the way it is directed makes it feel like the perfect Sunday afternoon drama-lite. Yet, despite all this, the film is given a little gravitas thanks to the performances, and the emotions run high in what is obviously a movie that had full intentions of gaining Oscar favour during it's production. It reminds me in that sense of August: Osage County, in that it follows a family dynamic at a reunion, but relies a little too heavily on it's cast to drag it to the finish line.

Next up was Nightcrawler - 9.5/10, a movie that has possibly become my favourite movie of the year right now. Capturing the seedy underbelly of LA with a dark satire of journalism not seen since the also brilliant Network, I found myself enthralled by this depiction of society played out by Jake Gyllenhaal's sociopath. Yes, his determination to succeed is completely deranged, but at the same time I found it a sharp look at how we all are obsessed by this type of news. Only a few weeks ago there was a major accident on a motorway near where I live. Yet, despite the horrific nature that killed two people, I found myself trawling the internet late at night trying to find an image of the crash to work out what had happened. It's also like how whenever you see a police car hurtle down the road, your instinct is to jump in the lane and follow him in the hope of seeing what the driver is pursuing. Maybe this is just me, but perhaps Dan Gilroy has captured the sociopath in all of us? These network news programmes exist because of our deeprooted curiosity of the murky underworld.

Gyllenhaal is like this character personified, and he's unnerving, creepy, and downright terrifying. Some here have complained that he lacks a character arc, but like other unstoppable forces in the form of Jaws or Alien, who also lack a character arc, bizarrely I found myself comparing him to them. They just keep on going, relentless in their pursuit with no pause. I also couldn't help but liken Bloom to Patrick Bateman, the parallels of their sociopathic nature was fascinating. Indeed, despite such a loathesome character, there is something quite alluring in Louis Bloom, more so than any other character in the film. And indeed, I think this reveals that while he is obviously a sociopath those surrounding him are perhaps even worse. The entire cast of characters in Nightcrawler have their own vices; Rene Russo (who is fantastic btw, and a true welcome return), desperate to keep her programme afloat will show and do literally anything, Riz Ahmed will follow Gyllenhaal with the prospect of monetary gain, Bill Paxton, desperate to hit the big leagues is willing to team up with Bloom and his uncompromising journalism. At least we know where we stand with Bloom, these other characters essentially attempt to use his nature for own personal gain.

I also loved the music in the movie, James Newton Howard managed to capture the twilight hours of LA with such a cold score reminiscent of the 80s, and it just works so well with the slick icy visuals. But really, this movie belongs to Gyllenhaal. Without doubt his career high in what has already become a strong portfolio, if he isn't at the very least considered for an Oscar I would be hugely disappointed. He brings a character to a story that while not exactly new, still feels fresh because of his presence. It's a stunning performance, and I would be hugely surprised if anyone can better him in the next couple of months, despite the talent upcoming. He encapsulates everything dark, murky and uncompromising within the movie, and he, along with the film, become a compelling watch.

After this I caught Fury - 7/10, a decent, well acted war drama that captures the horrors of living in a tank during the war like nothing I've ever seen before. Yet when outside of it, it all felt a little too familiar. The token love story, combined in that scene with a desperate need to humanise Brad Pitt's war torn character, just felt a little forced. But otherwise, the strong cast work well together and the tank fight scenes are very well shot. Still not convinced Logan Lerman has the ability to command a film, think he needs to mature a little, but he was okay enough, while Shia LaBoeuf and Jon Bernthal offered excellent support. Just a little too predictable though really, but worth a watch for the performances alone.

Finally, also caught The Babadook - 8/10, which, along with Oculus, is my favourite horror of the year by far. Reminiscent of A Guillermo Del Toro movie in both it's themes and imagery, its a tormenting movie which truly captures the difficult relationship between mother and child and the external manifestation it can inflict on those involved. It makes for a deeply unsettling movie, and a movie that actually kept me awake that night such was it's scares. Not many movies do that to me nowadays, maybe it's because I'm a parent, but even so I guess that is testament to the film's realistic horrors. Unlike six, I loved the creature effects, I thought they were imaginative and how it doesn't resort to closeups was refreshing but equally frightening. But, much like Del Toro's Pan's Labyrinth and The Devil's Backbone, certainly the most frightening thing about the movie is the real life horrors, with the emotional story of mother and son both unnerving and deeply moving. Certainly well recommended.

[Buscemi]

Before I Go to Sleep ***/****

An entertaining Hitchcockian thriller that deserved better than the poorly-marketed theatrical release and the 81% second week drop (the fifth biggest of all-time for a wide release) that it ended up having. Nicole Kidman gives probably her best performance in quite some time as an amnesiac who while struggling to remember her past finds that her present is nothing like she thought it was. Colin Firth and Mark Strong, both playing against type, also provide good support and Rowan Joffe's direction is never overwhelming and keeps things intimate (he also keeps things short, as the final run time is only 92 minutes) as Kidman's character struggles to piece the mystery together against her handicap. In a way, the film feels more like a play due to the small number of characters (the majority of the film features just Kidman, Firth and Strong) but the characters are never boring and you are fascinated by them as the film goes on.

I don't want to give away too much but I wish more people had seen it. I guess movies like this or last year's Trance were never meant to find mainstream acceptance.

[silversurfer19]

I certainly agree with you, Boushh, it seems to have been a movie that has passed the US by which is surprising considering it's cast, while the premise is something you would expect fans of Hitchcock or Memento even would eat up. Shame, as there are some excellent performances on show there, despite a rather clumsy ending.

Last night I caught another couple of movies. First up was Horns - 5.5/10, a movie that offers up a good slice of fun and is constantly entertaining, but overall is let down mainly because it doesn't quite know what kind of film it wants to be. Mixing genres can work (something I will come to later), and certainly Edgar Wright would be a good reference for how to do it right most times, but here it just jars a little. The film must certainly be applauded for originality; in a genre that has become stale with slasher (which is slightly surprising considering Alexandre Aja is probably best known for this type of film) or possession plot lines, having Daniel Radcliffe wake up one morning with horns growing out of his head due to his rejection of faith following his girlfriend's death is quite an intriguing idea, and the mystery keeps you interested throughout, even if it is a little long. But the tonal shifts, from horror to comedy to mystery, just never rest easy, it doesn't flow organically enough and keeps knocking you off track. Still, you can't fault the effort, and while I'm still not quite convinced Daniel Radcliffe has the charisma to pull off a leading man career beyond Harry Potter, he certainly gives it a go. Plus, any movie with Juno Temple has got to be worth watching.

Following this up was The Skeleton Twins 8/10, a movie that manages to marry particularly hard hitting drama and comedy with ease. It's certainly helped by Bill Hader and Kristen Wiig, both giving the performance of their careers as twins who, having lived separate lives for ten years come back together following a near tragedy. With another script, this movie could quite easily have become a very tiring morbid drama that explores suicide, homosexuality and depression, but somehow, there is a constant light at the end of the tunnel thanks to Hader and Wiig's comedic ability. It's pretty obvious their work together on SNL has helped them with the movie, their are moments in the film (such as a Starship power ballad mime or dental gas scene) that could easily have been lifted from the show, while their rapport together really helps you believe the close bond of their relationship. Indeed, there's a real honesty to the whole film, it's very raw at times and the dramatic moments don't seem trivialised by the humour, but work because you believe in their relationship. I hope both Hader and Wiig can continue to forge new paths in their careers, as while the comedy is very funny, it's clear they both have a talent for more intimate fare too.

[Buscemi]

I personally do not get all the love for Bill Hader. For me, he's always come off as bland and/or unlikeable.

[numbersix]

Human Capital: 6/10
The film that beat The Great Beauty at the Donatello awards (the Italian Oscars). How undeserved. This isn't a bad film, an adaptation of an American novel involving two families, one upper and one middle class, whose lives are changed by an accident. The story is told three times, through the perspectives of three different characters: the middle class father who wants to raise his social status; the upper class wife who feels trapped in her trophy wife lifestyle; and the middle class daughter who falls for an outsider. It's a critique of those who take risks for money instead of care for their loved ones, and the consequences of such actions. What it does have going for it is the interesting narrative structure. Plus the performances of the female leads are excellent (the male leads are all strangely OTT, but maybe that's just Italy). But there are some awful cliches in it, particularly in the last story, and the themes of the film fall a little flat in the delivery.

[Buscemi]

Dumb and Dumber To ***/****

Yes, it's stupid, crude and quite misanthropic at times. But Harry and Lloyd are not role models (in fact, Lloyd's probably in contention for the most sociopathic character in film history). This is another film from The Farrelly Brothers made for the sole purpose to entertain and it succeeds in doing so. Basically, the plot is similar to the first (but with the main difference being that they are searching for a long-lost child rather than a owner of a briefcase) and there are a lot of callbacks to the first but it still manages to work despite the similarities. Also a few jokes don't hit but most of them do (the audience I saw it with this morning ate it up). It's nice to see Jim Carrey and Jeff Daniels back in the roles they originated back in 1994 and their chemistry has not lost a step and despite the 110 minute run time, the film is relatively fast-paced. I also enjoyed Kathleen Turner's turn as Freida Feltcher and admired the idea of having a character who is just as annoyed with Harry and Lloyd but at least understands them and isn't trying to kill them.

In short, don't expect the next great sequel but it was worth the wait.

[numbersix]

The Imitation Game: 6/10
A solid but also quite standard example of prime Oscar Bait, held together by a solid cast. Benedict Cumberbuns plays a slightly more timid version of his Sherlock, meaning it's hardly a surprise performance but it does impress at several times. Kiera Knightley isn't quite have enough time, but she is almost as strong with good support from Charles Dance (although he kinda disappears), Mark Strong, Matthew Goode. The structure is interesting, jumping from different timelines - Alan Turin as a boy, as the code cracker in WWII, and as a man under investigation in the 1950s. But the real appeal is the code-cracking sequences, and there's just not enough of a link between Turing's homosexuality and the immediate goal in hand (they cross at one occasion, and way more could have been made of it). The dialogue balances grand-standing moments with some well-placed humour. It's a decent film in almost every way, but also unexceptional too.

[Buscemi]

I saw the trailer for The Imitation Game with St. Vincent and couldn't help but notice how similar it looks to the 2001 Kate Winslet film Enigma. How does it compare to that one?

[numbersix]

I saw the trailer for The Imitation Game with St. Vincent and couldn't help but notice how similar it looks to the 2001 Kate Winslet film Enigma. How does it compare to that one?

Similar subject matter, completely different story.