What Maisie Knew – a lovely little film about crap parenting

What Maisie Knew might not be a great film, but in its own way it’s a lovely piece of craftsmanship. Through its structuring and camerawork it manages to capture exactly what it is like to be a child in turbulent, scary circumstances involving erratic adults – not completely understanding things, always seeking whatever physical reassurance is available, and withdrawing into another world whenever possible. But unlike similar films that orient themselves from a child’s perspective (like Beasts of the Southern Wild,) Maisie manages to do this without dumbing the rest of the story down to Neanderthal levels. All four adults – the two selfish, useless parents and the two exploited but caring individuals who eventually come to look after Maisie – are decently-developed as characters. The film’s dialog is solid, its scene-structure is uniformly good, and the music is terrific. I’m not sure I would watch it again (I might,)  but it is very enjoyable the first time round.

The casting is superb. Ice-queen Julianne Moore is perfect as the cold, neurotic mother, and Steve Coogan again proves an ideal actor for playing an empty shell of a man. In contrast, Alexander Skarsgård and Joanna Vanderham are wonderfully warm and human on-screen, perfectly befitting their roles. The kid playing Maisie (Onata Aprile) gives about as good a child performance as I’ve ever scene.

What Maisie Knew is a lovely little film. I highly recommend it.

Posted in 2013 | Comments Off on What Maisie Knew – a lovely little film about crap parenting

The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey – So God-awful it boggles the mind

I watched Peter Jackson’s Lord of the Rings movies when they came out- I thought they were pretty mediocre, both in comparison to the novels and judged strictly as fantasy-adventure movies. But they did occasionally have their moments, and even though they were far from good, they were at least not completely misconceived. The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey, the first in a Peter Jackson Hobbit trilogy, is another story altogether.

The Hobbit is a short, delightful little children’s book with a pretty simplistic story. It clearly didn’t need a nine-hour “movie,” but let’s set that aside for the moment. This wretched, initial Hobbit film manages to kill just about every last thing that was charming, fun, or interesting from the novel. It is profoundly joyless and profoundly uninteresting. It lumbers forward painfully, opening with endless (and needless) battle scenes where nameless and faceless beings are smashed, burned and pulverized, numbing the mind and inuring emotional disassociation from the story. The use of actual dialog from the book is done gracelessly, almost like it was a contractual obligation of some sort. Humor is nonexistent, each attempt more pitiful than the last. They made up a bunch of scenes not in the book, in order to fill out time, and they are all total crap, and hurt the story. Visually, the film is a video game. The dwarves are ridiculous looking clowns, Bilbo is a total bore, and Ian McKellen acts like he’s really had enough of all this shit.

Note to Peter Jackson: For the love of God, stop!

Posted in 2012 | Comments Off on The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey – So God-awful it boggles the mind

Jack Reacher – A very nice surprise

Jack Reacher is a really fun movie! The story, while certainly not deep, is well-conceived and well-written. It has a surprisingly good and extended set-up, decent pacing, and makes old-school use of dialog in telling its story. Tom Cruise is not exactly a favorite of mine, but I loved him in the Jack Reacher roll, which to my surprise was an interesting combination of low-key humanness and Taken-style ass-kicking. Plus the film has a really nice, subtle sense of humor, not very common in the world of Hollywood action blockbusters. I will definitely be watching Jack Reacher again, at some point.

I think Jack Reacher didn’t do well at the box office because it was just too measured and involved too much talking for modern audiences. It also had two different but equally ineffective trailers working against it, both determined to sell it as something it was not. I think it was probably the best film of its particular genera (light comedic drama with an ass-kicking protagonist) last year, in 2012. Netflix it as soon as it’s out – I highly recommend it!

Posted in 2012 | Comments Off on Jack Reacher – A very nice surprise

To The Wonder – It’s quite moving, for a film with no dialog

As anyone who reads this blog knows, I am not exactly one for “image” films with no dialog. Eric Rohmer is my idea of film artistry – To The Wonder is the exact opposite of Eric Rohmer. Nevertheless, I have to admit I liked this much maligned film. And the final image of the film shocked me so much, I choked up and cried.

I have no idea what Terrence Malick thinks his film is about, but I saw To the Wonder as a very interesting statement on what it actually means to love – not merely platitudes like love is hard work and requires selflessness, but the deeper sense that each person’s life presents them with their opportunity to love, an opportunity which may or may not fit the neurotic delusions of their restless mind, and an opportunity they must accept if they are to be whole. This message is layered on a little heavy through the Javier Bardem character of the priest, but I don’t really see it as an exclusively Christian idea. People’s opportunity to love is basically found in whatever is immediately surrounding them, opportunities that are seldom acted on for a wide variety of reasons.

The two leads – the impossibly beautiful Olga Kurylenko and ruggedly handsome, salt-of-the-earth man’s-man Ben Affleck – represent each other’s neurotic delusion, not so much literally (although there is that) as figuratively and allegorically. They each have someone right in front of them in their lives who was their chance to love. For Affleck, it’s mundane childhood sweetheart Rachel McAdams, a absolutely perfect piece of visual casting as a poor man’s Olga Kurylenko. For Kurylenko, it’s her young daughter from a prior marriage that she is ashamed of. Both are tossed aside rather sadly, as the two eventually and tragically return to chasing their respective delusions.

What was impressed me greatly is how steady and sure the film’s artistry remained all throughout, painting a quite striking picture of the psycho-emotional nature of most peoples’ lives. Everything I have described is transmitted through images, and what little dialog and narration exists is itself a kind of abstract, vaguely poetic reinforcement of the various visual ideas. So Kurylenko’s narration and behavior is almost an inane parody of philosophical and artistic approaches to love, while McAdams’ is painfully direct, real, and human. The film walks an amazing line, visually.  The sequences of images are not only continuously beguiling, but they weave a lovely tapestry of meaning all through the film. Sometimes they send your mind reeling – I think the scene with Affleck and McAdams in the middle of the bison herd is an astonishingly effective visual representation of the nature of their love, or rather potential love. Many of the smaller images only struck me well after the movie was over, as I noticed some thread of continuity I had missed at the time – it’s pointless to try to summarize them, there were so many. The images even sort of function as a kind of elementary narration – as long as you are willing to sit their constantly interpreting what you are seeing.

As I thought about this film afterward, one thing that struck me was how starkly it contrasts to the excessively literal modern indie movement, which to a certain extent attempts to explore similar territory, but always gets lost in a thick, post-modern fog. By adopting a totally visual and quasi-poetic approach, Malik sidesteps the problems of trying to represent these ideas in dialog. However, it is possible, although more difficult, to approach via dialog, and to me the results are always more impressive. Without taking the time here to elaborate, I invite you to compare To The Wonder to Eric Rohmer’s masterpiece L’Amour l’après-midi (1972,) which covers somewhat similar philosophical territory concerning love, but does it through dialog, and is in my mind one of the greatest films of all time.

Still, I don’t mean for this comparison to take anything away from To The Wonder. The critics have this film quite wrong. It’s a lovely, thought-provoking, and somewhat haunting film that is definitely worth seeing, if the film’s ideas intrigue you and you don’t mind doing a bit of interpretive labor.

Posted in 2013 | Comments Off on To The Wonder – It’s quite moving, for a film with no dialog

Game Over: Kasparov and The Machine (2003) – Quaint, but in hindsight rather silly.

I recently caught up with the old documentary Game Over: Kasparov and The Machine, about the famous match where the IBM chess super-computer Deep Blue defeated the world champion Gary Kasparov. I mainly watched this because I enjoyed following the World Championship Candidates Tournament recently, the reporting of which featured copious comparison of the players moves against modern chess engines. The documentary can be watched for free on YouTube here.

This documentary was not nearly as bad as I was led to believe. Its technique, although clumsy at times, was basically sound – use of flash-back footage was fairly good, pacing was fairly good, the set-up was not too bad, the interviews were well-conceived and edited,  the music was JFK-like but serviceable, and Kasparov is a pretty fun guy to watch and listen to, as he is kind of a character. The central argument of the documentary is that IBM cheated in game 2. In a complicated mid-game position, Kasparov tried to trick the machine by making a bad move on purpose that offered the machine a pawn to take for free. Deep Blue responded instead with a fairly sophisticated positional move that wound up dooming Kasparov to lose the game. He simply could not believe any machine was capable of making a move like that, and insisted that some hidden, human chess player must have intervened at that moment. The question of why IBM would cheat (one might honestly wonder, after all,) is answered by reference to the PR and revenue windfall reaped by IBM after emerging victorious from the match. Kasparov further claims that Deep Blue played differently at that moment than at any other moment in any other game, and he feels that he went on to lose the match (without the necessity of further human intervention by IBM) because he could not recover psychologically from the “obvious” instance of cheating in that early game. It did not help matters that IBM kept Deep Blue in a separate, hidden room, they refused to release the game logs when Kasparov requested them after game 2 (they did release them later,) and they forever dismantled Deep Blue immediately after the match.

Of course now this all seems pretty silly, with modern PC-based engines like Rybka and Houdini playing so far above the top grand-masters it’s mind-boggling, and which when tasked with reviewing Deep Blue’s actual moves against Kasparov show how comparatively weak Deep Blue would be now as a player. Clearly Kasparov was wrong – computers are capable of making moves like that. The only question is were they then? But there has to be a first time for everything – maybe that was simply the first time a chess engine was powerful enough to prioritize long-term considerations over falling for a simple, obvious trap like Kasparov’s.

Facility at the game of chess has always been more or less equated with superior “intelligence.” My feeling about Kasparov’s defeat is that it showed what a limited, perhaps even neurotic, intellectual endeavor chess actually is. It’s a very dreary, machine-like kind of skill, one in which machines have now totally eclipsed us. The recent Candidates Tournament made this abundantly clear. There was something strangely post-modern and science-fiction-like about the constant comparison of the moves of these ultra elite chess players to a PC program that would have absolutely wiped the floor with any of these guys, and which discovered moves and strategies so profound no human would ever see them in a million years. All the drama and interest from that tournament came from human frailty, capriciousness, and happenstance. Almost all serious errors leading to interesting outcomes (that is, losses) occurred while people were rushing as a result of completely arbitrary time rules. That guy “Chucky” was clearly unstable, so from one game to the next you never knew if he was going to play brilliantly or self-destruct, and in the end his emotional issues had a staggering effect on the tournament’s outcome! The tournament even brought out how much we all miss the Cold War, only to disappoint us when in the end the Russians clearly weren’t conspiring against the Westerner Carlsen (or at least not all of them were!)

Before Deep Blue, we could pretend that chess masters were doing something really deep and significant in their play, something machines could never do, much the way machines could never paint the Sistine Chapel or compose a Beethoven string quartet. I think IBM did a real service to society in dispelling this notion, and in the end I felt kind of bad for the IBM tech nerds who invented Deep Blue, that they never really got to enjoy their technical achievement because of Kasparov’s very public and paranoid accusations and denunciations. I guess rich IBM stock holders got to enjoy their achievement, however!

Posted in Films of the 2000s | Comments Off on Game Over: Kasparov and The Machine (2003) – Quaint, but in hindsight rather silly.

In The House (Dans la maison) – They squandered a brilliant idea.

In The House was wonderful for the first 20-30 minutes or so. By the end of the film I was pissed off and grumpy.

The film’s story idea has so much potential: A semi-jaded literature teacher (and his semi-neurotic wife) become obsessed with a provocative real-life drama unfolding in one of his student’s free writing assignments. The dialog and the narration of the various writings are initially exciting and funny, and the casting and performances are great.  But after a promising start, the film takes a definite turn in a very safe and unoriginal direction. The story becomes needlessly dark and twisted, and much less interesting, and the focus switches from an unfolding human drama to a device entirely designed to make the viewer wonder how much of what they are seeing is really happening – once the viewer decides just how much of what they saw was real (and what they choose winds up being surprisingly unimportant,) there is little to nothing to be gained from the movie. In the end, it’s just an empty, manipulative little game, sunk by its own cleverness, which I found infuriating.

My wife and I went to see In The House largely because we are big Kristen Scott Thomas fans, and to see Kristen Scott Thomas these days you pretty much have to watch French films. (Can you blame her? What is there for someone like her to do in Hollywood?) Also in the film is the wonderful Fabrice Luchini, who any Eric Rohmer fanatic will instantly and happily recognize as “Octave,” one of my favorite Rohmer characters of all time (from Les Nuits de la Pleine Lune.) These two have a wonderful chemistry in the beginning of the film, before the main narrative device starts warping their relationship in ways that make no sense. I just wish they had found a better film in which to work together.

I can’t stress enough the disappointment and disillusionment I felt from watching this movie. I know In The House is getting a lot of critical acclaim, but I think these critics are just dazzled by superficial technique. I found it all very pedestrian in the end – I wish these filmmakers had had the guts (and the talent) to take this great idea and do something really great with it.

Posted in 2013 | Comments Off on In The House (Dans la maison) – They squandered a brilliant idea.

42 – For this kind of sports movie, it’s not too bad.

42 is your typical, semi-schmaltzy, biographical sports movie, but it avoids many of the worst pitfalls that tend to plague this kind of film, and in the end it is quite enjoyable. It struck me as a fairly cursory but dignified telling of the story of Jackie Robinson. There’s not a lot of detail, the pacing is a tad slow, and the dialog is far from deep or even interesting, but the film manages to get its ideas across, almost a bit like the after-school movies of my childhood. The baseball sequences are done pretty decently, with very little slow motion, which was a welcome surprise. The racism sequences are also decent and effective, even if they feel somewhat canned and unspontaneous.

I don’t have much more to say about this film. It is what it is – a good-natured but limited sports movie about Jackie Robinson and his journey. If Jackie Robinson interests you, see it. Otherwise, I’m not sure this film has much else to stand on.

Posted in 2013 | Comments Off on 42 – For this kind of sports movie, it’s not too bad.

The Company You Keep – entertaining, with good actors, but held down by mediocre writing

The Company You Keep is a enjoyable movie – it has a fun story idea, they wrote some basically decent dialog, and it features a lot of really good, old actors who give nice performances and are fun to watch. Hell, it’s just great to see Robert Redford in one more movie. I had certain issues with the film, and I’m not sure I would even call it a “good” film, but it is diverting, dignified, and no one gets shot, and for these reasons alone it is worth seeing.

This film does not have much to say about the Weather Underground. This group and their beliefs basically serve only to set up a smaller, human drama of Robert Redford as a fugitive on the run and Shia LaBeouf as a journalist chasing down the truth about Redford. This human drama has some twists and turns – it’s not a bad story – but the problem is that the film’s structural writing leaves a lot to be desired. The unfolding of information feels very mechanical, clunky, and unexciting. Redford stays here, he stays there, he calls so-and-so, they tell him thus-and-such – the feeling watching it might be described as watching an outline of a story. There’s no depth, no texture, and surprisingly little suspense. What’s more, LaBeouf’s character is clearly set up as a point of unification for all the little bits and pieces of the story, but then they also tell the all the bits of the story outside of his character, making him strangely superfluous. Put simply, the narrative is labored and its execution confused.

The film’s scene structure is largely a series of one-on-one vignettes between the various supporting actors and either Redford or LaBeouf. The dialog in these vignettes is decent, sometimes pretty good, and is for the most part well-executed by the great old actors who populate these supporting roles. But the scenes are not written well enough to convey much of anything deeper about the characters. You come away from this film knowing almost nothing about Redford or LaBeouf, except that Redford had some secrets, and LaBeouf found them out. Clearly it’s not the kind of film you would ever need to watch again.

Nevertheless, this film might have worked a lot better had it not been for the disastrous casting of Shia LaBeouf. LaBeouf is a terrible actor, and his performance takes a hatchet to every part of the film he’s involved in. Almost everything that comes out of his mouth is embarrassing, as is his near total inability to manipulate his facial expressions, and his complete lack of skill as a physical actor. It is painful to watch his artless hacking in scenes opposite wonderful actors like Susan Sarandon, Chris Cooper, Brendan Gleeson, Brit Marling, and even Redford himself. LaBeouf is so bad that these fine actors couldn’t even partially rescue his performance – he single-handedly destroys many scenes that even an average actor would have been able to pull off. Frankly, I don’t understand how Redford could have miscalculated so badly in casting him, unless he was simply obsessed with getting someone who sort of looked and behaved vaguely like Dustin Hoffman in All the President’s Men.

After the movie, my wife and I entertained ourselves figuring out who should have been cast in this role. James McAvoy leapt to my mind – he would have been great, a fine actor with excellent judgement and subtleness, and warm and charismatic as well. My wife had the novel idea of switching LaBeouf and Anna Kendrick in their roles, letting the very skilled Kendrick bring her personal magic to the part of the tenacious journalist, while relegating LaBeouf to a role small enough to prevent him from inflicting too much damage. At any rate, someone else was needed in that role – almost anyone, frankly.

As I mentioned, many fine actors got involved in this project as supporting players. Unfortunately the results of this all-star amalgamation were all over the place, ranging from horrible (Terence Howard,) to largely wasted (Anna Kendrick, Sam Elliott, Chris Cooper,) to window-dressing roles (Julie Christie, Susan Sarandon,) to over-acted (Nick Nolte,) to solid and unflashy (Redford,) to really good (Brit Marling, Brendan Gleeson, Richard Jenkins.) On the whole, however, this fine group of supporting players make the film as enjoyable as it is, through their skill, charisma, and star presence.

The Company You Keep: It’s far from great, but it is certainly worth seeing if you enjoy this kind of film.

Posted in 2013 | Comments Off on The Company You Keep – entertaining, with good actors, but held down by mediocre writing

Irreviews Awards 2012, and the new ratings system.

In the aftermath of the awards season, I’ve been giving a good amount of thought to how awards should be approached here on Irreviews. Yearly movie awards are without a doubt a questionable thing. It is obviously quite artificial to give awards for a completely arbitrary time period like a calendar year. In a weak year, a “best picture” winner could wind up being a rather marginal film, where as in a strong year a truly good film might not win anything at all. What’s the value in that?

Furthermore, the more specific award categories used by critics circles, film festivals, and the Oscars and Golden Globes, are seriously confounded by overlap. Acting is as much direction and writing as it is performance. Directing is hard to differentiate from writing, cinematography, casting, and acting skill. And writing quality is so hard to pin down that awards given to films for their writing seldom make any sense at all. In the end, films truly deserving of awards tend to have more or less uniformly good execution in all areas, rendering such specific awards largely meaningless.

Therefore, I have decided to approach the awards problem through specifying various levels of artistic excellence so that their meaning is consistent year-over-year. These are defined via four classes of medals, and each class can have multiple recipients (or no recipients at all) in a given year.

Platinum Medals are reserved for timeless, near-perfect, films that deepen with every viewing. Films of this sort are extremely rare – the last one was The Lives of Others (2006.)

Gold Medals are awarded to “best in class” films of uniformly exceptional artistic quality with no major distracting flaws, and unlimited watchability.

Silver Medals are awarded to films exhibiting exceptional artistic quality in a number of significant areas, and which completely stand the test of repeated viewings, despite being flawed or unremarkable in other areas.

Bronze Medals are awarded for excellence upon first viewing that stays a vivid memory over time, usually justifying a re-watching or two, despite the fact that it lacks the qualities to earn a higher medal.

My yearly ratings are now built off this framework, with 6 non-medal ratings tiers beneath the award tiers. (For those who remember the prior “1 through 10” system, the new system is similar, but the tier definitions at the top are now better delineated and more meaningful.) During a given year, strong films will be designated on that year’s ratings page as “candidates” for a medal-class; as the year proceeds, they may move up or down depending on how their greatness wears in my memory, or how they fair upon re-watching. By (roughly) April of the following year, I will assign more-or-less final awards.

In addition, I will be awarding a Special Mention category, which will cover any other recognition-worthy aspects of films which failed to earn a medal. Special Mention will also include two specific awards: an award for Best Trailer and an “Indie Renaissance Award” for films upholding the unique aesthetic qualities of the 1990s Indie Renaissance.

The complete awards history will be kept on the navigation bar (far right.) The yearly ratings pages will remain on the navigation bar, but will be reformatted for easier reading, and will reflect the new categories.

So, without further ado, here are the 2012 Irreviews Movie Awards:

2012 Awards

Gold Medals

Silver Medals

Bronze Medals

Special Mention

  • The Girl  Indie Renaissance Award
  • Argo – For its remarkable opening sequence
  • The Sound of My Voice – For its superb depiction of the fraudulent operational patterns of charismatic gurus, and for Brit Marling’s wonderful performance.
  • Smashed – For Mary Elizabeth Winstead’s incredibly natural performance.
  • The Perks of Being a Wallflower – Best Trailer Award
Posted in 2012 | Comments Off on Irreviews Awards 2012, and the new ratings system.

Queen To Play – Inoffensive but dull offering from the new French Hollywood

French Hollywood is at it again, following old, discarded formulae and selling it back to Americans. Queen to Play is a blended rehash of The Karate Kid, Educating Rita, and Searching For Bobby Fischer, with a few key rip-offs of the Japanese film Shall We Dance thrown in. The result is not bad, and certainly Sandrine Bonnaire is always a welcome presence in any movie. But it’s frankly a bit boring. As a “sports” movie, it fails the most important test: it creates no dialog texture on the topic of the game itself. They explain to you nothing about the game of chess, so all you see are a lot of head shots of people looking thoughtful as they stare at chess boards – not interesting. It’s a film about her learning to play chess, couldn’t they include just one scene where she actually learns something? Instead all we get are these lame-ass lines tossed out there, like Kevin Klein giving the advice “remember, the threat is more powerful than the action,” but since there’s no context, it just falls flat.

As for the underlying human story, again it’s dull. Her husband is not very likable or believable, nor is her daughter. Kevin Klein is supremely unbelievable and is very distracting as well, and in addition his French does not sound at the level of the rest of the French cast (to my ears, anyway.) Their friendship feels rather superficial, again because there’s no dialog. And even the ending, which should have been at least a little moving, winds up leaving you rather cold; perhaps it’s because Sandrine Bonnaire doesn’t look all that happy at the end, despite everything she has accomplished.

I can’t really recommend Queen To Play.

Posted in 2012 | Comments Off on Queen To Play – Inoffensive but dull offering from the new French Hollywood