Irreviews

They just don’t know how to make horror films any more. The Awakening started off okay, I suppose. Rebecca Hall (always a welcome presence in any movie) plays a cool, intelligent female scientist who debunks ghosts. She goes to a school where weird shit is happening, and starts coming up against creepy and ambiguous occurrences. There’s even some nice, haunting photos floating about. So far, so good.

But then they take the mystery out of everything and reduce her to a sniveling little girl, as the story is revealed to be far-fetched and kind of boring tale that shamelessly rips off The Sixth Sense, The Changeling, and The Shining.

It’s not a terrible film, just disappointing in the end.

No is a frustrating movie. I wanted to like it, because it’s a very interesting story, one that is directly connected to the fascinating geopolitical history of how the United States used to run South America, and no longer does. However, it is such a badly made film, I found it almost impossible to get any real enjoyment out of it.

No is set in 1988, and it looks like it was filmed using a 1988 camcorder. I can’t remember the last feature film that looked this bad. The film is consistently blurry, and a surprising number of sections literally look like they were shot through a screen door. No attention was paid to lighting. (In one scene, sunlight obliterates everyone’s faces.) Listening to all the talking in this film is very unpleasant, because the sound quality is horrible, all the actors have similar voices, they all mumble in their performances, and the camerawork is so inept you can’t even see who is talking! As if this were not enough, the subtitles are clearly not up to the modern standard in terms of ease of reading, and there’s something funny about the translations that I could not put my finger on, having to do with the way they all kept saying “man” all the time, even in contexts where it made no sense. My wife and I were cranky as hell when we walked out of this film, largely because watching it was so grating to our senses.

So, in basic physical terms, this film is damn near a fucking disaster. In artistic terms, it’s not much better. Scene structure is abominable. There is a good bit of dialog in this movie, as various people have what should have been interesting discussions about the referendum and what to do. But rather than create cohesive scenes which properly organized the concepts being bandied about, they shot a million different scenes in a million different places, and then pasted together 15 second snippets into these irritating patchwork “conversations” that spread over hours or days. I think they thought they were being “artsy” with this device, but it’s really just crap, and only distracts from the concepts being discussed. And when you factor in the physical problems mentioned, in any one of these “conversations” you are never sure if it’s always the same people talking, if new people are suddenly in the scene you don’t know who they are, and since people are frequently shot from horrible angles, you sometimes even forget who the main participants are.

No also makes no effort to orient the viewer to the sociopolitical context of the film. How many people know anything about Salvador Allende’s government, which the United States took out in favor of Pinochet’s brutal regime? Almost nobody. Was he a good guy, a bad guy, a communist, a social democrat? The viewer is told nothing, outside of mentioning the U.S. role in getting rid of him. The film also offers almost no assistance in understanding the conflicting claims of “prosperity” used by both sides – it’s as bad as our ridiculous presidential elections! The “Yes” group harps on about “not losing what has been achieved” – well, what’s the truth about what had been achieved? These filmmakers simply refuse to clarify anything important like this. Further, no context is even created around the referendum itself. It’s not clear what the “No” people want to happen if they win, and when they do win, the film does not explain who came to power or what happened subsequently. It’s all extremely unsatisfying.

So in the end, all you are left with is the isolated story of the marketing campaign utilized by the “No” folks, a feel-good campaign that leveraged good music, American upper middle class images of prosperity, celebrity support, and humor. It was interesting and enjoyable to watch, especially when the “Yes” folks start trying to fight dirty, and out-do the “No” folks at their own game. But as my wife pointed out, this film really rode the “No” advertising segments shamelessly. At the end of the day, there was damn little in the way of fleshing out how it all came together, or making the process of creation interesting or involving.

Lastly, I’ve come to the conclusion that Gael García Bernal is a bad actor, and a bad sign in movies. I don’t care how damn cute he is – I’m done with him.

So, what can I say? This is the kind of movie that is going to stream on Netflix pretty quickly. If you are really interested in seeing the ad spots from the 1988 Chilean referendum, wait and stream it. If you merely like good political films, I’m not sure I’d bother with this one.

My expectations for End of Watch were pretty low – basically, I like Jake Gyllenhaal, so I watched it. But this film is a passed-over gem of sorts. It is very well-made, interesting, and artistically it succeeds way more than I ever would have guessed. My wife and I both loved it.

Here’s a great example of a thrilling action film that also makes a real effort (through quality dialog) to develop characters and tell a satisfying and muti-faceted human story. You get to know the main characters and the details of their lives (both on and off the job) in satisfying detail. The pacing of the film is really good, as is the narrative flow of scenes. Because they are telling a story about people (rather than about shocking events, as is usually done in action films,) when the shocking scenes arrive, they make quite an impact, and what’s more the action scenes are freshly varied, and their violence (although considerable) is not glamorized in any way.

This movie builds texture beautifully, both through excellent scene composition and through the unusual device that much of the film is seen live through camcorders held by the participants. Normally this would just be a hackneyed gimmick, but here it is skillfully employed to add considerable spontaneity and visual texture, and also to naturally provide a kind of quasi-narration that communicates additional information smoothly and efficiently – you just have to see it to appreciate how well it works.

Both Jake Gyllenhaal and Michael Peña are absolutely superb, and their chemistry as partners is outstandingly natural. All the supporting performances are solid, and I should add that it was very nice to see the marvelous America Ferrera getting some work, even if it was just a small supporting role.

I recommend End of Watch very highly! It really is one of the better films of the year.

In this movie, a bunch of people go to their 10 year high school reunion, and not much happens. Actually, nothing happens.

This movie meant well. It’s low-key and a bit gritty, and it did have some pretty good moments (when the musician sings his song, and the antics of the big douchebag who is trying to atone for his past tormenting of all the geeks in attendance.) But character development is virtually nonexistent, dialog is spotty at best (that’s being kind, actually,) and thematically it is very weak. You teater on the edge of boredom all the way through, but never quite tip over. Plus, for some reason everyone looks like they’re in their mid forties, rather than the 27-28 we would expect at a 10 year high school reunion.

I should add that it’s wonderful to see the marvelous Lynn Collins again, in a small role as the popular girl who has hit hard times. I still maintain that she should have been a major star, although this particular role does not give her much to work with.

It’s not an offensive movie, but there’s not too much to recommend here.

Rashida Jones is adorable, and I think it’s fabulous that she (like Brit Marling and Zoe Kazan) has faced the dearth of quality female roles head-on by sitting down and writing her own movie to star in.

Celeste & Jesse Forever is not a bad film, by any stretch. It kind of quirky, and Jones definitely made an attempt to write a lead character that was multi-dimensional and interesting. It even had a decent ending. But the writing is very uneven in quality, much of the humor falls flat, and the central relationship of Celeste and Jesse is strangely undeveloped, as is Jesse himself – Celeste and Jesse needed way more dialog for this film to pack any kind of punch, or even hold the viewer emotionally. Instead, the film comes across as a bit of a narcissistic exercise, sketching this bizarre, self-centered woman who frankly is not that believable in many ways.

The supporting acting is also uneven – Chris Messina and Emma Roberts are really good, but everyone else is pretty bad. As for the leads, Jones looks comfortable in her role, but her co-lead Andy Samberg is flat and looks kind of lost a lot of the time.

I’m not sure there’s any reason to Netflix this one.

The moral of this story: If your five year old son is still in dipers, talks like a violent and deranged 20 year-old, stares at you like a serial killer, and your husband thinks there’s nothing wrong with this, just leave and never come back.

Liberal Arts is perhaps a bit uneven, but it’s an entertaining and somewhat original-feeling film, and its merits definitely outweigh its flaws. On the plus side, it’s a very amusing and sometimes heartfelt portrayal of academia and academic personalities. Its portrait of college professors as a bunch of warped, frustrated, bitter assholes is very funny and very true, as my long experience with academics and academia tells me. The scene where Richard Jenkins gives his bizarre, ridiculous “speech” at his retirement party is outstanding, an absolute gem of realism. Jenkins and Allison Janney are both great in their roles. Josh Radner is solid and appealing as the main character. And Elizabeth Olsen gives a wonderful and very real performance in the female lead roll of Zibby – she really holds this film together emotionally with her warmth and presence.

My only quibbles are that Radner’s character seemed a bit contrived at times, Radner’s acting seemed a bit stiff at times, the dialog in general felt forced at times, and I did not find the resolution of Olsen’s character totally believable. But these are hardly deal-breakers. All in all, the film hangs together quite well, and is very enjoyable.

I recommend Liberal Arts , especially for anyone that has experienced that unique love/hate relationship with academia (or wants to, I guess!) Netflix it today!

My wife and I finally caught up with The Hurt Locker on Netflix. I always felt bad that I never saw it. Turns out my instincts to avoid it were in fact right on the money.

The first half of The Hurt Locker is okay, not good, but somewhat interesting because of the gritty portrait of military life over in that hell hole. Dialog is minimal, and character development is about at comic book level, but as a simplistic visual portrait of war-torn Iraq it hangs together, barely. It even has one legitimately good scene (when Anthony Mackie talks with Specialist Eldridge about blowing up Jeremy Renner,) and it has a few interesting narrative possibilities scattered about, which unfortunately never go anywhere. But at a certain point the movie just falls apart – actually, my wife identified the point exactly: it’s the scene where the two guys are punching each other in the stomach for fun, about half way through the film.

After this point, The Hurt Locker becomes kind of pointless and boring. The story, already weak, completely stops developing, and suddenly you’ve seen enough scenes of guys walking around pointing guns at people and shouting instructions at them, and “shady” Iraqis peering suspiciously out of windows. Suddenly the visceral thrill of watching Renner deactivate bombs has lost its freshness. You don’t drift off completely during the second half, because someone is always in danger of violent death, which ensures a certain minimum level of viewer engagement. But whatever fleeting narrative hopes were kindled during the first half of the movie are bitterly squelched in the second half. And the film’s ending was, in my opinion, terribly done.

I think the film would have been better if they had not killed off Guy Pearce, in which case I’m not sure they would even have needed Renner’s character. Pearce, Mackie, and Brian Geraghty had a nice chemistry about them, and I think a better story could have been developed around these three, provided someone was willing to write some actual dialog. With the elimination of Pearce and the introduction of Renner, the story becomes all about what a crazy fucker Renner is, which frankly is not very interesting.

I understand that The Hurt Locker is one of the most lauded films of the prior decade, but like so many Oscar winners, it strikes me as incredibly overrated.