It's PG, but it does have a weird CW sexual overtone to the movie. Like, it isn't overt, but I also didn't like my kid walking in on it. There was some lightly pervy things done as a running gag and the end gets a little bit intense, considering that most of the movie is just a fun premise. For once, I'm actually rooting for the PG-13, but who am I? I keep saying I want the MPAA to lighten up. Not this time.
DIRECTOR: Makoto Shinkai Mr. Henson really wanted me to watch this movie. He's on an anime kick and is really thinking about doing a Literally Anything on anime films, focusing primarily on this one. His big thing was a question about why this wasn't nominated for an Academy Award. I kind of get his point. I can't go as far as to say this is the best movie of the year. I can't even say that it is the best animated movie of the year. Also, it came out in 2016, so I don't even know where that falls in terms of argument. But it is better than a few of the nominees. Why don't Japanese films really get the attention of other countries' films? It doesn't matter because the American animated film from Disney will always win. I've never really been an anime guy. I've really tried. If you read my Ghost in the Shell review, you'll get the sense of how I feel about anime. The only stuff I really like the Studio Ghibli stuff. I also kind of like stuff that is super Westernized, like Afro Samurai, which shouldn't really count as anime because the only reason that I really like it is that it doesn't feel like anime. The storytelling in anime is always a bit weird to me. It takes what I like and takes it to the extreme. What I mean to say is that they take these really high concepts and take it to a level that cannot necessarily be processed or comprehended. Your Name has a bit of that. The concept in Your Name is pretty intense. A teenage guy in Tokyo wakes up as a teenage girl in a small village. When he goes back to sleep, he wakes up in his own body. Similarly, the teenage girl begins inhabiting his body in Tokyo. The swaps are random. There's a bunch of twists that happen from there, but that is really my point. What starts off as a fun fantasy premise goes into an absolutely crazy place. It keeps going as far as it can go. Instead of exploring what is an interesting premise as deep as it can go, Your Name, like many other animes I've watched, take it as far as it can go. This seems nitpicky to make a difference, but there is a very important distinction between the two ideas. I think that the very nature of body switching has such potential that it doesn't really need a heavy fantasy plot that ends up happening throughout the story. (I will say that I'm really avoiding spoilers right now because this movie leans heavily on spoilers to maintain the entertainment value. ) Perhaps we've seen the depths of body switching in other movies, so Your Name doesn't feel like treading over ground that has been walked upon. But that premise doesn't necessarily have to explore the same ideas time and again. There are so many ways to look into the body switching trope that I don't like the idea that it is treated in montage form. But I actually like the complicated plot in this one. I just think it was an odd choice to fly by what could have been a goldmine of emotion and exploration. I'm really not used to this particular subgenre of anime. I don't quite know the rules. If I actually have a reader that is a big anime fan, I would love some things clarified. There is a really weird format to Your Name that I'm not used to seeing in film. If anything, despite the fact that the movie is animated, it feels like a CW tv show for much of the film. The movie opens with an opening credit sequence teasing the events of the film. I'm not talking about a James Bond style opening, but it shows almost a highlight reel of what will be happening in the film. Also, and I know that montage sequences happen in American films to show that time is passing and that characters are developing, the montage sequence is really alienating. It feels like they stuck a movie trailer for the movie I'm watching in the middle of the movie I'm watching. They already have my money. Why is the film trying to advertise me watching this movie? It was really weird. Unlike other anime that I've seen, the movie doesn't try taking advantage of the medium of animation to do unique camera angles and shots. When I watch other anime, the coolest part of the anime is that it is visually insane. Your Name is pretty insane, but in the way that they went out of their way to mimic live action film techniques. Like, they animated stop motion over and over again. I can't shake the CW description. There are all these pop punk soundtrack moments in the montages, showing the characters speaking but we can't hear them. Like, did they animate a whole bunch and then just scrap the audio? That helps real actors, but we never get context for a lot of those conversations. It is really weird, but also supports the tone. This seems like it is aimed at teens. Maybe teens love this kind of stuff. It's really weird as a gross old man watching a movie aimed at a clearly teen audience. But I don't know how these things work in Japan. All I know is that Mr. Henson loves this and that might be telling of him. The best part of the movie is the connection between Taki and Mitsuha. It doesn't matter that the movie is animated. I like the bond that they create. I know that a lot of it happens in the montage, which is fine. I wanted to see it grow a little bit more organically. But their story works because both are compelling enough characters. It's very interesting to describe a relationship between two people who don't really meet in the movie (kind of...again. I'm avoiding spoilers). But they both grow as people. The only thing that I feel might either be a cultural theme or I'm just super woke is the perviness of Taki. I mentioned this in the MPAA part because it made me uncomfortable. Taki takes advantage of being in a girl's body a bit too much, even after Mitsuha puts rules upon him. I can see an element of that being funny, but it also is wildly uncomfortable. I am trying to figure out how their relationship is compelling and I think I get it. It is the way that other people react when they are body switching. But that also opens another Pandora's box. This movie, and this has to be my greatest criticism, is set up to be watched with a healthy dose of suspension of disbelief. There are so many answers that aren't offered in the main plot that make the story just enjoyable if you shut off your brain. I'm not saying the movie isn't smart. I actually think that it is very smart. But there are just so many anime moments (moments that don't really get a solid explanation) that it becomes confusing how they get it to work. I'm really hampered by my vagueness, but the major discovery in the second half of the film is completely unable to be understood. People also are either weirdly skeptical of the events of the movie or know exactly how it works without sharing with the viewer. That's fine. I tend to want all my loose ends wrapped up, but that doesn't really detract from the movie. Going back to the purpose of this paragraph, the love story in it is fantastic. It is so unique and rarely do I get a real sense of chemistry from animated characters. (Except for Carl and Ellie. Why, Pixar? Why?) It isn't a perfect movie and I really don't feel like watching another adolescent love anime for a while because I know that I'm not the target audience. But I also acknowledge that I get why people like this. I liked it enough to consider it "pretty good", but I'm sure that this is an exceptional example rather than the norm. It's a good watch, but I got it out of my system.
0 Comments
Yesterday, you got a mini-episode. Today, you get a MEGA episode! Set phasers to "fun" with a breakdown of the guys' favorite Star Trek movies!
Make it so! http://literallyanything.net/blog/2018/2/3/episode-27-ranking-the-star-treks Since starting this podcast, Mr. H's daughter, Olivia, really wanted to be on it. She got a little shy over the course of the podcast, so we had to cut it a little short. Regardless, we celebrate Olivia's birthday with a podcast of her favorite things.
http://literallyanything.net/blog/2018/2/20/mini-episode-02-literally-olivias-favorites Rated R for all the cursing. I watched this with my wife, my brother-in-law, my future sister-in-law, and my mother-in-law. As much cursing as there was, I don't think it ever got awkward. The most uncomfortable was the quick, semi-graphic sex scene. But yeah. R.
DIRECTOR: Craig Gillespie She had to be involved, right? Like...she HAD to be. This movie just got so meta and inside baseball that she HAD to be involved. Well, the big question I have is "Why wasn't this nominated for Best Picture?" This might have been one of my favorite movies of the year. It's just a perfect balance of everything. It also hits the nostalgia card pretty hard. I now realize that I'm a full on, no-one-questions-my-adult-card adult. My brother-in-law, who is getting married this year, had never heard of Tonya Harding. I could tell him practically everything about Tonya Harding and I hate sports. That's the litmus test of my age. Margot Robbie might be a strategic genius. She has gone from really not being in the spotlight to just dominating projects to launch her career into the stratosphere. I know, Suicide Squad wasn't a thing. But you know what was a thing? Harley Quinn. I know that she was a producer for this film. I think she was. But she could easily be pigeonholed as simply a pretty actress. Meaty roles don't usually go to actresses like her. But she seemed to really fight for it. She's now up for Best Actress and she totally deserves it. I don't think she'll get it. But for all I know, I won't even finish this review before it is announced. (I'm writing this during the commercials during the Oscars, which is probably the best for maintaining flow, right?) But Margot Robbie took this person who was considered a national joke and made her fascinating. It's not to say that Tonya Harding was ever and angel or even vindicating. But she made her truly sympathetic. She did so much wrong, but knowing that people exist outside of one moment is a hard idea to convey. Robbie humanizes Harding outside of the world of celebrity tabloids. She's an incredibly broken individual who just survives in the way that she can. Now, this is extraordinarily dramatic the way I'm writing. But what really works is that she makes Tonya Harding funny in a way that she wasn't funny before. While I can't say that the movie makes me laugh with her, you don't laugh at her. You laugh at the insane world she's caught up in. But Margot Robbie grounds all of that. She gets it in a way that I don't know a lot of actresses would. But then there's Allison Janney. She won, by the way. (I told you, I was watching this at the time of writing this.) She's so good. She deserved it for every second. Yes, I'm really bummed for Laurie Metcalf because her performance in Lady Bird was the performance of a lifetime. But Allison Janney destroyed in this movie. I mean, there are people who have played the evil mother character and even played it hilariously well. But I don't think anyone will really hit the comic timing and dramatic malice that Allison Janney does in this movie. I, Tonya would have been great without her, but I don't think it would be as memorable without her. There are these choices that she is constantly making throughout the movie. She lives in this world where love is completely redefined. She has no idea what love is. She doesn't see herself as the bad guy. That's not even true. She doesn't understand what a bad guy is. She things that there are strong people and there are weak people and it is the role of the strong to eliminate the weak. It is so fascinating. She thinks that the rest of us live in a fantasy world. She's hilariously evil throughout, but looking at the footage of Tonya Harding's mother, all I can say is that she nailed it while making it remarkably entertaining. She's honestly so good in that role. Allison Janney normally kills it, but this is one of those special roles. I mean, she was amazing in Juno, but this might be my favorite role of hers. I had tears of laughter in my eyes every time she was on screen. She's that good. I'm also impressed with Sebastian Stan (the motif of this review so far? Comment on every actor one paragraph at a time). Sebastian Stan only came into my world with his Bucky Barnes. It has to be hard to break that mold. Like Margot Robbie, this was an extremely smart choice for him. He got to really show some range with this. What is great about the format, especially when it comes to Stan's character, is that the film has the Rashomon element. It is being told both by Tonya Harding and Jeff Gilooly. Harding is consistently one person, told in degrees of good and evil. When Jeff tells the story, Jeff is a completely different person than what is presented in Harding's story. That means that Stan has to make both people plausible. I don't want to compare his character to the story in Doubt, but there is a bit of sympathy yet revulsion. He probably did everything. But then he adds this element that is just perfect and that is his relationship with Paul Walter Hauser's Shawn. Shawn is a smaller part, but he's just perfect. Shawn seems like he is completely fictional. Then the credits sequence showed him in real life and he's completely real. Stan and Hauser play so well together in this movie. Really this is a movie about casting and how a perfect cast can make a good movie great. It transforms the safe biopic into something completely fascinating. These are all just parts of a whole. The movie is more than just the beating of Nancy Kerrigan. But the movie wisely addresses that moment head on. It is appropriate that this takes place about the same time as OJ. We had OJ mania last year. That need to know if he did it drove an obnoxiously long documentary last year. We just wanted to know if he did it. The movie acknowledges that this is all we really know Tonya Harding for. But it also says that there is so much more and that moment is just the end result to a much longer story. It is so good that I'm mad that it just got ignored for the Best Picture category. When Denzel was nominated for Roman J. Israel, Esq., he was nominated for a good performance in a not so great movie. Robbie's nomination is appropriate, but the rest of the movie deserves to get pulled along. If I had to be critical about this movie at all, it had to be for some of the CG stuff. Again, I hate to be calling myself out because I tend to ignore special effects, but there were a few uncanny valley moments. I couldn't tell you what was wrong with the shots, but I knew exactly when I was watching CG. That's not awful and it doesn't detract from the movie, but I did notice these moments. The story isn't about Margot Robbie trying to recreated Tonya Harding's Olympic successes. It is about the person and the relationships and the movie delivers those moments in spades. Realize, I don't like sports at all. Kobe Bryant winning an Academy Award is an abomination, but this movie really grabbed me in every way. I'm so glad that I own this one because I'd love to show another group this movie. I hope Robbie gets it. She's probably not, but I am so impressed by her and everyone who made this movie. It was a nice movie to sneak in before the actual awards and it just got me excited to watch the presentation. Watch this one There's swearing, but who cares sometimes. Oh my. I spent a criminal amount of time putting this together. This is the year we saw almost everything. If it doesn't have a link, it means I haven't seen it, mostly because I can't get a hold of it. The only two that I could still technically see is Ferdinand and Fences Places, but let's call a spade a spade.
ACTOR IN A LEADING ROLE TIMOTHÉE CHALAMET: Call Me by Your Name DANIEL DAY-LEWIS: Phantom Thread DANIEL KALUUYA: Get Out GARY OLDMAN: Darkest Hour DENZEL WASHINGTON: Roman J. Israel, Esq. Whom I Want to Win: Daniel Kaluuya Who Will Win: Daniel Day-Lewis Who Actually Won: Gary Oldman ACTOR IN A SUPPORTING ROLE WILLEM DAFOE: The Florida Project WOODY HARRELSON: Three Billboards outside Ebbing, Missouri RICHARD JENKINS: The Shape of Water CHRISTOPHER PLUMMER: All the Money in the World SAM ROCKWELL: Three Billboards outside Ebbing, Missouri Whom I Want to Win: Willem Dafoe Who Will Win: Willem Dafoe or Christopher Plummer WHO ACTUALLY GOT IT: Sam Rockwell ACTRESS IN A LEADING ROLE SALLY HAWKINS: The Shape of Water FRANCES MCDORMAND: Three Billboards outside Ebbing, Missouri MARGOT ROBBIE: I, Tonya (Review Pending) SAOIRSE RONAN: Lady Bird MERYL STREEP: The Post Whom I Want to Win: Sally Hawkins or Margot Robbie Who Will Win: Sally Hawkins or Saoirse Ronan Who Actually Got It: Frances McDormand ACTRESS IN A SUPPORTING ROLE MARY J. BLIGE: Mudbound ALLISON JANNEY: I, Tonya (Review Pending) LESLEY MANVILLE: Phantom Thread LAURIE METCALF: Lady Bird OCTAVIA SPENCER: The Shape of Water Whom I Want to Win: Allison Janney or Laurie Metcalf Who Will Win: Laurie Metcalf Who Actually Won: Allison Janney ANIMATED FEATURE FILM THE BOSS BABY: Tom McGrath and Ramsey Naito THE BREADWINNER: Nora Twomey and Anthony Leo COCO: Lee Unkrich and Darla K. Anderson FERDINAND: Carlos Saldanha and Lori Forte LOVING VINCENT: Dorota Kobiela, Hugh Welchman and Ivan Mactaggart What I Want to Win: The Breadwinner What Will Win: Coco CINEMATOGRAPHY BLADE RUNNER 2049: Roger A. Deakins DARKEST HOUR: Bruno Delbonnel DUNKIRK: Hoyte van Hoytema MUDBOUND: Rachel Morrison THE SHAPE OF WATER: Dan Laustsen What I Want to Win: Blade Runner 2049 What Will Win: The Shape of Water or Dunkirk COSTUME DESIGN BEAUTY AND THE BEAST: Jacqueline Durran DARKEST HOUR: Jacqueline Durran PHANTOM THREAD: Mark Bridges THE SHAPE OF WATER: Luis Sequeira VICTORIA & ABDUL: Consolata Boyle What I Want to Win: Phantom Thread What Will Win: Phantom Thread DIRECTING DUNKIRK: Christopher Nolan GET OUT: Jordan Peele LADY BIRD: Greta Gerwig PHANTOM THREAD: Paul Thomas Anderson THE SHAPE OF WATER: Guillermo del Toro Whom I Want to Win: Jordan Peele Who Will Win: Guillermo del Toro DOCUMENTARY (FEATURE) ABACUS: SMALL ENOUGH TO JAIL: Steve James, Mark Mitten and Julie Goldman FACES PLACES: Agnès Varda, JR and Rosalie Varda ICARUS: Bryan Fogel and Dan Cogan LAST MEN IN ALEPPO: Feras Fayyad, Kareem Abeed and Søren Steen Jespersen STRONG ISLAND: Yance Ford and Joslyn Barnes What I Want to Win: Icarus What Will Win: Last Men in Aleppo (but I'm cool with that too) DOCUMENTARY (SHORT SUBJECT) EDITH+EDDIE: Laura Checkoway and Thomas Lee Wright The description on this one is way off. It is described as a documentary short about the oldest interracial couple. While technically true, that isn't the focus of this documentary. It is about two elderly folks who just want to stay together, despite a seemingly greedy child who wants to inherit an estate. I don't know if I've ever seen a documentary made that publicly condemns the actions of a nonfamous person, but that person's professional life has to be in the toilet right now. HEAVEN IS A TRAFFIC JAM ON THE 405: Frank Stiefel There's always the art documentary somewhere on the board. This one tends to go a little bit deeper than most. Despite having a really shoehorned in title, I find the documentary fascinating. Not only does it explore the world of art, but it does so in the context of autism and abuse. On top of that, the art presented really is very impressive. HEROIN(E): Elaine McMillion Sheldon and Kerrin Sheldon This is the first one of the shorts that I watched and it was worth it. Rather than take the traditional route of seeing drug use through a legal perspective, the film follows three women as they try to combat this problem from a personal route. It humanizes the drug epidemic and shows the souls of those trying desperately trying to free them from this addiction. KNIFE SKILLS: Thomas Lennon While I'm sure that this documentary isn't showing the whole picture, I do love the message of redemption within it. A smart move on the filmmakers' parts, they focus on a guy who wouldn't appear to be an ex-con trying to help those recently turned out of the penal system. The film is also a visual treat, showing the talented creations of the restaurant and its employees. TRAFFIC STOP: Kate Davis and David Heilbroner On rare occasion, I turn on a documentary. I'll start off on their team, and through the course of poor filmmaking, I change sides a little bit. I think the message of "Traffic Stop" needs to be told, but not with the subject getting all of the attention. The subject sees herself as being the model citizen, but the video shows quite differently. While I agree completely that the officer went too far, trying to paint someone who isn't a saint otherwise tends to burn an audience's good will. Tell this story again, only with a different subject because there are plenty of people out there who have been violated. What I Want to Win: "Heroin"(e) or "Knife Skills" What Will Win: "Traffic Stop" What Actually Won: "Heaven is a Traffic Jam on the 405" FILM EDITING BABY DRIVER: Paul Machliss and Jonathan Amos DUNKIRK: Lee Smith I, TONYA: Tatiana S. Riegel (Review Pending) THE SHAPE OF WATER: Sidney Wolinsky THREE BILLBOARDS OUTSIDE EBBING, MISSOURI: Jon Gregory What I Want to Win: Baby Driver What Will Win: Baby Driver What Actually Won: Dunkirk FOREIGN LANGUAGE FILM (Note: Three of these movies aren't available in my area. My guess is pure speculation) A FANTASTIC WOMAN: Chile THE INSULT: Lebanon LOVELESS: Russia ON BODY AND SOUL: Hungary THE SQUARE: Sweden What I Want to Win: The Square What Will Win: The Insult What Actually Won: A Fantastic Woman MAKEUP AND HAIRSTYLING DARKEST HOUR: Kazuhiro Tsuji, David Malinowski and Lucy Sibbick VICTORIA & ABDUL: Daniel Phillips and Lou Sheppard WONDER: Arjen Tuiten What I Want to Win: Darkest Hour What Will Win: Darkest Hour MUSIC (ORIGINAL SCORE) DUNKIRK: Hans Zimmer PHANTOM THREAD: Jonny Greenwood THE SHAPE OF WATER: Alexandre Desplat STAR WARS: THE LAST JEDI: John Williams THREE BILLBOARDS OUTSIDE EBBING, MISSOURI: Carter Burwell What I Want to Win: Phantom Thread or The Shape of Water What Will Win: Phantom Thread What Actually Won: The Shape of Water MUSIC (ORIGINAL SONG) "MIGHTY RIVER" from Mudbound; Music and Lyric by Mary J. Blige, Raphael Saadiq and Taura Stinson "MYSTERY OF LOVE" from Call Me by Your Name; Music and Lyric by Sufjan Stevens "REMEMBER ME" from Coco; Music and Lyric by Kristen Anderson-Lopez and Robert Lopez "STAND UP FOR SOMETHING" from Marshall; Music by Diane Warren; Lyric by Lonnie R. Lynn and Diane Warren "THIS IS ME" from The Greatest Showman; Music and Lyric by Benj Pasek and Justin Paul What I Want to Win: "Remember Me" What Will Win: "This is Me" BEST PICTURE CALL ME BY YOUR NAME Peter Spears, Luca Guadagnino, Emilie Georges and Marco Morabito, Producers DARKEST HOUR Tim Bevan, Eric Fellner, Lisa Bruce, Anthony McCarten and Douglas Urbanski, Producers DUNKIRK Emma Thomas and Christopher Nolan, Producers GET OUT Sean McKittrick, Jason Blum, Edward H. Hamm Jr. and Jordan Peele, Producers LADY BIRD Scott Rudin, Eli Bush and Evelyn O'Neill, Producers PHANTOM THREAD JoAnne Sellar, Paul Thomas Anderson, Megan Ellison and Daniel Lupi, Producers THE POST Amy Pascal, Steven Spielberg and Kristie Macosko Krieger, Producers THE SHAPE OF WATER Guillermo del Toro and J. Miles Dale, Producers THREE BILLBOARDS OUTSIDE EBBING, MISSOURI Graham Broadbent, Pete Czernin and Martin McDonagh, Producers What I Want to Win: Get Out What Will Win: Lady Bird Curveball: Three Billboards outside Ebbing, Missouri What Actually Won: The Shape of Water PRODUCTION DESIGN BEAUTY AND THE BEAST: Sarah Greenwood; Set Decoration: Katie Spencer BLADE RUNNER 2049: Dennis Gassner; Set Decoration: Alessandra Querzola DARKEST HOUR: Sarah Greenwood; Set Decoration: Katie Spencer DUNKIRK: Nathan Crowley; Set Decoration: Gary Fettis THE SHAPE OF WATER: Paul Denham Austerberry; Set Decoration: Shane Vieau and Jeffrey A. Melvin What I Want to Win: Blade Runner 2049 What Will Win: The Shape of Water SHORT FILM (ANIMATED) "DEAR BASKETBALL": Glen Keane and Kobe Bryant Really? Really, little cartoon glorifying basketball as this noble profession? The reason I'm so into the Academy Awards is that I don't like sports. I don't need this ESPN garbage rammed down my throat. This animated short is super stylized, so that's fun. But it also is kind of sloppy. The style of the short tries covering for shortcuts being taken, but gross. Also, again, I don't care about Kobe Bryant. "GARDEN PARTY": Victor Caire and Gabriel Grapperon When I first saw Toy Story, it blew my mind that someone could do that with a computer. This one is another big step forward. It looks so cool and doesn't really have that uncanny valley feel to it. I think it is because as cool as the textures are, the design is still pretty stylized. I don't know why they surrounded a drug dealer. It took this very innocent idea and made it bro-ey. I get the message, but there's probably a better way to do that. "LOU": Dave Mullins and Dana Murray I normally love Pixar shorts. They are abstract and heady while being playful. I felt like this one might have been developed when they were short on ideas. It is a pretty lazy concept and, while playful, doesn't quite get the Pixar spark that their other shorts manage to achieve. I actually found myself a little bored in a very short film and that's probably no good. "NEGATIVE SPACE": Max Porter and Ru Kuwahata This one is probably the most personal and the one I really want to win the most, despite that I see some really obvious flaws with it. It is a personal story and it ties the mundane to something larger. I appreciate that the filmmakers found this moment that we've all experienced and tried making it more important than it is. I don't know if they achieved that, but it is pretty to look at. "REVOLTING RHYMES": Jakob Schuh and Jan Lachauer It's a bit of a cop out calling this one a short. It is two half-hour episodes adapting Roald Dahl's work, so I guess it could be a short. Regardless, there are more good things than bad things about this group. It doesn't really feel like a passion piece, but it is mostly fun. There were times that I was getting bored, but I wasn't the target audience. The problem is that it might be too grizzly for its target audience. What I Want to Win: "Garden Party" What Will Win: "Dear Basketball" SHORT FILM (LIVE ACTION) "DEKALB ELEMENTARY": Reed Van Dyk This started out as the most powerful of the shorts, especially in light of the events in Florida recently. But it also is very limited by the short form format. The movie ties up the events way too quickly and in a slightly accidentally irresponsible way. There's is this unintentional victim blaming that happens because the film offers a solution that really wouldn't work. "THE ELEVEN O'CLOCK": Derin Seale and Josh Lawson Probably the only fun one out of the group. I know it isn't going to win because there are so many important topics in here. But the others are so similar in tone that it is refreshing to watch something that is so different. It is a bit more like a comedy sketch that you'd see in a night of live theatre scenes, but that's not the worst thing in the world. Despite the ending being predictable, it is still a good time. "MY NEPHEW EMMETT": Kevin Wilson, Jr. My thoughts on this might be more telling of our culture and how we kind of suck as a collective at times. I've seen this movie before. I've seen it done before and it's done more to me. That, in itself, is absolutely horrifying. This has happened to so many people that I'm becoming desensitized. This story needs to be told, but I wish there was a way to make it impact more people. "THE SILENT CHILD": Chris Overton and Rachel Shenton The tone of this movie is all wrong. Again, this can be attributed to the fact that this is a short. To make this story work, the mother has to be demonized. She doesn't seem like a real character whatsoever and that's a real problem. Ending the movie with the text asking for social change means that the film hasn't really achieved its goals. I really wanted to like this movie, but with Mom being all crazypants, I can't say it ever really felt real. "WATU WOTE/ALL OF US": Katja Benrath and Tobias Rosen This might be the most impressive of the shorts. It looks absolutely amazing and manages to tell the whole story in the short format. There are some character choices that are shortcuts in terms of storytelling. The personalities have to be extremes to show how much the character have grown over the course of a short time. What I Want to Win: "The Eleven O'Clock" What Will Win: "DeKalb Elementary" What Actually Won: "The Silent Child" SOUND EDITING BABY DRIVER: Julian Slater BLADE RUNNER 2049: Mark Mangini and Theo Green DUNKIRK: Richard King and Alex Gibson THE SHAPE OF WATER: Nathan Robitaille and Nelson Ferreira STAR WARS: THE LAST JEDI: Matthew Wood and Ren Klyce What I Want to Win: Baby Driver What Will Win: Dunkirk SOUND MIXING BABY DRIVER: Julian Slater, Tim Cavagin and Mary H. Ellis BLADE RUNNER 2049: Ron Bartlett, Doug Hemphill and Mac Ruth DUNKIRK: Gregg Landaker, Gary A. Rizzo and Mark Weingarten THE SHAPE OF WATER: Christian Cooke, Brad Zoern and Glen Gauthier STAR WARS: THE LAST JEDI: David Parker, Michael Semanick, Ren Klyce and Stuart Wilson What I Want to Win: Baby Driver What Will Win: Dunkirk VISUAL EFFECTS BLADE RUNNER 2049: John Nelson, Gerd Nefzer, Paul Lambert and Richard R. Hoover GUARDIANS OF THE GALAXY VOL. 2: Christopher Townsend, Guy Williams, Jonathan Fawkner and Dan Sudick KONG: SKULL ISLAND: Stephen Rosenbaum, Jeff White, Scott Benza and Mike Meinardus STAR WARS: THE LAST JEDI: Ben Morris, Mike Mulholland, Neal Scanlan and Chris Corbould WAR FOR THE PLANET OF THE APES: Joe Letteri, Daniel Barrett, Dan Lemmon and Joel Whist What I Want to Win: Blade Runner 2049 What Will Win: War for the Planet of the Apes WRITING (ADAPTED SCREENPLAY) CALL ME BY YOUR NAME: Screenplay by James Ivory THE DISASTER ARTIST: Screenplay by Scott Neustadter & Michael H. Weber LOGAN: Screenplay by Scott Frank & James Mangold and Michael Green; Story by James Mangold MOLLY'S GAME: Written for the screen by Aaron Sorkin MUDBOUND: Screenplay by Virgil Williams and Dee Rees What I Want to Win: The Disaster Artist What Will Win: Call Me By Your Name WRITING (ORIGINAL SCREENPLAY) THE BIG SICK: Written by Emily V. Gordon & Kumail Nanjiani GET OUT: Written by Jordan Peele LADY BIRD: Written by Greta Gerwig THE SHAPE OF WATER: Screenplay by Guillermo del Toro & Vanessa Taylor; Story by Guillermo del Toro THREE BILLBOARDS OUTSIDE EBBING, MISSOURI: Written by Martin McDonagh What I Want to Win: The Big Sick or Get Out What Will Win: Lady Bird What Actually Won: Get Out This might be the most offensive movie that I've seen in a long time. The movie is a justification of pedophilia and uses manipulative techniques to make it seem "okay." It is extraordinarily sexual and graphic, both in images and implications. I honestly haven't felt that uncomfortable in a movie for a long time and it is mindblowing that people are justifying this kind of film in light of #metoo and in mind of "No means no." This movie is so R-rated that I'm amazed it is not considered NC-17.
DIRECTOR: Luca Guadagnino How in the world is everyone loving this movie? Is it because it is so promoting of a homosexual relationship that people straight up ignore that Oscar is an adult and that Elio is a teenager? I thought we were past this in our culture. As a culture, there has always been this weird double standards for sexuality when it comes to certain demographics. I've been thinking about Kim Novak and Jimmy Stewart in Vertigo and Bell, Book, and Candle. I also think about all of the teen raunchy comedies where younger male students try seducing attractive female teachers. But as a culture, we've all said, "Gross. No. That's wrong. I don't know what was wrong with us." Why are we regressing to that very uncomfortable trope and calling it beautiful? I often scoff at critiques of movies that say that storytellers are manipulative. I mean, inherently, all film is manipulative. You want to elicit a reaction, whether it be emotional and / or social. That is what storytellers do. But I don't love when people say that things are conspiratorial, attempting to dupe audiences. There are moments in Call Me By Your Name that I questioned that entire philosophy. There were straight up moments where the movie started to address whether or not this was a predatory relationship and something very weird happened in those moments that made my jaw drop. Oliver, played by Armie Hammer, is normally very confident. He's criticized by the other characters of being so confident that he's actually annoying cocky. Elio is very removed and into teenage stuff throughout. He's reading his little books and listening to his records. He wears goofy '80s shirts and hangs out with his friends. However, whenever the question of "Is Oliver preying on this younger kid?" pops up, the personalities invert. All of the suddenly, Elio is very confident and knows exactly how to handle relationships. Oliver becomes all shy and doesn't know what to do with himself. What this does is makes the age differential seem minor. That's cheating. You can't hand Oliver Elio's lines and Elio Oliver's line. (By the way, if that's why the movie is called Call Me By Your Name, I quit because that just admits that you are doing something slimy.) Oliver acts like an adult at every point except when it is appropriate. That's not character depth because there's no acknowledgment of that personality trait. It's very subtle. Those moments aren't part of what makes Oliver or Elio interesting. Those moments are strategic. They disappear the second the plot moves forward. There's no attention to the character change, so those moments are for the benefit of the audience and getting behind the "romance." Cheap trick. I don't like it. My students went out and saw this one first. Of course, it was the rebellious one of the group. Well, that and The Shape of Water. They also rushed out to see that. I told them my hesitancy about seeing that movie and what it could do to them. I actually kind of advised them not to see it. As you can see, I am very inspirational. (Oh look! A tub of ice cream. I'm going to eat my sadness away.) They came back and said, "Well, in Italy, the age of consent is way lower so it's fine." (I'm paraphrasing them because it was a long discussion.) I have a problem with that as well because some issues are inherently moral or not / that law is for people close in age. Right and wrong don't necessarily change because of geopolitical location. But the bigger issue that I have is that both characters identify as American. They are international travelers, but they culturally identify with a certain set of norms. They both know that this should be icky. But Oliver starts touching Elio when he's shirtless. This is where I'm shocked that no one is up in arms about "no" meaning "no". Elio gets visibly upset by Oliver's touch. He begins turning against Oliver for this invasion. Oliver even has a girl touch him. This is predatory as all get out. What makes Oliver think that is okay to go after anyone like this, let alone your hosts' seventeen year old son? Oliver's confession of this moment later in the movie only verifies that this moment isn't innocent, but rather a test to see how Elio feels about him. This was the opening salvo for this relationship and it was all planned. That's what a predator does. Why does no one really see that? Apparently, the book goes deeper into trying to justify Oliver's behavior, saying that Elio only hated him because he liked it so much. How is this in line with "no means no"? People can't be made to love someone else. That's not the way it works. It's so gross. Then there is the manipulation of others. This moment really isn't even close to how people are allowed to treat each other. Both Oliver and Elio seduce women throughout the film. Part of this seems to be to cover up their own homosexual tendencies. As a cultural thing, I get that. This takes place in 1983. It's not like we live in a tolerance utopia or whatever, but I get that 1983 might not be a haven for these two. But they full on seduce these women. Elio has intercourse with this girl that he grew up with multiple times throughout the film. She professes her feelings for him and it is implied that these two have been building to this relationship. But he uses her for his sexual frustrations with Oliver. That seems a little rapey. He implies that he is equally invested in the relationship until she directly confronts him for being distant. Oliver might not be much better. The movie is from Elio's perspective, but we see where Oliver is leading women on. He passionately kisses a girl on a dance floor and takes a beat to suggestively dance with a woman while on a date with Elio. He eventually reveals at the end (I'm not bolding spoilers because I don't want anyone seeing this movie) that he's getting married. I understand that there was a cultural necessity for duplicity for most of history, but these two are using others for their own needs. The girl who loved Elio? She is okay with just being friends afterwards. I call malarky. She is vulnerable and invested in Elio and just seems cool when he's not that into her post-intercourse. That's very convenient. Finally, the speech from Dad. There is nothing my kids could do that would make me love them any less. I will love them no matter how they turn out. But there is the attitude of "I will always love you and I hope you find happiness" and saying "I will not protect you from people who live different lives." Honestly, the relationship problem between these two is that there is a power dynamic that is so skewed that it just comes off as perverted. Oliver lives an adult's lifestyle. His problems involve world travel and a girl that he's engaged to. He doesn't weep when things go poorly in the relationship. Instead, he fills the role of the father for Elio when things go badly. It is never their joint problem. Oliver has to take care of Elio's delicate adolescent reactions. When things go poorly for Elio, he turns to the adult (Oliver) to take care of things. When Oliver isn't there, he turns to his parents. Elio often shows that he is incapable of making adult decisions because he needs his mom to pick him up. For Dad to think that what they had was special is disturbing as heck. Also, and this is a big one for me, their relationship is entirely sexual. They have little in common outside of both being intellectuals. They don't ever talk or bond. They just are sexually attracted to each other. At best, there is some verbal sparring, but that's it. Throughout the film, I was wondering why I was so appalled at this movie, yet I really like Harold and Maude. But Harold and Maude was about a nontraditional friendship. It is all about the bonding element. The sexual element is almost not present. This is almost exclusively sexual and without depth. I can't stand this movie. Please don't see this movie. It is revolting. Don't even see it on a dare. I saw it because I see all of the Academy Award nominations. But between this and The Shape of Water, I don't know what the theme of this year is... ...besides the Battle of Dunkirk. I thought it might have been an R-rating. I might have some faith in the MPAA here. The content is pretty intense. Involving a rape case might instantly raise some flags, but the beat to beat content isn't anything that should turn some audiences away. I will say that if students want a good view into the philosophy of Thurgood Marshall, it might help if they are on the mature side. You know how To Kill a Mockingbird gets into deep stuff? Same deal here. PG-13.
DIRECTOR: Reginald Hudlin I really hope that I don't make this the second part of my Black Panther review. That's not fair to this movie, but there is a strong connection so I can't ignore it. See, I really got into the Black Panther comic books when Reginald Hudlin was writing them. Seeing Chadwick Boseman in a role other than T'Challa is odd for me, so I'm just going to keep making that mental connection. I apologize if this review is dominated with my obsession with comic books because I do love me some comic books. I read an article about Black Panther (I told you I was going to do this!). One of the reasons that it did so well, according to some, was that is showed people of color not in a place of subjugation or defined by oppression. They were kings and uncolonized. The power dynamic was as it should be, reflective of actual accomplishment. People of color often aren't used to finding those roles in film. With so many connections between both movies, Marshall might be a reminder of the old guard. But the old guard still is important. I find it kind of amazing that this movie wasn't nominated for an Academy Award. On a completely superficial level, this does seem like prime Oscar-bait. But it is kind of amazing that we haven't had too much of Thurgood Marshall in film. His story is way more interesting than other civil rights story. (That's right. I'm ranking them because I'm a bad person.) In many of the civil rights stories, the character starts off as the oppressed. Through the events of the story, the protagonist finds his or her voice and defies the oppressor. The dynamic is a little different in Marshall. Thurgood Marshall was already a celebrated lawyer, despite the political climate of the era. On top of that, he was a legal powerhouse, winning case after case, aware of his significance to history. I really like that because it puts a slant on the story we had already seen. It becomes a tale of endurance, like Selma. The movement is not started, but fights for strength. This is where the tale becomes somewhat more interesting. I know that there probably was a draft where the movie focused on Marshall's many cases. It might have showed him going from town to town and focusing on the many instances of hardship that Marshall had to endure simply for being black. But Marshall decides to focus on a case where Marshall is silenced. This dynamic inverts the civil rights biopic. Rather than going from a place of weakness to a place of strength, Thurgood Marshall goes from being unstoppable to being muted. He is not allowed to speak in court and that is interesting. Unfortunately, it also creates a dynamic that is a little problematic. The movie, like The Help and The Blind Side, touches on the kindness of white people. There are evil white people and good white people and thank God that there are good white people. It lets White America a little off the hook by showing how benevolent some people are. It's not as flagrant as other films and I do appreciate that Sam is Jewish. Sam being complex also gives the movie a bit of a boost, but I can't help to say that this movie gives people a bit of a pass for their bad behavior. I am also surprised that Dan Stevens plays such an evil lawyer. We have all seen the legal films where the bad guy lawyer is unlikable, but is only doing his job. In this case, Hudlin allows Stevens to become truly despicable, genuinely taking it beyond the professional level and into a realm where he wants to see Joseph get the electric chair. He also piles on that need for success that borders on mania and I don't think that this is the worst choice. Yeah, it makes Dan Stevens a bit of an archvillain, but I'm getting kind of tired of the sympathetic prosecutor in this case. I'm about to cross a philosophical idea that I haven't fully fleshed out yet, so I apologize if this seems a bit undercooked. I want these kinds of stories to be told, but because so many real life events seemed to have parallels with each other, especially during the civil rights movement, I don't know if things can be considered tropes. The alleged rape victim, Mrs. Strubing --played by Kate Hudson --was meant to be a mystery to us. One of the major questions raised by one of the films characters is "Why would she lie?" Because this narrative has been told before, we all know exactly why she lied. One of the things that makes a legal drama interesting is the mystery of the whole situation. There really wasn't a mystery because this has happened many times in film. But again, this is based on a case in history. I also don't know if Kate Hudson was the best person to pick for this. (My philosophical dark night has ended. Now I'm just going to gossip about celebrities.) I feel like this part wasn't fleshed out enough for her. The odd thing is that she is the victim of a crime, but at no point did I really feel bad for her. Partially, this comes from her performance. But that's not all her fault. Her screen time is pretty minimal because it genuinely is not her story. So she has to make herself mildly sympathetic while being somewhat despicable. Instead, she just comes in as almost a stranger to the film. She is an outside force that doesn't exist in the world of Thurgood Marshall and Sam. There is one moment that I kind of want to gripe about. It is such an interesting idea to have, but it has a really self-aware feel to it. There's a moment in the movie where Thurgood Marshall has dinner with Langston Hughes and Zora Neale Hurston. C'mon. I get it. They ran in the same circles. I always find history interesting when famous geniuses all just hung out, but this scene winked at the camera so hard that it pulled me out of the movie. But the rest of the movie was fairly engrossing. I even have to give points to Chadwick Boseman and Josh Gad. Boseman, I didn't realize, has a cadence. I thought that was just T'Challa for me. (I told you I couldn't get past this.) He has a very specific way of speaking that I thought was just part of his other character. He has this aura of being confident while speaking softly that is pretty cool. The only concern I have is that I'm sure that he's going to do it in other movies and that might distance me from the believability of his characters. Josh Gad is sometimes a little hard to watch. I don't often take Josh Gad that seriously. I like him as a human being, but I really want him to just take that extra step. He has some absolutely wonderful moments of reality in the movie and I applaud him for doing drama. He's not bad at it at all, but there are choices that I want him to make that might be a little bit more gutsy than what I saw here. Perhaps Sam Friedman wasn't the guy for Josh Gad, but I think that Sam might have gone just a little bit deeper. Much of Sam is a reaction to stimulus, but is rarely a driving force outside of the courtroom. I think that's why I like Gad's courtroom scenes better than anything else. He felt like he was making risky decisions compared to responding to something uncomfortable that happened to him. Regardless, both actors are the right people for the role and I liked them overall. I forgot to mention that I watched this for the song. I'm so close to seeing everything. I can't get a hold of All the Money in the World and three of the foreign films before Sunday, but I did manage to get Marshall in on time. Oddly, it's in for the original song category and I think that the film is more important than the song itself. It's good, but it is also just a credits song that is repetitive and on the nose. The movie is pretty good. It is a feel good movie and I don't mind that from time to time. But I need to watch this with fresh eyes and I don't know where I can get me a pair at this late hour. |
Film is great. It can challenge us. It can entertain us. It can puzzle us. It can awaken us.
AuthorMr. H has watched an upsetting amount of movies. They bring him a level of joy that few things have achieved. Archives
May 2024
Categories |