I think all movies should have criminal in the title. That way you know it’s good.
Emily the Criminal was a refreshingly great release. I feel like Aubrey Plaza has a knack for small(ish) indie(ish) flicks offering a tremendous amount of entertainment value — sharp, high-quality gems. Ingrid Goes West, The Little Hours, Safety Not Guaranteed — and now Emily the Criminal.
And what the heck is she trying to do, be some kind of great actress? We’ve all seen her, let’s call it, quirky exploits on talk shows, but that she can put out such great performances when it comes down to business shows what a genius she is. She should get an Oscar nomination for this, but probably won’t. The Academy has a serious case of glaucoma.
But maybe there’s hope. The New York Times highlighted Plaza’s skills in:
So we’ll see. I’m not going to hold my breath.
* * *
This movie would have rated a 9/10, but there’s a couple flaws: the drinking/drugs never gets to her. I know when you’re younger you can schluff that off easily, but Aubrey Plaza — and her character — are not a kid any more. Other flaw:
SPOILER ALERT!! SPOILER ALERT!!
The utility knife at the end — she’s being choked and all of a sudden a little swipe with a utility knife knocks this guy out? I don’t think so.
== END SPOILER SECTION ==
Too bad on those glitches. This is still a great movie. 8/10
At some point I’ll do a Best & Worst of 2020-2022/3. Emily the Criminal will certainly be within the top 10 of that list, if not better.
You go into Bodies Bodies Bodies thinking this will be some kind of edgy, twisted film in all the best ways then find out it’s just another group of kids in a room being picked off one by one; my oh my who is the killer? In other words, it’s l-a-m-e.
There’s a little drama, dumb and re-treaded as it is, but this hyped-up movie was a big disappointment. I had a note about a power flaw too, but can’t remember now this forgettable movie in that much detail. Original reaction was a little higher, but I like to ding over-hyped stuff. 3/10
So I finally saw The Godfather, in it’s 50th anniversary theatrical re-release. My question is: What’s more overrated — The Godfather or Lawrence of Arabia?
Both are essential viewing, and recommended on that point if no other. The Godfather is hodge-podge storytelling, and overlong for no reason. The rambling, incohesive plot gave me a new appreciation for The Irishman, which at least had a story through-line.
Some scenes are brilliant and iconic; horsehead anybody? I love the entry scene where various parties are seeking audience with the Godfather. Akin to Lawrence of Arabia, the score is beautiful and timeless. But much more is amateurishly executed, for example a plywood tabletop that the camera just keeps staring at, shouting: “this movie’s director is way way out to lunch!”
Other parts are straight cheese, such as the appearance of a Las Vegas casino owner who may as well been cast as Morty’s Del Boca Vista adversary Jack Klompus on Seinfeld. That is, pure comedic caricature. But Seinfeld is trying, very successfully, to be funny. The Godfather is trying, much less successfully, to be serious.
* * *
Growing up, I frequently referenced Leonard Maltin’s Movie Guide. In that pre-internet age, I considered it the comprehensive source for movie info, though I may have disagreed at times with Maltin’s evaluations. He wrote, as I recall, that Francis Ford Coppola’s Apocalypse Now was a “flawed masterpiece” — a term that stuck in my head. Now compare to Coppola’s The Godfather, which I don’t see a lot of critics calling flawed. Just the masterpiece part.
And that’s why I have a blog. The Godfather is not even in the same league as Apocalypse Now, yet critics collectively don’t understand that.
* * *
For the iconic bits, and because it’s essential, a reluctant 6/10.
Comparison Notes:Miller’s Crossing, Donnie Brasco, Goodfellas, L.A. Confidential, Chinatown, The Big Sleep, Raging Bull, M*A*S*H (the movie, not the TV show), Bound (which incidentally I caught a chunk of recently, and reiterate my strongest recommendation. What a fun, thrilling movie!), The Drop, all other mob movies
There’s been a lot of bad French movies lately, with few good or great ones. Which is personally disappointing, since I started my indie movie-watching career awash in one great French film after another. But at least for what’s supplied to the American market, there is definitely a high representation of strong, independent female lead characters — especially when compared with what the USA produces. And with French film, you can always count on a different flavor than anything American.
Titane starts strongly, and compellingly, with a good core story that was left to wilt a bit. It moved quickly, though — when it ended, I was a little surprised that it was over already. After an incredibly dynamic first third, the movie slows a bit and takes some unexpected turns which in the moment made me wish other directions were taken. But you can’t always get the movie you want. The magic of great films is that they surprise you — and I love when things get unpredictable.
Which both does and does not happen here. Titane, like this director’s Raw, is just not as edgy as it makes itself out to be. The envelope full of potential explosions wasn’t pushed to the max; instead, the flow of new ideas, or at least good new ideas, slows considerably in the second half.
Still, a lot of points for being different, and in any case a solid recommendation. It did win the Palme d’Or, Cannes’ top prize, which means something I suppose. For me, it’s a high 7/10.
I am taking a stab at catching up on movie posts, which were washed away like so many things by the Covid shutdown. I’ll try to keep these in order… but movies seen further back may suffer a little from memory loss. Not a lot, as my memory is still pretty good.
Nobody’s Odenkirk hero needs a backstory, like The Accountanthad. A related issue: I like Bob Odenkirk a lot, but The Accountant had a force of personality that’s missing here. Whatever backstory, and forestory for that matter, exists, has been decidedly phoned in. Put another way, it’s good to have an idea.
So what’s left is a vehicle for some actions scenes, and those scenes are aptly handled with moments of humor. Odenkirk’s character may not deliver 100 per cent, but it works well enough for a marginal thumbs-up. 6/10
Compared with Nicolas Winding Refn’s previous picture Drive, there’s not much happening in Only God Forgives. But there was so much going on in Drive — all those irons in the fire — that the comparison is a little unfair. The better comparison is The Neon Demon.
So I understand the underwater rating aggregate, but I like simple stories. The point of Only God Forgives is not so much the story, but a terrific visual draw and great style. And it’s got a pulse. I’ll take this over Miller’s Crossing any time. 6/10
Viewing notes: in Thai and English. Somehow I watched for free on Amazon Prime, as the film was no longer available on iTunes. After watching, it said something about watch free with ads, and also that it’s linked to my IMDb (app). Not sure what happened there, but I’ll take the free viewing. There were no ads, and I discontinued Prime a few weeks earlier.
If you’re into True Crime, I direct you to a compact 3-episode series on Netflix, Don’t F**k with Cats: Hunting an Internet Killer. There’s a lot of division among the few critics who reviewed it, but I found it well done, fair, and fascinating. And I can’t help but think that the critics who didn’t like it simply prefer to have their heads buried in the sand.
…with its deconstruction of the psyche of an internet killer, “Don’t F**k with Cats” is one of the most compelling true crime docuseries that has been produced by Netflix to date.
My thoughts on The Irishman will ramble like the film itself.
1- I think no intermission speaks to the lack of chapters, to the lack of big story arcs. Does a movie that’s 209 minutes long need an intermission? Even if you don’t need to use the john, that’s a long time to sit. Longer films of yore had intermissions: Lawrence of Arabia, 2001, Patton, and, it was rumored, The Hateful Eight. But those movies all had significant story movements. Chapters, if you will. Like a novel. Or a good epic/saga-like film. Such sweeps don’t exist in The Irishman. The film starts and just goes in a somewhat monotone fashion until it’s done. No intermission is criminal.
2- Yes, monotone. But there’s a lot going on. And it’s not exactly draggy. As long and big as it is, The Irishman is not hard to follow and hold one’s interest, more or less, for the whole length. It’s not boring.
3- I felt that all the star power was not used that well. Pacino, yes, because he plays Jimmy Hoffa, a larger-than-life character. The De Niro and Pesci characters I thought should have been played by younger actors. I didn’t entirely buy their act, though I give some credit for the depiction of aging.
4- One big problem is that it’s hard to become emotionally invested in the Irishman/De Niro’s character.
Think about The Departed. You’re pulling for the good guy, the DiCaprio “good cop.” You’re not pulling for anyone in The Irishman. They’re all pretty much a bunch of weasels, and not even the fun quirky type of weasels you can pull for in any way. So that even more is why it’s a big so-what. Somehow in Raging Bull, even though Jake La Motta was a jerk, you were made to care about him a little. You’re definitely pulling for our hero/anti-hero in Breaking Bad. In The Irishman, I found myself glazed over because I just didn’t care, other than as a point of interest.
It’s a personal odyssey, but it’s not thrilling enough to be a personal thriller. Not round, but flat.
5- The worst sin: I don’t think anyone’s going to come back in 5 or 10 years and say oh what a great movie that was. There’s nothing particularly memorable or novel about it. There’s no a-ha! moment. There’s no classic quotable line or citable scene. It was all rather hum-drum. Well-executed, but humdrum.
6- The Irishman never plunges into a juicy, thrilling story like The Departed. That kind of lock-in setup never happens. The film just plugs along. However, the meditative moments that draw the film to a close combine with the earlier highlights and better sequences to raise the whole into positive territory, if barely.
7- Captions are placed over characters who will meet a usually violent end, even though those characters have little or nothing to do with the story. They’re introduced on screen, with a note on their demise, and proceed to have no import.
8- The film’s only title presented on-screen (prior to end credits) is “I Heard You Paint Houses.” This is code for whacking those who need to be whacked. Again, if Scorsese had any sense of grandness we’d see intro titles. And why “I Heard You Paint Houses”? Like that’s a big-time title. Of course there’s no intermission. We couldn’t even get titles.
9- On Netflix. Back to point 1. There are big plot points, but the film just isn’t built in a way that lends itself to an intermission. Or maybe it does, if the desire were there. One may wonder if the film was built this way to make the theater-going experience as uncomfortable as possible. So that Netflix could make a point: how much better would this be to watch at home? Locally, in all of San Diego county, the only place showing the film was the Landmark Hillcrest, the local art house. Like a Scorsese film starring De Niro and Pacino is some kind of indie.
The Landmark features non-reclining seats that if anything are less comfortable than average. So I said if you can’t beat em, join em. I tried to stay with the film best I could, taking no break in the last 2 hours of the film. And, I admit it worked well to watch at home. Unlike Roma, there’s not a ton of long shots with detail that is missed on your home screen.
It would seem that this type of release will become more and more the norm. It’s a little sad. I give A24 grief now and then, but they, along with Fox Searchlight, Blumhouse and a couple other studios, are keeping the theater alive with movies other than Marvel and animated releases.
10- Marvel movies aren’t cinema. In significant vectors, neither is The Irishman. In just as many other vectors it is. There’s a lot of good production value here — would we expect anything less? I hardly loved it, but at least we’re not seeing the downward spiral à la Oliver Stone.
11- A lot of caveats on this, but on balance: 6/10.
Joker has evoked tons of media coverage and criticism, those flames fanned when Joaquin Phoenix stated that a movie is not responsible for teaching right and wrong. He’s right. A Times writer felt he needed to explain how the movie accidentally makes a big statement about being a white anti-hero vs. a black one. There’s truth in what he’s saying, but so what — you could write that about any movie with a white male lead.
So yes, it’s annoying that critics have to complain about the perceived social ills of Joker. Because it’s a good movie. And, in fact, something that it would seem only I am saying is the societal impact is exactly the opposite of its criticism. Joker does a great service by showing what a plain old revolver can inflict on the flesh and bone of a human being. All the do-gooders out there should be more concerned about a fake war movie that shows a bazooka hitting a vehicle A-Team style, causing it to flip over but then everyone exits unscathed. Or lame superhero/Fast & Furious movies in which no one ever gets hurt.
JOKER PROVIDES A GREAT SERVICE TO SOCIETY
Joker contains something much better than all the societal messages the critics wish it did: grand cinematic vision. The story is not the strongest I’ve ever seen by a long shot, so I did not love the movie. But I dug it. It’s entertaining. And just like a Lynch film, or any film, it needs to be judged by what it is, not what it is not.
And if you’re concerned about gun violence, there’s a simple solution: make guns a lot harder to obtain.
* * *
Two big positives: Joker features a great look and setting, perhaps my favorite “Gotham City” yet. And, best of all, a perfectly-cast Joaquin Phoenix. He delivers a spirited performance in a role he was meant to play. Joaquin Phoenix is, like Ryan Gosling, an actor who’s always fascinating to watch. There’s something always under the surface that you just can’t quite figure. A character that moves in unexpected and explosive ways. And it’s nice to see him getting paid… a stalwart indie/small film actor for years and years who finally got to see a payday.
You wouldn’t guess this is Todd Phillips, the same director as Due Date and The Hangover franchise. I don’t think the direction is utter genius, but’s it’s good and a league above The Hangover. There’s a sense throughout that we’re doing something different here. This is not just another comic book movie. Hardly.
About on par with last year’s Upgrade and a peg or two below Midsommar; on the low end of 8/10
Comparison Notes: Taxi Driver, all Batman movies, Streets of Fire, Natural Born Killers, Gorky Park, Punch-Drunk Love, The Master (which I definitely need to revisit at some point – every time I think of it my opinion rises.)
Hustlers is like a very boring version of Goodfellas. There are good, even great performances, but there’s little to the “true story.” Look to Comparison Notes below to understand that despite the positives, there’s no way I could recommend Hustlers.
Those performances are among Hustlers’ redeeming attributes, but is it a good time at the movies? Not quite. The Rotten Tomatoes consensus:
Led by a career-best performance from Jennifer Lopez, Hustlers is a uniquely empowering heist drama with depth and intelligence to match its striking visual appeal.
Sometimes I wonder if the critics are watching the same movie. No, it’s not uniquely empowering, there is some depth and intelligence, but not much, and nothing at all striking visually. It’s not even a heist drama, per se. There is something to the relationship building that critics are nuts about, but it’s not enough to overcome a bland, so-what plot. And one more thing — I’ve been reflecting on this Titles MIA thing. Titles here would have told me that the filmmaker understands when her story is underway. 5/10
Growing up, I frequently referenced Leonard Maltin’s Movie Guide. In that pre-internet age, I considered it the comprehensive source for movie info, though I may have disagreed at times with Maltin’s evaluations. He wrote, as I recall, that Francis Ford Coppola’s Apocalypse Now was a “flawed masterpiece” — a term that stuck in my head. Now compare to Coppola’s The Godfather, which I don’t see a lot of critics calling flawed. Just the masterpiece part.
movies remark 