Your Official Movie Reviews

[Omar 382]

So we have a "state the last movie you watched and rate it" thread, but that mostly consists of people stating a movie and giving a rating, with little to no actual review. I thought this would be a thread to post your actual movie reviews, if you write them or want to write them, for others to read and critique. I will be following the format of most movie reviewers. I will keep my reviews largely spoiler-free, like real critics, but feel free to do what you want. I will start off with a recent and popular film, Sicario. Note that this is my first movie review I've ever written in my life, so try not to go to hard on me.

 

[Omar 382]

Sicario
RATING: 3.5/5

When we first enter the world of Sicario, director Denis Villeneuve's American follow-up to 2013's critically acclaimed Prisoners, we see a team of FBI agents equipped with bulletproof vest and automatic rifles lead a SWAT raid of a suspected Mexican cartel house in Chandler, Arizona. Through some impressive camera work, we get a sense of danger and urgency right from the start of the film, reminiscent of David Ayer's house investigation scenes in End of Watch. What is it that we have stepped into upon watching this film? An explosion occurs, and everyone is rattled, but largely in tact. It looks like the makings of an all-too-familiar Mexican/Arizona cartel movie, except with an all-star cast that includes Emily Blunt, Josh Brolin, and soft-speaking, vengeful hitman, Benicio Del Toro.

Unfortunately, the movie stutter-steps from that point on, perhaps up until the climax of the film. I have always been a proponent of, and on a personal level, immensely enjoyed when a film or television show is able to portray what it would be like to live in the world that the characters we are watching are in. One gets a succinct idea of what living impoverished in inner-city Baltimore would be like in The Wire. Goodfellas examined the day-to-day life, and business, of the Italian mob in the late 1960's. I, Robot imagined a world where A.I. robots are a part of everyday normal life, including doing your laundry and getting your groceries. So after Sicario's intense buildup, we would be normalized to cinema to believe that we are going to see a detailing of the cartel and America's enforcements to try and stop them. Instead, we get a officer-training movie, and a lukewarm revenge plot that doesn't actualize until the last 20 minutes of the movie (as great as those 20 minutes may be).

Indeed, pacing may be a problem in this movie, with over an hour of filler screen time showing Blunt's partner worried about her looks, busting a small-time money launderer, and Blunt smoking's non-stop of Indian Creeks (in which all subtlety goes out the window. We are smart enough to understand that she is stressed out by what she is seeing). But my biggest complaint with the film would be of Blunt's acting. Emily Blunt, who, in the two other films of which I have seen her, was phenomenal in Looper and above-average in Edge of Tomorrow, yet she falls completely flat in this movie. She is such an emotional and great actress, that her stoicism becomes a point of distraction and is almost infuriating- why are the screenwriters and then director limiting such a great actress to one facial expression? And her character's motivation is never clearly defined. In a particular scene in the film's conclusion, she refuses to help a character get away with crooked morality. Why should she care when she has already been briefed on what the slight immorality can accomplish in the grander scheme of things?

But the film is not without its advantages. Del Toro, while probably a little retroactively overrated as time has gone on, was really good in this film. The silencer on his pistol serves as a reminder to his character- quiet, but already ready to go off and wreak havoc. The film's final 20 minutes is overly intense, including an outstanding tracking shot that will stick with you for a while if you are as big a fan of tracking shots as I am. Del Toro gives a well after performance, and Brolin is adequate enough, to carry through Blunt's inactivity.

Sicario wasn't the great film I hoped it to be, but it did pack some punches in individual performances, and above-average cinematography. It is not the must-see film of the year you may have been hearing of, but as far as action thrillers go, it is a minor cut above the rest. If you're choosing between this and binge-watching Netflix's Narcos, I'd probably recommend seeing Wagner Moura and his mustache pace back and forth. But if you are a fan of Del Toro, or the moral duality that has become a theme in Villeneuve's recent films, this is definitely one to check out.

 

[Omar 382]

This really took off!!!

 

[PatsFan2003]

Too much work.

 

[calsnowskier]

This really took off!!!

tl;dr

 

[Omar 382]

tl;dr

And I'm the one with ADHD...

 

[Omar 382]

The King of Comedy

Film Review and Analysis

RATING: 5/5

Having grown up a millennial, I cannot fully understand nor appreciate the culture of the 1980’s. Most of what I know about it comes from the influential movies I’ve seen from that era; Raging Bull, The Thing, Scarface, Once Upon a Time in America, The Terminator, Back To The Future, etc. All of these films have that vintage 1980’s feel- a likable protagonist (or at least one we root for), a dramatic conflict, a central villain, cocaine, thoughts about future technology and what the world will have in store as the second millennium approached. Perhaps that is why The King of Comedy feels so unidentifiably misplaced- like a movie that should have been made in the past five or ten years. Maybe this is what caused the movie to flop at the box office- a $19 million dollar budget versus a $2.5 million dollar return, or why early reviewers were quick to dismiss it. Indeed, Pauline Kael of The New Yorker wrote: “De Niro in disguise denies his characters a soul. De Niro's 'bravura' acting in Mean Streets, Taxi Driver and New York, New York collapsed into 'anti-acting' after he started turning himself into repugnant flesh eggies of soulless characters.....Pupkin is a nothing.” Whether or not one time has played a role, The King of Comedy has nonetheless aged gracefully, and, on a personal level, is my favorite film from the 1980’s, or the 20th century for that matter. De Niro, whose performances I have not always gravitated towards (to put it nicely), delivers one of the best characterizations of how I and I imagine many others feel regarding achieving stardom, yet all the while being a nobody. It’s his role, and Scorsese's sure-handed direction with the script, that makes this movie an unforgettable classic.
Rupert Pupkin is an aspiring comedian and entertainer, who happens to be mentally-deranged and has thoughts and views that are oftentimes separate from reality. When we first meet him, he is waiting outside of talk show host Jerry Langford’s (Jerry Lewis) show, something we come to realize he does quite often, if not every night. After forcing his way into his car amidst a mob of fans, an excited Pupkin tells an unenthusiastic Jerry that he too wants to be a comedian, and if he could just set up a meeting, the two could talk. Jerry tells Pupkin to call his office and they will talk, and he leaves. Later, the film acknowledges what we already knew; that Jerry told Pupkin to call his office as a means of getting away from him; that he was not genuinely interested in hearing what Pupkin had to say. Pupkin should appear distraught, but instead takes it on the chin and hatches a plan to kidnap Jerry so that he can appear on the show. Eventually, Pupkin gets his big break and appears on the show, and the movie ends. It does not seem like a lot happened in the 109 minutes of screen time, but when one digs under the surface, there is more to the plot than the words I wrote above.
Let’s examine Rupert Pupkin (often mispronounced and misspelled). His hair plastered to his head, a pencil mustache, and a cheesy, happy smile always categorize Pupkin as he follows Jerry around and dreams of becoming a performer. He epitomizes the over enthused star-worshipping fans of our generation, but his mental illness takes it a step farther. Pupkin often daydreams, somewhat unhealthily, of becoming a star, even having life-sized cardboard cutouts of Jerry Langford and Liza Minnelli in his basement, in addition to a cardboard cutout of a live audience cheering him after his performance. Pupkin, as we learn from him, possibly as an unreliable narrator, is a character who had received a tough life growing up. Both his parents were alcoholics, and kids at school frequently beat him for his inadequacies. It is no wonder that he dreams of one day becoming a star, where he believes everyone will love and adore him unconditionally. Yet, like so many people from our generation, he is not interested in working hard at his craft, and starting at the bottom, rather, he would like to circumvent the process and rise all the way to the top immediately, even if he has to take drastic and possibly psychotic routes to do so.
Certain aspects of De Niro’s performance and the writer’s screenplay point to Pupkin’s psychosis. For one, he is hounded by visceral dreams of how he would like everything to be; Jerry accepting him, Jerry asking him to take over the show for six months, Jerry choking his neck, and appearing on the show where his high school principal marries Rita (Diahnne Abbott) to him. All of these scenarios involve people adoring and catering to Pupkin’s wish. Even the choking scene, while somewhat ambiguous and confusing, could possibly be viewed as a sign of homosexual love that Pupkin feels towards Jerry. It is almost an intimate scene, and if Pupkin did not take pleasure in it, why is it included in his wishful dreams? The fact that Pupkin dreams like he does is a strangely happy and fulfilling thing to watch. It reminds me of the innocence of children when they are young, dreaming about being baseball players or musicians. Eventually, through the means of society or other factors at play, most of these dreams are weeded out as children grow into adolescence, and they accept the cruel fate of whatever the world brings upon them. Rupert Pupkin, although deranged, has a glow to him that draws the audience and causes them to root for him. Most of the time that people root for a psychopath, it is because they are an anti-hero, like Walter White or Billy Costigan from The Departed, and we enjoy watching their immorality or villainy. De Niro, on the other hand, plays Pupkin in just the right away that we are saddened by his plight; saddened that his parents were alcoholics; saddened that children at school beat him; saddened that he has such an infatuation with being famous with no connections to propel him into stardom.
At the conclusion of the film, Rupert kidnaps Jerry, as previously mentioned, and ties him up in Masha’s (Sandra Bernhard) basement, while he ransoms Jerry to the TV executives to appear on the show. Through events that might take suspension of disbelief, but altogether are not entirely implausible, Rupert gets his final wish; to appear on national television and do what he loves: tell jokes. While we are all expecting Rupert to bomb his jokes and expose himself as a crazy fraud, his jokes are decent, or at least passable. They are not laugh out loud hysterical; they are not excerpts you would find in Eddie Murphy: RAW or The Colbert Report, but they do not make you cringe either. The audience laughs more than a moderate amount, and we are left to wonder- do they really love Rupert’s jokes, or is it the fact that he is believed by experts and executives to be funny enough to appear on the biggest TV show in America, and they are prompted to laugh by a monitor, that leads them to laugh? Then we wonder what really differentiates Rupert from Jerry. Humor is subjective, but even with that, most people can say who is and who is not genuinely funny. Is Jerry funnier than Rupert? Is Rupert funnier than Jerry? Or are they, for all intents and purposes, about equal? The fact that this question is even raised tracts more sympathy towards Rupert- if audiences can perceive him to be about as funny as Jerry, why does Jerry have the largest show in America, while Rupert dwells in his basement? It is disheartening, but also revelatory, to conclude that many things in life depend on luck and chance. From a young age, we are taught that you get out what you put in, and while Rupert never bothered with late-night clubs, or as he calls it, being a “schmuck,” he has proven that an audience can embrace and love him just like they loved Jerry.
Later, Jerry goes to Rita’s bar, where he watches himself on television, his dreams being fulfilled, before he is carted off to a six year term in jail, of which he only serves two years and nine months. When he is released, he has a best-selling autobiography in the stores, and a movie adaptation to boot. He is the most talked about person in the media, with his only performance garnering 87 million views (before Youtube was available, as well). In the last shot of the movie, Rupert takes the stage for a supposed TV comedy special, with the audience cheering enthusiastically and excitedly as an announcer repeats his name over and over, and we get one final look at Rupert’s cheesy grin, as he is finally completed; having made it in show business with tons of adoring fans. We are left to wonder if the final sequence is real, or just a dream in Rupert’s head like so many other dreams in the movie. I believe that the moment is real, as there is no reason not to believe that Rupert would get his own television special provided the hype and limelight he was given from his act of illegality and subsequent performance. What has received more questioning is what Scorsese meant to signify by not having Rupert begin his performance, instead smiling for too long while his name is repeated. Many believe that the film is trying to tell us that Rupert does not have anything to say; that his performance nearly three years earlier was the exhaustion and pinnacle of his comedic talent. I do not subscribe to this theory; rather I believe that Rupert is just milking in all of the adoration of his fans, an appreciation he always wanted and never received. Rupert still has more decent material left in him, and the audience will laugh and cheer until he is finished, because he has been finally given his stage. For being a schmuck his whole life, Rupert could never be happier, as his obsession with being accepted and loved has transformed him from “King For a Night” to “The King of Comedy.”

 

[chf]

Now just to be clear...

Are we supposed to WRITE our own review?

Or copy/paste someone else's review?

 

[calsnowskier]

Now just to be clear...

Are we supposed to WRITE our own review?

Or copy/paste someone else's review?

Ruh-roh...

Was someone just caught plagiarizing???

 

[chf]

Ruh-roh...

Was someone just caught plagiarizing???

I dunno, haven't checked. But the writing seems different.

 

[calsnowskier]

I dunno, haven't checked. But the writing seems different.

tl;dr, so I didn't notice.

 

[Omar 382]

Now just to be clear...

Are we supposed to WRITE our own review?

Or copy/paste someone else's review?

Ruh-roh...

Was someone just caught plagiarizing???

The fuck are you talking about? I wrote that whole fucking thing myself. Show me where it's plagiarized and I'll never post on here again.

 

[Omar 382]

I guess someone can ruin someone's whole credibility on an outlandish impulsive claim that they have no proof of just because they feel like it.

 

[Taddy Mason]

So we have a "state the last movie you watched and rate it" thread, but that mostly consists of people stating a movie and giving a rating, with little to no actual review. I thought this would be a thread to post your actual movie reviews, if you write them or want to write them, for others to read and critique. I will be following the format of most movie reviewers. I will keep my reviews largely spoiler-free, like real critics, but feel free to do what you want. I will start off with a recent and popular film, Sicario. Note that this is my first movie review I've ever written in my life, so try not to go to hard on me.

so we can write movie reviews or write reviews of movie reviews?

 

[Omar 382]

Now just to be clear...

Are we supposed to WRITE our own review?

Or copy/paste someone else's review?

Now just to be clear...

Are we supposed to make inaccurate and unfounded accusations of others' hard work?

Or actually have some basis on our claims?

 

[chf]

I guess someone can ruin someone's whole credibility on an outlandish impulsive claim that they have no proof of just because they feel like it.

I'll take you at your word. I'm going to ask, because most people on message boards write the same way they do in posts.

So when you suddenly start changing voice and using 'we,' then it stands out.

My bad.

 

[PatsFan2003]

Contact

5/5 One of my favorite movies of all time.

Originally a book by Carl Sagan it projects how our first contact with other species from outer space might actually occur. So no ray-guns or spaceships or odd looking aliens but a step by step progression of how it all might play out.

Jodie Foster plays Ellie Arroway the young child genius who becomes obsessed with finding signs of intelligent life in the Cosmos. As a grown-up she happily wastes her time on the Seti Project listening to radio static on her headphones. Criticized by her superiors for wasting her career looking for ET her project almost gets canned until one night something is picked that's is definitely more than just static. Then the fun begins

There are several main themes here.

One is the scientific aspects of us humans trying to interpret the communications of these aliens since, no, they don't speak english. All very interesting and it seems almost plausible.

The other is the effect on the human race as it realizes that it's not alone.

Waves of cultural, religious and political forces collide and try to dominate the proceedings with Foster in the middle. Seemingly the only one that's determined to actually, you know, communicate and meet these beings.

Everyone wants to have a say and hand into what is becoming the greatest show of the century. Personal ambitions and agendas of key players quickly come to the surface. All great, great stuff.

Finally interesting questions are raised through the on and off romance of Foster, the ultra-rational atheist with
Matthew McConaughy as Palmer Ross, the Religious writer who's specialty is the effect of technology on issues of faith and religion. Not an evangelist by any means but he's definitely on the God side. The good old God vs Science debate but without the negative intensity these discussions usually bring.

A definite must see.

 

[Omar 382]

I decided to post my review of Arrival in PDF format. Here you go

 

[GNG]

Hacksaw Ridge ...... 4 stars

 

[TheDayMan]

Contact

5/5 One of my favorite movies of all time.

Originally a book by Carl Sagan it projects how our first contact with other species from outer space might actually occur. So no ray-guns or spaceships or odd looking aliens but a step by step progression of how it all might play out.

Jodie Foster plays Ellie Arroway the young child genius who becomes obsessed with finding signs of intelligent life in the Cosmos. As a grown-up she happily wastes her time on the Seti Project listening to radio static on her headphones. Criticized by her superiors for wasting her career looking for ET her project almost gets canned until one night something is picked that's is definitely more than just static. Then the fun begins

There are several main themes here.

One is the scientific aspects of us humans trying to interpret the communications of these aliens since, no, they don't speak english. All very interesting and it seems almost plausible.

The other is the effect on the human race as it realizes that it's not alone.

Waves of cultural, religious and political forces collide and try to dominate the proceedings with Foster in the middle. Seemingly the only one that's determined to actually, you know, communicate and meet these beings.

Everyone wants to have a say and hand into what is becoming the greatest show of the century. Personal ambitions and agendas of key players quickly come to the surface. All great, great stuff.

Finally interesting questions are raised through the on and off romance of Foster, the ultra-rational atheist with
Matthew McConaughy as Palmer Ross, the Religious writer who's specialty is the effect of technology on issues of faith and religion. Not an evangelist by any means but he's definitely on the God side. The good old God vs Science debate but without the negative intensity these discussions usually bring.

A definite must see.

Have you read the book? I've wanted to for a while, but have never gotten around to it.

I agree, solid movie.