What better thing to do than to finish the Entourage series the day that the movie comes out? I'm just gonna get straight to the point. The finale wasn't very good, though season 8 as a whole wasn't anything special.
Let's start with what worked. Although I would have preferred it if Ari really had to move on from his wife, it was obvious that he was going to win her back. Since the show had to go that route, the way the executed it was quite touching and the fact that he quit his job for her showed his development as a character.
So what didn't work?
-In regards to the whole season, it just wasn't very interesting. Entourage has always suffered from never having high stakes but it felt especially low this season besides Drama going on strike with Andrew Dice Clay but naturally that resolved pretty naturally. Besides that, Vince wants to fuck some girl because she didn't try to fuck him the first time they met, Turtle fears he might not become a millionaire with his investment, and E wants to win back Sloan...again.
-Alright, so let's talk about Sloan first. In an end move that surprised nobody, E wins back Sloan thanks to Drama, Turtle, and Vince all going to Sloan and LYING to her by insisting that E never slept with Sloan's former stepmother. So they got back together based on a lie. Yay! Also, Sloan's father Alex DeLarge (I'm still calling him that) threatened to kill Eric, but nobody seems particularly concerned about that.
-Oh and Vince gets E his own jet at the end. I get it, Vince, you have money, but seriously, wouldn't it be more environmentally friendly to just let E and Sloan chill in your jet? There should be room. But apparently E and Sloan aren't even going to Paris where Vince is getting married...which is confusing because isn't he getting married that day. I think I care about this more than the writers.
-Vince gets engaged to the British reporter whose name I don't remember and don't care to find out. Besides the fact that Vince hardly knows her, we the audience hardly know her as a character because she's barely on the show. Apparently she's really smart. We know this because Vince says she is. How did these two fall in love so quickly? Nobody knows because we don't get to see the 24-hour date they spend together either. It's just a boring, uninteresting storyline and a horrible way for the show to conclude Vince's story arc. I felt like the show was usually the most interesting when Vince was working but this season he does nothing but quickly write a script.
-Yeah, for a show about the movie business, there really wasn't much movie stuff at all this season. We had Vince writing a script for a tv movie and Drama's animated tv show, but no actually hollywood films or anything related to the bigger film business. I thought the episodes with things like Cannes, Sundance, and Comic Con were fun, showing an insider look into places most of us don't get to see, but the show just didn't seem to care about that stuff anymore.
-Oh by the way, did anyone else just not care about Scott Lavin at all? At least when he was first introduced there was some conflict with him and E, but did he do anything at all this season? It seemed like the show wanted to make him part of the gang, but he was so uninteresting and didn't have anything to do. At least he doesn't come on the plane with the other guys at the end. I like to think it's the show's way of acknowledging how unnecessary his character ended up being.
Oh and that post-credits scene definitely felt like a setup for the Entourage movie. Though I'm sure Doug Ellin and Mark Wahlberg assumed it wouldn't take 4 years before the movie came out.
Overall grade:
D+
Thursday, June 4, 2015
Saturday, February 21, 2015
2015 final Oscar Predictions
So the Oscars are tomorrow and through some statistical analysis, here are my predictions with the order of likelihood for the win. As a reminder, these aren't necessarily my preferences.
Best Actor
1. Eddie Redmayne- The Theory of Everything
2. Michael Keaton- Birdman
3. Benedict Cumberbatch- The Imitation Game
4. Steve Carell- Foxcatcher
5. Bradley Cooper- American Sniper
1. Eddie Redmayne- The Theory of Everything
2. Michael Keaton- Birdman
3. Benedict Cumberbatch- The Imitation Game
4. Steve Carell- Foxcatcher
5. Bradley Cooper- American Sniper
For the first time in a few years, I'm not entirely sure as to who will win Best Actor. It's clearly between Michael Keaton and Eddie Redmayne. Of course in a perfect world, the race would be between Michael Keaton and Jake Gyllenhaal but this isn't a perfect world. For a while, Michael Keaton was the clear frontrunner, winning all of the early precursors, but then Eddie Redmayne won the Golden Globe (for Drama while Keaton won the Golden Globe for comedy), BAFTA, and most importantly, the Screen Actors guild. The last time someone won the Best Actor Screen Actors Guild but didn't win the Oscar was 11 years ago when Johnny Depp won the SAG for Pirates of the Caribbean while Sean Penn won the Oscar for Mystic River. I feel that Michael Keaton deserves the win, but I feel like it'll be going to Eddie Redmayne. There's also the fact that Eddie Rdmayne just had his most recent movie Jupiter Ascending release and its been heavily panned with his performance receiving particular criticism. This might seem irrelevant but Eddie Murphy was the frontrunner for Best Supporting Actor 8 years ago, winning at both SAG and the Golden Globes for Dreamgirls. Then his new movie Norbit came out a couple weeks before the Oscars and was arguably the worst film of his career. Next thing we knew, Alan Arkin won the Oscar instead. We'll see.
Best Actress
1. Julianne Moore- Still Alice
2. Reese Witherspoon- Wild
3. Felicity Jones- The Theory of Everything
4. Rosamund Pike- Gone Girl
5. Marion Cotillard- Two Days, One Night
It's going to Julianne Moore. This isn't a surprise. It's essentially a lifetime achievement award and no one else really stands a chance. Cotillard and Witherspoon are previous Oscar winners, Felicity Jones is an excellent young actress but her performance doesn't stand out enough because of the performance by Eddie Redmayne, and Rosamund Pike, as deserving as that would be, is ultimately in a movie that's just too dark to appease Academy voters. There's no competition. The others are lucky to be nominated.
Best Supporting Actor
1. J.K. Simmons- Whiplash
2. Edward Norton- Birdman
3. Ethan Hawke- Boyhood
4. Mark Ruffalo- Foxcatcher
5. Robert Duvall- The Judge
Once again, an easy lock. J.K. Simmons is going to win. He's winning everywhere. Edward Norton has a very small chance of squeezing in a win if the Academy wanted to make up for not giving him an Oscar for Primal Fear or American History X (and not nominating him for Fight Club), but I'd be very surprised if I didn't hear J.K. Simmons' name called tomorrow night.
Best Supporting Actress
1. Patricia Arquette- Boyhood
2. Emma Stone- Birdman
3. Keira Knightley- The Imitation Game
4. Meryl Streep- Into the Woods
5. Laura Dern- Wild
Patricia Arquette is also a clear lock. It's very hard to picture anyone else winning. Laura Dern barely made the cut, Meryl Streep will always get nominated but will only win on occasion, Keira Knightley is great in The Imitation Game but not that great. Emma Stone is the only potential spoiler but I'm not counting on it. Now if Renee Russo had been nominated for Nightcrawler, which she wasn't, well then maybe we'd be having an interesting competition.
Best Original Screenplay
1. Birdman- Alejandro González Iñárritu, Nicolás Giacobone Alexander Dinelaris, Jr. Armando Bo
2. The Grand Budapest Hotel- Wes Anderson and Hugh Guiness
3. Boyhood- Richard Linklater
4. Foxcatcher- E. Max Frye and Dan Futterman
5. Nightcrawler- Dan Gilroy
It could go a few ways at this point. I could definitely see Birdman, The Grand Budapest Hotel, or Boyhood walking away with the win. I feel like Birdman may have a slight edge here but it's definitely not a lock so we'll see. Always nice when there's not a clear lock.
Best Adapted Screenplay
1. The Imitation Game- Graham Moore
2. Theory of Everything- Anthony McCarten
3. American Sniper- Jason Hall
4. Whiplash- Damien Chazelle
5. Inherent Vice- Paul Thomas Anderson
If Gone Girl got nominated, we'd have a competition. Since it wasn't, it's pretty likely it'll go to Graham Moore. I wouldn't mind seeing Damien Chazelle win but I'm honestly just relieved that he got nominated.
Best Director
1. Alejandro Gonzalez Innaritu- Birdman
2. Richard Linklater- Boyhood
3. Wes Anderson- The Grand Budapest Hotel
4. Morten Tyldum- The Imitation Game
5. Bennett Miller- Foxcatcher
If Linklater wins, then Boyhood will win Best Picture but if Gonzalez Inarritu wins, well, we'll see. However, I'm still putting my money on Gonzalez Innaritu because he won at the Director's Guild of America. Of its previous 66 ceremonies, only 7 of its winners didn't go on to win the Academy Award for Best Director, one of those was Ben Affleck who was infamously snubbed in 2012 for Argo in spite of being a frontrunner so that hardly counts. So Gonzalez Innaritu has an 89.3% chance of winning and I like those odds. Fun Fact: If he wins, that'll make two Mexican directors winning in a row as Alfonso Cuaron won last year for Gravity.
Best Picture
1. Boyhood
2. Birdman
3. The Grand Budapest Hotel
4. Imitation Game
5. American Sniper
6. Whiplash
7. Theory of Everything
8. Selma
Last year 12 Years a Slave won Best Picture and Gravity won Best Director. 2 years ago Argo won Best Picture while Life of Pi won Best Director. Could there be another split for the 3rd year in a row? I think it's very possible with the close competition this year but it could definitely go either way. The reason I'm predicting Boyhood is because Birdman wasn't nominated for Best Editing. That may seem irrelevant but the last time a film WON Best Picture without being nominated for Best Editing was 34 years ago when Ordinary People won. Boyhood was nominated for Best Editing. On the other hand, Birdman won both the PGA (Producer's Guild of America, a notable predictor for Best Picture) and the SAG for Outstanding cast and only 2 movies have won both of those awards and NOT won Best Picture (Apollo 13 and Little Miss Sunshine). It could seriously go either way but since the Oscar for Film Editing has been around far longer than the SAG and PGA, I'm giving Boyhood a very slight edge, although I'd personally rather see Birdman win. This is honestly one of the closest Best Picture races in years. Hell, Boyhood and Birdman could even cancel each other out and make room for Grand Budapest Hotel. I'm excited to see how things play out.
So yeah, go fill out those Oscar ballots and scream in anger when the films you want to win don't win. It'll be a fun night.
Sunday, February 15, 2015
Why 50 Shades of Grey is shit
Warning: Strong profanity, graphic sexual dialogue, yadda yadda. Shouldn't be a shock.
50 Shades of Grey is a shitty book and now a shitty movie.
It's easy for me to laugh at 50 Shades of Grey with all of those lines about Ana's inner goddess, Christian cocking his head to one side, Ana biting her lip, oh and of course her anthropomorphic subconscious. Yeah, it's all pretty laughably bad stuff and we should all enjoy laughing at it together. I initially thought it was nothing more than a poorly written book read by horny housewives
You all probably knew that. But what you probably didn't know is that it's more than just poorly written garbage. It's dangerous garbage. It's garbage that glorifies abusive relationships.
Now before anyone freaks out and assumes I'm judging alternative lifestyles, I'm not. People who know me well know that I'm a very strong believer in individual freedom. Secretary (more on that later) is one of my favorite movies and hell, I personally think being dominant is pretty damn fun, plus I've got several good friends in the lifestyle (all who agree the book is horrible). There's nothing wrong with BDSM and what consenting partners want to do to each other behind closed doors is their business. Emphasis on the word consenting which the book seems to be more than a bit iffy on. Hell, lots of the creepy and abusive stuff isn't even related to BDSM.
There are too many creepy moments to name them all so I'll start off with when Ana graduates college in Chapter 4 and parties with friends. She ends up drunk-dialing Christian, who at this point she's had a single coffee date with. He demands to know where she is but she refuses to specify beyond being at bar in Portland (he was looking for an exact location) and hangs up. He then calls her back, says he's coming to get her and goes from Seattle to fucking Portland to pick her up from this bar. How did he find her? He traced her fucking cell phone. Then he takes her back to his fucking hotel room instead of taking her home, even though they barely know each other at this point. But we're supposed to think he's a gentleman because he didn't try to have sex with her. Raise your expectations, people.
Christian seems to care about nobody but himself. And this goes beyond their sexual relationship. We've got such wonderful lines as "You need to learn to manage my expectations. I am not a patient man." The idea that it takes two shouldn't be far fetched but Christian seems to think that his needs and wants come above Ana's.
A lot of people have defended the relationship, explaining that Ana consented to everything because she signed a contract. First off, relationships, BDSM or otherwise, do not and should not require a goddamn contract. That's the stupidest shit I've ever heard. Secondly, that contract is garbage. People have insisted that she could walk away at any time if she really wanted to. Not true.
"The Dominant reserves the right to dismiss the submissive from his service at any time and for any reason. The submissive may request her release at any time, such request to be granted at the discretion of the dominant."
So even if Ana wanted to leave, apparently all Christian has to do is say "no" and she's stuck with him. Yeah, in BDSM, the dominant is supposed to have the ILLUSION of control. The whole point is that the submissive has the actual control and can leave and stop whenever they goddamn well please. They don't need anyone's permission. Of course, Ana is completely uneducated on all of this but rather than educate her himself, Christian decides to direct her to a Wikipedia page. I'm not joking.
At one point, Christian spanks Ana hard after she rolls her eyes at him.
"How did you feel while I was hitting you and after?"
"I didn't like it. I'd rather you didn't do it again."
"You weren't meant to like it."
Once again, not accurate BDSM. First of all, the only reason you should spank your sub is because the two of you want to engage in some kinky fun, not because she rolled her eyes at you. Secondly, actually the sub is meant to like it. It's supposed to be a mutually enjoyable experience. The dom enjoys spanking the sub's ass, the sub enjoys having her ass spanked. Not a radical concept. Now if they were going to engage in a roleplay where she pretended she didn't like it but they both knew that she actually did, that'd be one thing. But this isn't a roleplay. Christian doesn't want Ana to enjoy it.
At one point, Christian takes Ana to his parents' house for dinner and Ana mentions going to Georgia for a few days to see her mother. Christian is very angry upon hearing this because he's a controlling asshole and apparently his S.O. seeing her mother is a huge deal to him. Okay, maybe she could have mentioned it earlier as a courtesy, but she certainly doesn't need his approval and he has no right to respond the way he does:
He narrows his eyes, and then seems to remember himself. Releasing my hand, he takes my elbow and leads me out of the room.
"This conversation is not over," he whispers threateningly as we enter the dining room."
Threateningly? Charming fellow.
During dinner, Christian discreetly caresses Ana's thigh from under the table but she responds by abruptly shifting her legs away from him. Certainly a normal response since his family is right there. But it makes him angry. After they go outside, he says he's going to spank her and then fuck her and this is how she responds.
"Please don't hit me," I whisper, pleading.
His brows furrows, his eyes widening. He blinks twice.
"I don't want you to spank me, not here, not now. Please don't."
A spanking in a BDSM relationship should not bring pleading and fear. If it does, then you have failed as a dom. Your sub should not be scared of you.
"This is mine, he whispers aggressively. "All mine. Do you understand?" He eases his fingers in and out as he gazes down at me, gauging my reaction, his eyes burning.
"Yes, yours," I breathe as my desire, hot and heavy, surges through my bloodstream, affecting... everything.
While it is common for the dominant to play games with the submissive, i.e. "Your pussy belongs to me now", it's all in the context of a roleplay. It's acting. The dominant knows that he doesn't actually own her pussy because the actual concept of owning someone else's body is fucking ridiculous. Yet good ol' Christian Grey doesn't seem to think of these concepts in the context of pretend roleplays. He thinks he actually owns Ana's body, which is both offensive and absurd. He doesn't respect her as a person.
He then proceeds to have rough sex with Ana (I'm not sure if I should call it sex), once again going through the abusive motions
“We don’t have long. This will be quick, and it’s for me, not you. Do you understand? Don’t come or I will spank you,” he says through clenched teeth.
Okay, so I understand that orgasm denial is a thing in BDSM and there are submissives that actually enjoy it. But it's a thing that occurs through clear communication. If Christian wanted to do some orgasm denial with Ana, he should have talked to her beforehand, be sure that she was cool with it, and then proceeded to do some kinky and rough orgasm denial sex. And in any kind of BDSM games, the submissive might pretend whatever is happening is a punishment, but it's not. As mentioned before, if a dominant is doing rough stuff with the submissive, the submissive should be just as turned on as the dominant. Christian doesn't seem to care about mutual enjoyment. But the context makes the scene even worse. It isn't even about BDSM. He's doing this to her because he's angry....because he's angry she's going to see her mom. He's punishing her for wanting to see her fucking mom. That's not kinky sex. That's abuse.
Oh and if that doesn't cross the line for you, maybe the part where Christian proves that he doesn't give any shit about consent will, also known as rape.
Okay, so Ana sends Christian an email saying she's not interested in furthering a relationship with him ("It's been nice knowing you") which apparently she sends as a joke, but Christian thinks it's serious. Unlike a normal person, who would either send a reply back or simply forget the whole thing, Christian decides to show up at her apartment uninvited (apparently the roommate let him in) and tries to talk her into rethinking what she said.
I glance around it, plotting an escape route, no – there’s still only the door or window. My room is functional but cozy – sparse white wicker furniture and a white iron double bed with a patchwork quilt, made by my mother when she was in her folksy American quilting phase. It’s all pale blue and cream.
Remember what I said about how your sub shouldn't be afraid of you. Here it is again. In any relationship, whether it have BDSM or not, your partner should never think about plotting a fucking escape route.
Christian does one decent thing in the novel at this point. Before tying Ana up, he asks her if she trusts him and doesn't tie her hands up until after she confirms that she does. But then he turns into an absolute creep. He starts undoing her sneakers and she freaks out because her feet smell bad.
"No", I protest, trying to kick him off.
He stops.
"If you struggle, I'll tie your feet too. If you make a noise, Anastasia, I will gag you. Keep quiet. Katherine is probably outside listening now."
And yeah, that's rape. I've heard people defend the scene saying that Ana wasn't trying to kick him off because she was opposed to having sex, she kicked him off because her feet smelled bad from running. And yes, that's true, but Christian doesn't know that. All he sees is a woman he's trying to have sex with protesting and saying "No" and he thinks the proper response is to threaten her. That's fucked up. And a "no" is a "no" regardless of the reason. If Ana doesn't want to take her shoes off because her feet smell bad, then he has no right to take her fucking shoes off. And it's not like they discussed safewords or anything so his immediate response to her saying "no" should have been to stop doing what he was doing and ensure that she felt okay. That's not rocket science.
So basically, instead of creating a relationship built on trust, mutual enjoyment, aftercare, and maybe some kinky sex roleplays, we're left with a story about a creep who stalks and abuses a naive young woman with low self-esteem which he attempts to justify by pretending he's just kinky. And those examples of Christian's creepiness I mention in this post, well those aren't even all of them. There are plenty more. There actually could have been an interesting story there. Like a story about a woman who achieves some kind of a sexual awakening through her kinky sex relationship and how these two awkward people who have been unable to open up are able to find something in each other. Oh wait this was already done in Secretary with Maggie Gyllenhaal and James Spader. The dominant guy is even named E. Edward GREY. I initially had some problems with the third act of the film but upon rewatching it and hearing some thoughts from others, I realized I may have been interpreting it incorrectly (save that for another blog post). Anyways, Secretary was a good film.
I can't speak on whether or not the movie is less creepy than the book so I won't say anything there, but considering the source material, I'm sure you can understand why I'm hesitant and have no intention of spending any money on it. All I'm saying is that the novel sucks and not just because it's poorly written but because of what it represents (abuse) and what it misrepresents (BDSM). It's not something I can just laugh off as a dumb story and move on.
Written by Alex Bauman
50 Shades of Grey is a shitty book and now a shitty movie.
It's easy for me to laugh at 50 Shades of Grey with all of those lines about Ana's inner goddess, Christian cocking his head to one side, Ana biting her lip, oh and of course her anthropomorphic subconscious. Yeah, it's all pretty laughably bad stuff and we should all enjoy laughing at it together. I initially thought it was nothing more than a poorly written book read by horny housewives
Also, it would have been a better story if it was more like what the title implied
You all probably knew that. But what you probably didn't know is that it's more than just poorly written garbage. It's dangerous garbage. It's garbage that glorifies abusive relationships.
Now before anyone freaks out and assumes I'm judging alternative lifestyles, I'm not. People who know me well know that I'm a very strong believer in individual freedom. Secretary (more on that later) is one of my favorite movies and hell, I personally think being dominant is pretty damn fun, plus I've got several good friends in the lifestyle (all who agree the book is horrible). There's nothing wrong with BDSM and what consenting partners want to do to each other behind closed doors is their business. Emphasis on the word consenting which the book seems to be more than a bit iffy on. Hell, lots of the creepy and abusive stuff isn't even related to BDSM.
There are too many creepy moments to name them all so I'll start off with when Ana graduates college in Chapter 4 and parties with friends. She ends up drunk-dialing Christian, who at this point she's had a single coffee date with. He demands to know where she is but she refuses to specify beyond being at bar in Portland (he was looking for an exact location) and hangs up. He then calls her back, says he's coming to get her and goes from Seattle to fucking Portland to pick her up from this bar. How did he find her? He traced her fucking cell phone. Then he takes her back to his fucking hotel room instead of taking her home, even though they barely know each other at this point. But we're supposed to think he's a gentleman because he didn't try to have sex with her. Raise your expectations, people.
Christian seems to care about nobody but himself. And this goes beyond their sexual relationship. We've got such wonderful lines as "You need to learn to manage my expectations. I am not a patient man." The idea that it takes two shouldn't be far fetched but Christian seems to think that his needs and wants come above Ana's.
A lot of people have defended the relationship, explaining that Ana consented to everything because she signed a contract. First off, relationships, BDSM or otherwise, do not and should not require a goddamn contract. That's the stupidest shit I've ever heard. Secondly, that contract is garbage. People have insisted that she could walk away at any time if she really wanted to. Not true.
"The Dominant reserves the right to dismiss the submissive from his service at any time and for any reason. The submissive may request her release at any time, such request to be granted at the discretion of the dominant."
So even if Ana wanted to leave, apparently all Christian has to do is say "no" and she's stuck with him. Yeah, in BDSM, the dominant is supposed to have the ILLUSION of control. The whole point is that the submissive has the actual control and can leave and stop whenever they goddamn well please. They don't need anyone's permission. Of course, Ana is completely uneducated on all of this but rather than educate her himself, Christian decides to direct her to a Wikipedia page. I'm not joking.
At one point, Christian spanks Ana hard after she rolls her eyes at him.
"How did you feel while I was hitting you and after?"
"I didn't like it. I'd rather you didn't do it again."
"You weren't meant to like it."
Once again, not accurate BDSM. First of all, the only reason you should spank your sub is because the two of you want to engage in some kinky fun, not because she rolled her eyes at you. Secondly, actually the sub is meant to like it. It's supposed to be a mutually enjoyable experience. The dom enjoys spanking the sub's ass, the sub enjoys having her ass spanked. Not a radical concept. Now if they were going to engage in a roleplay where she pretended she didn't like it but they both knew that she actually did, that'd be one thing. But this isn't a roleplay. Christian doesn't want Ana to enjoy it.
At one point, Christian takes Ana to his parents' house for dinner and Ana mentions going to Georgia for a few days to see her mother. Christian is very angry upon hearing this because he's a controlling asshole and apparently his S.O. seeing her mother is a huge deal to him. Okay, maybe she could have mentioned it earlier as a courtesy, but she certainly doesn't need his approval and he has no right to respond the way he does:
He narrows his eyes, and then seems to remember himself. Releasing my hand, he takes my elbow and leads me out of the room.
"This conversation is not over," he whispers threateningly as we enter the dining room."
Threateningly? Charming fellow.
During dinner, Christian discreetly caresses Ana's thigh from under the table but she responds by abruptly shifting her legs away from him. Certainly a normal response since his family is right there. But it makes him angry. After they go outside, he says he's going to spank her and then fuck her and this is how she responds.
"Please don't hit me," I whisper, pleading.
His brows furrows, his eyes widening. He blinks twice.
"I don't want you to spank me, not here, not now. Please don't."
A spanking in a BDSM relationship should not bring pleading and fear. If it does, then you have failed as a dom. Your sub should not be scared of you.
"This is mine, he whispers aggressively. "All mine. Do you understand?" He eases his fingers in and out as he gazes down at me, gauging my reaction, his eyes burning.
"Yes, yours," I breathe as my desire, hot and heavy, surges through my bloodstream, affecting... everything.
While it is common for the dominant to play games with the submissive, i.e. "Your pussy belongs to me now", it's all in the context of a roleplay. It's acting. The dominant knows that he doesn't actually own her pussy because the actual concept of owning someone else's body is fucking ridiculous. Yet good ol' Christian Grey doesn't seem to think of these concepts in the context of pretend roleplays. He thinks he actually owns Ana's body, which is both offensive and absurd. He doesn't respect her as a person.
He then proceeds to have rough sex with Ana (I'm not sure if I should call it sex), once again going through the abusive motions
“We don’t have long. This will be quick, and it’s for me, not you. Do you understand? Don’t come or I will spank you,” he says through clenched teeth.
Okay, so I understand that orgasm denial is a thing in BDSM and there are submissives that actually enjoy it. But it's a thing that occurs through clear communication. If Christian wanted to do some orgasm denial with Ana, he should have talked to her beforehand, be sure that she was cool with it, and then proceeded to do some kinky and rough orgasm denial sex. And in any kind of BDSM games, the submissive might pretend whatever is happening is a punishment, but it's not. As mentioned before, if a dominant is doing rough stuff with the submissive, the submissive should be just as turned on as the dominant. Christian doesn't seem to care about mutual enjoyment. But the context makes the scene even worse. It isn't even about BDSM. He's doing this to her because he's angry....because he's angry she's going to see her mom. He's punishing her for wanting to see her fucking mom. That's not kinky sex. That's abuse.
Oh and if that doesn't cross the line for you, maybe the part where Christian proves that he doesn't give any shit about consent will, also known as rape.
Okay, so Ana sends Christian an email saying she's not interested in furthering a relationship with him ("It's been nice knowing you") which apparently she sends as a joke, but Christian thinks it's serious. Unlike a normal person, who would either send a reply back or simply forget the whole thing, Christian decides to show up at her apartment uninvited (apparently the roommate let him in) and tries to talk her into rethinking what she said.
I glance around it, plotting an escape route, no – there’s still only the door or window. My room is functional but cozy – sparse white wicker furniture and a white iron double bed with a patchwork quilt, made by my mother when she was in her folksy American quilting phase. It’s all pale blue and cream.
Remember what I said about how your sub shouldn't be afraid of you. Here it is again. In any relationship, whether it have BDSM or not, your partner should never think about plotting a fucking escape route.
Christian does one decent thing in the novel at this point. Before tying Ana up, he asks her if she trusts him and doesn't tie her hands up until after she confirms that she does. But then he turns into an absolute creep. He starts undoing her sneakers and she freaks out because her feet smell bad.
"No", I protest, trying to kick him off.
He stops.
"If you struggle, I'll tie your feet too. If you make a noise, Anastasia, I will gag you. Keep quiet. Katherine is probably outside listening now."
And yeah, that's rape. I've heard people defend the scene saying that Ana wasn't trying to kick him off because she was opposed to having sex, she kicked him off because her feet smelled bad from running. And yes, that's true, but Christian doesn't know that. All he sees is a woman he's trying to have sex with protesting and saying "No" and he thinks the proper response is to threaten her. That's fucked up. And a "no" is a "no" regardless of the reason. If Ana doesn't want to take her shoes off because her feet smell bad, then he has no right to take her fucking shoes off. And it's not like they discussed safewords or anything so his immediate response to her saying "no" should have been to stop doing what he was doing and ensure that she felt okay. That's not rocket science.
So basically, instead of creating a relationship built on trust, mutual enjoyment, aftercare, and maybe some kinky sex roleplays, we're left with a story about a creep who stalks and abuses a naive young woman with low self-esteem which he attempts to justify by pretending he's just kinky. And those examples of Christian's creepiness I mention in this post, well those aren't even all of them. There are plenty more. There actually could have been an interesting story there. Like a story about a woman who achieves some kind of a sexual awakening through her kinky sex relationship and how these two awkward people who have been unable to open up are able to find something in each other. Oh wait this was already done in Secretary with Maggie Gyllenhaal and James Spader. The dominant guy is even named E. Edward GREY. I initially had some problems with the third act of the film but upon rewatching it and hearing some thoughts from others, I realized I may have been interpreting it incorrectly (save that for another blog post). Anyways, Secretary was a good film.
I can't speak on whether or not the movie is less creepy than the book so I won't say anything there, but considering the source material, I'm sure you can understand why I'm hesitant and have no intention of spending any money on it. All I'm saying is that the novel sucks and not just because it's poorly written but because of what it represents (abuse) and what it misrepresents (BDSM). It's not something I can just laugh off as a dumb story and move on.
Written by Alex Bauman
Thursday, February 5, 2015
American Sniper Review
American Sniper has been dealing with controversies from its alleged glorification of Chris Kyle to its portrayal of babies as fake. I'm going to leave politics at the door and simply review this as a film.
With the exception of the fake baby, American Sniper is a well done film. At 84 years old, Clint Eastwood is still an excellent director. The action scenes are very well shot and the acting is good. Bradley Cooper just received his 3rd Oscar nomination in a row for this film and while I personally wouldn't have nominated him (I wanted Jake Gyllenhaal to be nominated for Nightcrawler), I won't deny the fact that he continues to prove himself as a very strong actor who can do both comedy and drama effectively. His performance carries the film. His Texan accent is surprisingly believable which is a relief because a bad Texan accent can veer into unintentional hilarity and there are a couple nice subtle moments in particular when his acting stands out (particularly a scene set in a bar). I also liked the way his version of Chris Kyle did not embrace his legendary status, and seemed uncomfortable with people cheering him on for kills. Unfortunately, my praise mostly ends there. The film has so many story issues that really bring it down. It's hard to know where to begin.
I guess I'll start off with the beginning of the movie. We've got a flashback to Chris as a kid. His father tells him that there are three kinds of people in this world: Wolves (the evil people), Sheep (the stupid people who need to be protected), and sheepdogs (the people who protect the sheep). It's a set up for one of the most blatantly obvious metaphors I've ever seen. I don't mind metaphors in film, I enjoy them, but I don't like them being spelled out to the audience.
The one thing that surprised me was that I figured the sheep were either Iraqi or American civilians, but they're actually U.S. Marines. I'm not a Marine and I don't have any Marine family members but I feel like this movie would upset Marines. Most of the film seems to involve Chris Kyle, the Navy Seal, protecting the Marines who seemingly can't do anything themselves. This gets especially ridiculous when Chris literally abandons his sniper post (which is apparently allowed because he doesn't get in trouble for it) to help teach the marines how to properly raid a house, because Chris Kyle, the Navy Seal, even has to do the Marines' jobs for them.
Then there's the character of Mustafa, a Syrian sniper and arguably the main antagonist of the film. Mustafa is not a completely fictional creation as he's mentioned in a single paragraph in Chris Kyle's book as a rumor, but I still feel his character served no purpose. He has no lines and no physical presence so he's not an interesting antagonist. He literally serves as a parallel to Chris Kyle, the evil Chris Kyle, I guess you could say and those parallels sure do get heavyhanded at one point. Having scenes from Mustafa's viewpoint honestly really took me out of it. The Hurt Locker was so effective to me because we saw things only from the soldiers' point of view. The insurgents were mysterious figures in the shadows so we were just as in the dark as the main characters were. By including Mustafa's viewpoint, there's no shock for the viewer when a U.S. soldier is killed by an enemy sniper because we literally just saw the sniper's scope seconds earlier. I do think showing both points of view in a conflict can be effective in some films, but since Mustafa is such a boring character, it doesn't work at all here. And the parkour scenes are just laughable and feel like something out of a cheesy action film, not a gritty war drama.
Perhaps the most irritating thing was the way the film squeezes 9/11 into the plot. There's a scene where Chris and his wife are watching the news and see the 9/11 attacks on TV. This scene serves no purpose as Chris goes to war in Iraq, not Afghanistan. I've heard people defend the scene because it explains why Chris became a Navy Seal in the first place which makes me question if they were paying attention to the film. Chris joined the Navy Seals in 1999, not 2001, and the film shows that Chris Kyle joined the Seals in reaction to the 1998 United States Embassy Bombings in Tanzania and Kenya, so it made sense to show his reaction to those terrorist attacks. Showing 9/11 was just cheap. I've heard people accuse the film of trying to make it seem like the Iraq war was in response to 9/11 but I don't think it was intentional deceit. However, I do think the film used 9/11 as a cheap plot device to emotionally charge the audience which isn't much better.
Several people have criticized the film for not discussing America's reasons for being in Iraq (there's a really quick scene where Chris justifies it), but that wasn't an issue for me. The Hurt Locker doesn't go into the politics of the Iraq war either. The difference is that The Hurt Locker made up for that with three really interesting characters and thrillingly staged tension throughout while American Sniper seemed stuck in mediocrity.
Other small issues are present throughout which aren't huge problems on their own but feel like a lot when combined with everything else. We've got Kyle's brother who we learn joins the military (which seems to concern Chris initially) except it doesn't matter because the movie promptly drops his character who is never even mentioned again. There's a kill scene that's done in ridiculously cheesy slow motion. I'm generally not a big fan of slow motion but it can work if done effectively (it worked in The Hurt Locker). It didn't work here. There's also an unintentionally hilarious scene where the wife of a terrorist Chris Kyle shot claims he was carrying a Koran. Chris Kyle responds by saying (paraphrased) "I don't know what a Koran looks like but that was a gun." I get that there aren't a lot of Muslims in Texas but you don't have to ever see a Koran to know that it's a book...and he should know what books look like. Why couldn't he have just said "That man wasn't carrying a Koran. That was a gun." It would send the same message without making Chris sound like an idiot.
Besides that, Sienna Miller (the only other actor in the film with more than 10 minutes of screentime) doesn't have a lot to do, but she does decent enough as Chris Kyle's wife. I thought the PTSD portrayal was also solid, particularly a scene involving a dog, but the PTSD scenes are such a small portion of the film and it felt simplified by the end.
As for the ending, well I wasn't a fan of it. I won't explain it for those who don't know the actual story (though I imagine most people do at this point). I'm guessing Eastwood and co. thought it would be exploitative to show what could have been the film's climatic scene, but I feel it would have been a lot less exploitative than showing 9/11, because at least the unseen climax has to do with the main plot. I'll admit this is entirely subjective and some would feel that my ideal ending would be exploitative, but to me resorting to captions to explain the rest of the film is a cop out. In contrast, Foxcatcher (a film which also features Sienna Miller as a wife who gets upset on the phone) does show the climax and has a far more memorable ending in my opinion. I can respect the film's decision to end it how they did, but I don't agree with it.
Unless a film is aggressively bad, I never tell people to not see a movie because I'm always eager to hear someone else's thoughts, whether they be similar or different to mine. So if you wanna see American Sniper, go ahead and see it. I didn't care for it, but 73% of critics saw something in it that I didn't. To me, it lacked the emotional resonance of Eastwood's excellent war films, Flags of Our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima, but it could've been worse.
Rating: 2/5
The fake baby did give a good performance though
With the exception of the fake baby, American Sniper is a well done film. At 84 years old, Clint Eastwood is still an excellent director. The action scenes are very well shot and the acting is good. Bradley Cooper just received his 3rd Oscar nomination in a row for this film and while I personally wouldn't have nominated him (I wanted Jake Gyllenhaal to be nominated for Nightcrawler), I won't deny the fact that he continues to prove himself as a very strong actor who can do both comedy and drama effectively. His performance carries the film. His Texan accent is surprisingly believable which is a relief because a bad Texan accent can veer into unintentional hilarity and there are a couple nice subtle moments in particular when his acting stands out (particularly a scene set in a bar). I also liked the way his version of Chris Kyle did not embrace his legendary status, and seemed uncomfortable with people cheering him on for kills. Unfortunately, my praise mostly ends there. The film has so many story issues that really bring it down. It's hard to know where to begin.
Bradley Cooper in American Sniper
The one thing that surprised me was that I figured the sheep were either Iraqi or American civilians, but they're actually U.S. Marines. I'm not a Marine and I don't have any Marine family members but I feel like this movie would upset Marines. Most of the film seems to involve Chris Kyle, the Navy Seal, protecting the Marines who seemingly can't do anything themselves. This gets especially ridiculous when Chris literally abandons his sniper post (which is apparently allowed because he doesn't get in trouble for it) to help teach the marines how to properly raid a house, because Chris Kyle, the Navy Seal, even has to do the Marines' jobs for them.
Then there's the character of Mustafa, a Syrian sniper and arguably the main antagonist of the film. Mustafa is not a completely fictional creation as he's mentioned in a single paragraph in Chris Kyle's book as a rumor, but I still feel his character served no purpose. He has no lines and no physical presence so he's not an interesting antagonist. He literally serves as a parallel to Chris Kyle, the evil Chris Kyle, I guess you could say and those parallels sure do get heavyhanded at one point. Having scenes from Mustafa's viewpoint honestly really took me out of it. The Hurt Locker was so effective to me because we saw things only from the soldiers' point of view. The insurgents were mysterious figures in the shadows so we were just as in the dark as the main characters were. By including Mustafa's viewpoint, there's no shock for the viewer when a U.S. soldier is killed by an enemy sniper because we literally just saw the sniper's scope seconds earlier. I do think showing both points of view in a conflict can be effective in some films, but since Mustafa is such a boring character, it doesn't work at all here. And the parkour scenes are just laughable and feel like something out of a cheesy action film, not a gritty war drama.
Sammy Sheik's one-note performance as Mustafa
Perhaps the most irritating thing was the way the film squeezes 9/11 into the plot. There's a scene where Chris and his wife are watching the news and see the 9/11 attacks on TV. This scene serves no purpose as Chris goes to war in Iraq, not Afghanistan. I've heard people defend the scene because it explains why Chris became a Navy Seal in the first place which makes me question if they were paying attention to the film. Chris joined the Navy Seals in 1999, not 2001, and the film shows that Chris Kyle joined the Seals in reaction to the 1998 United States Embassy Bombings in Tanzania and Kenya, so it made sense to show his reaction to those terrorist attacks. Showing 9/11 was just cheap. I've heard people accuse the film of trying to make it seem like the Iraq war was in response to 9/11 but I don't think it was intentional deceit. However, I do think the film used 9/11 as a cheap plot device to emotionally charge the audience which isn't much better.
Several people have criticized the film for not discussing America's reasons for being in Iraq (there's a really quick scene where Chris justifies it), but that wasn't an issue for me. The Hurt Locker doesn't go into the politics of the Iraq war either. The difference is that The Hurt Locker made up for that with three really interesting characters and thrillingly staged tension throughout while American Sniper seemed stuck in mediocrity.
Other small issues are present throughout which aren't huge problems on their own but feel like a lot when combined with everything else. We've got Kyle's brother who we learn joins the military (which seems to concern Chris initially) except it doesn't matter because the movie promptly drops his character who is never even mentioned again. There's a kill scene that's done in ridiculously cheesy slow motion. I'm generally not a big fan of slow motion but it can work if done effectively (it worked in The Hurt Locker). It didn't work here. There's also an unintentionally hilarious scene where the wife of a terrorist Chris Kyle shot claims he was carrying a Koran. Chris Kyle responds by saying (paraphrased) "I don't know what a Koran looks like but that was a gun." I get that there aren't a lot of Muslims in Texas but you don't have to ever see a Koran to know that it's a book...and he should know what books look like. Why couldn't he have just said "That man wasn't carrying a Koran. That was a gun." It would send the same message without making Chris sound like an idiot.
Besides that, Sienna Miller (the only other actor in the film with more than 10 minutes of screentime) doesn't have a lot to do, but she does decent enough as Chris Kyle's wife. I thought the PTSD portrayal was also solid, particularly a scene involving a dog, but the PTSD scenes are such a small portion of the film and it felt simplified by the end.
Sienna Miller in American Sniper
As for the ending, well I wasn't a fan of it. I won't explain it for those who don't know the actual story (though I imagine most people do at this point). I'm guessing Eastwood and co. thought it would be exploitative to show what could have been the film's climatic scene, but I feel it would have been a lot less exploitative than showing 9/11, because at least the unseen climax has to do with the main plot. I'll admit this is entirely subjective and some would feel that my ideal ending would be exploitative, but to me resorting to captions to explain the rest of the film is a cop out. In contrast, Foxcatcher (a film which also features Sienna Miller as a wife who gets upset on the phone) does show the climax and has a far more memorable ending in my opinion. I can respect the film's decision to end it how they did, but I don't agree with it.
Unless a film is aggressively bad, I never tell people to not see a movie because I'm always eager to hear someone else's thoughts, whether they be similar or different to mine. So if you wanna see American Sniper, go ahead and see it. I didn't care for it, but 73% of critics saw something in it that I didn't. To me, it lacked the emotional resonance of Eastwood's excellent war films, Flags of Our Fathers and Letters from Iwo Jima, but it could've been worse.
Rating: 2/5
Friday, January 30, 2015
The best movies of 2014
I don't know how to make top 10 lists like normal people so I just made a top 30 list instead. I can't decide if I liked Nymphomaniac or not so I just left it off. I also have not seen Selma, American Sniper, Unbroken, Fury or Still Alice.
I didn't like Enemy as much as Prisoners, maybe the spider imagery was a bit much, and I wouldn't call it Jake Gyllenhaal's best work (see below) but I was certainly intrigued throughout, I liked how the story moved at a fast pace, and Jake gave 2 strong performances. Oh and I know it won't please everyone but I thought the ending was pretty awesome.
29. Palo Alto
Palo Alto is built out of familiar parts but it still manages to feel fresh somehow. Maybe it's due to Emma Roberts giving another excellent performance (same with Jack Kilmer and Nat Wolff), maybe it's Gia Coppola's assured direction, maybe I just related to it. But there's something about the movie that definitely hooked me in.
Palo Alto is built out of familiar parts but it still manages to feel fresh somehow. Maybe it's due to Emma Roberts giving another excellent performance (same with Jack Kilmer and Nat Wolff), maybe it's Gia Coppola's assured direction, maybe I just related to it. But there's something about the movie that definitely hooked me in.
28. 22 Jump Street
I thought it sometimes got a bit too meta actually, but still a really funny film that never tries to be anything more than a fun summer comedy which is absolutely fine.
I thought it sometimes got a bit too meta actually, but still a really funny film that never tries to be anything more than a fun summer comedy which is absolutely fine.
27. Snowpiercer
Snowpiercer's train car metaphors may be a bit too obvious but with its fluid and violent action scenes that don't rely on flashy effects, I didn't really care. It's an exciting movie and doesn't feel like it's holding anything back.
Snowpiercer's train car metaphors may be a bit too obvious but with its fluid and violent action scenes that don't rely on flashy effects, I didn't really care. It's an exciting movie and doesn't feel like it's holding anything back.
26. X-Men: Days of Future Past
The time travel logic might not make sense if you think about it, but I was having too much fun to think about it. Days of Future Past shows the X-men franchise at its finest. Still featuring great effects without resorting to the Man of Steel route of destroying EVERYTHING in sight, it also has the fantastic performances we've come to love but refreshingly has Hugh Jackman let some of the other actors take center stage this time.
25. Inherent Vice
I'm tempted to put this higher on the list. Inherent Vice is hard to rank because it's not really like anything else and thus is hard to properly compare to other movies. The plot is very, very confusing but the characters are well written and funny and Paul Thomas Anderson does a good job at immersing you into the film's universe. It does lack the emotional resonance of PTA's best work but it's still a really fun movie and features what could be Josh Brolin's best performance to date.
I'm tempted to put this higher on the list. Inherent Vice is hard to rank because it's not really like anything else and thus is hard to properly compare to other movies. The plot is very, very confusing but the characters are well written and funny and Paul Thomas Anderson does a good job at immersing you into the film's universe. It does lack the emotional resonance of PTA's best work but it's still a really fun movie and features what could be Josh Brolin's best performance to date.
24. Obvious Child
It's a film I would never recommend to anyone who's pro-life but I thought it was really well-written, entertaining, and refreshingly straightforward. Jenny Slate did an amazing job and I hope we can see her in more lead roles.
It's a film I would never recommend to anyone who's pro-life but I thought it was really well-written, entertaining, and refreshingly straightforward. Jenny Slate did an amazing job and I hope we can see her in more lead roles.
23. Guardians of the Galaxy
Maybe it would be higher on the list for some people. I guess I didn't think it completely redefined action movies or anything, but it did have a talking raccoon with a gun killing people with a giant tree and that's all that really matters.
22. Edge of Tomorrow
The ending still doesn't make sense to me, but Edge of Tomorrow was so much fun throughout that I almost feel like it should be higher on the list. Tom Cruise proves that he can still do awesome action movies, Emily Blunt proves that she's more badass than Tom Cruise, and Bill Paxton has an accent from Kentucky. It doesn't get more fun than that. I was also shocked by how funny the film was. I'm glad the movie didn't take itself too seriously.
21. Interstellar
I feel like Interstellar was sometimes a bit too ambitious for its own good, but I still gotta appreciate it for being so ambitious. It's not Christopher Nolan's best film but the emotional resonance reminds me why he's such a good filmmaker.
20. The Drop
The plot might have a few too many questions left unanswered but it's actually kind of nice that the film doesn't spell everything out to the audience. The Drop also reminded me why Tom Hardy is such an amazing actor and also features a wonderful sendoff for the late great James Gandolfini, playing a character very different from Tony Soprano. It also deserves points for having one of the cutest dogs in film history.
I feel like Interstellar was sometimes a bit too ambitious for its own good, but I still gotta appreciate it for being so ambitious. It's not Christopher Nolan's best film but the emotional resonance reminds me why he's such a good filmmaker.
The plot might have a few too many questions left unanswered but it's actually kind of nice that the film doesn't spell everything out to the audience. The Drop also reminded me why Tom Hardy is such an amazing actor and also features a wonderful sendoff for the late great James Gandolfini, playing a character very different from Tony Soprano. It also deserves points for having one of the cutest dogs in film history.
19. A Most Wanted Man
It was a bit uncomfortable watching this film as its Phillip Seymour Hoffman's final leading role, but I'm glad that he went out on a high note. I don't mind a fast paced spy action blockbuster, but it's nice to see an old fashioned slow burn spy thriller with lots of moral ambiguities. The ending definitely sticks with you.
18. We Are the Best
Telling the story of three Swedish girls who form a Punk Rock band, We Are The Best manages to be nostalgic, sweet, and funny with an excellent soundtrack and great acting.
Telling the story of three Swedish girls who form a Punk Rock band, We Are The Best manages to be nostalgic, sweet, and funny with an excellent soundtrack and great acting.
17. The Theory of Everything
It follows a pretty standard biopic format and probably doesn't focus enough on Stephen Hawking's work, but the film features two excellent performances from Eddie Redmayne and Felicity Jones who fully embody their characters and make you care for them.
16. The Lego Movie
There's nothing to say that hasn't been said. It's simply refreshing to see a film so consistently funny from beginning to end, even if I have mixed feelings about how the plot develops in the final 10 minutes. Definitely snubbed by the Oscars.
15. Calvary
Calvary reminds me once again that Brendan Gleeson is one of the best actors working today. Directed by John Michael McDonagh, this film is much darker than his previous film, The Guard, but just as compelling. It tackles a lot of weighty themes and features one of the most powerful endings of the year.
Calvary reminds me once again that Brendan Gleeson is one of the best actors working today. Directed by John Michael McDonagh, this film is much darker than his previous film, The Guard, but just as compelling. It tackles a lot of weighty themes and features one of the most powerful endings of the year.
14. The Raid 2
The Raid 2 quickly separates itself from the first film due to its lack of...raids. But I appreciated that the movie wasn't just a rehash of the first film and manages to stand on its own 2 feet. In fact, I think it's better than the first one. It's not a groundbreaking story, but it's interesting enough to hold my attention for its 150 minute running time and features some of the most suspenseful and exciting action scenes I've ever seen.
The Raid 2 quickly separates itself from the first film due to its lack of...raids. But I appreciated that the movie wasn't just a rehash of the first film and manages to stand on its own 2 feet. In fact, I think it's better than the first one. It's not a groundbreaking story, but it's interesting enough to hold my attention for its 150 minute running time and features some of the most suspenseful and exciting action scenes I've ever seen.
13. Captain America: The Winter Soldier
Everyone likes talking about Guardians of the Galaxy but it's Captain America: The Winter Soldier that's really stuck with me. It's filled with amazing action setpieces, doesn't overwhelm the audience with CGI, and features a lot of thought provoking political commentary without hammering the audience over the head with it. A perfect blockbuster in my opinion.
12. Frank
On the surface, Frank seems like a silly comedy but with Michael Fassbender as the title character, it shouldn't surprise anyone that it's so much more than just that. Fassbender continues to prove his versatility as an actor and the film manages to deal with some darker themes without resorting to off putting tonal shifts. And you gotta love the music.
On the surface, Frank seems like a silly comedy but with Michael Fassbender as the title character, it shouldn't surprise anyone that it's so much more than just that. Fassbender continues to prove his versatility as an actor and the film manages to deal with some darker themes without resorting to off putting tonal shifts. And you gotta love the music.
11. Wild
Wild features what is easily Reese Witherspoon's best performance since she won an Oscar 9 years ago for Walk the Line. Unlike Walk The Line, this film 100% belongs to Witherspoon and nobody else. She dominates every frame and allows us to root for Cheryl Strayed while not ignoring her flaws.
Wild features what is easily Reese Witherspoon's best performance since she won an Oscar 9 years ago for Walk the Line. Unlike Walk The Line, this film 100% belongs to Witherspoon and nobody else. She dominates every frame and allows us to root for Cheryl Strayed while not ignoring her flaws.
10. The Imitation Game
It was a bit hard to know what to think about The Imitation Game going into it. There's a very powerful (and angering) story to be told, but do we really need to see Benedict Cumberbatch play another eccentric and anti-social genius? But the film makes the most out of its emotional story, balancing Alan Turing's achievements and personal life quite well and allows Alan Turing to be wonderfully multi-faceted and not just Sherlock in WWII. Cumberbatch gave what could be his best performance to date, but I'm sure there will be plenty more strong work to come.
9. Blue Ruin
In spite of being funded on a Kickstarter, Blue Ruin's low budget never really showed. A non-flashy, straight to the point (deconstruction of) revenge film(s), Blue Ruin also features a wonderful and quiet performance from its lead actor Macon Blair and some of the most intense and suspenseful set pieces of the year, all grounded in a sense of reality.
8. Locke
Locke is a film about Tom Hardy in a car for 84 minutes talking to various people on the phone and it didn't bore me for a second. Tom Hardy continues to prove himself as one of the finest actors today with what could be his best performance to date. More than just that, it's a film with complex moral dilemmas that will stress out the viewer as much as the title character.
7. The Grand Budapest Hotel
I'm a big Wes Anderson fan and I think The Grand Budapest Hotel is his best film to date and it's a pleasant surprise to see the film get the love it's gotten from the Academy, especially when you consider how non Oscar baity it is. I had no idea Ralph Fiennes could be so funny. I always knew he was a great actor but I didn't think he had THAT much range. The directorial style and art direction make it obvious that it's a Wes Anderson film and there's nothing wrong with that in my opinion. Like his past work, it's a beauty to look it, very funny, and filled with wonderful ideas.
6. Nightcrawler
SNUBBED! I've said it before and I'll say it again. Jake Gyllenhaal was snubbed by the Oscars. In my mind, the competition for Best Actor should be between Michael Keaton and Jake Gyllenhaal. Instead it's between Michael Keaton and Eddie Redmayne and Gyllenhaal wasn't even nominated. A scene involving Gyllenhaal's character screaming at a mirror is highlighted in the trailers but his performance really shines due to the subtle moments, the scenes where his character Lou just doesn't seem to "get" basic morality. Besides Jake's great performance, there's the strong work from Rene Russo and Riz Ahmed and the film's brilliant commentary on both the media and the economy. A promising directorial debut from Dan Gilroy.
5. Boyhood
You might just know Boyhood as that movie that was filmed over 12 years with that whiny teenager, but it felt like so much more than that. I guess I loved it because it drew me in so easily. I cared about Mason, I cared about his mother and father (played wonderfully by Patricia Arquette and Ethan Hawke), and I loved revisiting the early years of the 21st century. I loved the way it was straightforward and simple though I understand why that wouldn't appeal to some people. But I loved seeing this honest portrayal of growing up with no big moral messages or judgments to make. I guess I have a soft spot for something that feels so relatable and real.
4. Birdman
You might just know Birdman as that movie where Michael Keaton plays a character with similarities to himself or as that movie that appears to all be done in a single take, but like Boyhood, it felt like so much more than just the gimmicks on the surface. First off, Keaton's performance is absolutely terrific but so is everyone: Edward Norton, Emma Stone, Naomi Watts, Amy Ryan, Zack Galifinakis. It deftly switches between comedy and drama, has an amazing score, beautiful cinematography and tons of 3-dimensional characters. What's not to like?
3. Whiplash
In my review I described Whiplash as one of the most stressful films I've ever seen. It effortlessly puts you into the shoes of its protagonist and you feel like you're experiencing everything he is. Featuring two outstanding performances from Miles Teller and J.K. Simmons, Whiplash asks a lot of tough questions but trusts the audience enough to let them come to their own conclusions. Everyone involved with this film should have a bright future ahead of them.
2. Foxcatcher
Foxcatcher was supposed to came out last year before being unexpectedly delayed a day after the first teaser came out. As a fan of Bennett Miller and being fascinated by the film's true story, it soon became my most hyped film of 2014. While I've heard other people share their complaints, it's been called slow, pointless, silly etc., I just can't say I feel the same way. I thought Foxcatcher was brilliant in every way. Not a second felt wasted. Carell was wonderfully creepy, Channing Tatum deserved far more Oscar buzz, and Mark Ruffalo shows the beauty of subtle acting. From it's quiet opening to heated finale, Foxcatcher had my eyes glued to the screen and I'd rewatch it in an instant.
1. Gone Girl
David Fincher is my favorite contemporary director and Fight Club is my #1 favorite movie of all time so I hope I'm not too biased when I call Gone Girl my favorite movie of the year, but it's my favorite movie of the year. Ben Affleck gives his best performance to date and it's a crime that he didn't get any Oscar buzz. But the film belongs to Rosamund Pike. Her performance as Amy is one of the greatest performances in film history. This is by far one of the most fascinating films I've ever seen. More than just a dark stylish thriller, it's the story of a marriage. It deals with assumptions, deceit, the media, and gender roles and at 149 minutes, the film never drags. Like all of Fincher's films, it's beautifully shot and has an amazing score that gets your blood pumping. It's also a crime that Gillian Flynn (who also wrote the novel) didn't get a Best Adapted Screenplay nomination at the Oscars, because if there was any justice in the world, she would win. Destined to be controversial, Gone Girl is a film with so much more than on the surface and after nearly 4 months, I still haven't stopped thinking about it.
So yeah, that's my list. tl;dr
30. Enemy
29. Palo Alto
28. 22 Jump Street
27. Snowpiercer
26. X-men: Days of Future Past
25. Inherent Vice
24. Obvious Child
23. Guardians of the Galaxy
22. Edge of Tomorrow
21. Interstellar
20. The Drop
19. A Most Wanted Man
18. We Are the Best
17. The Theory of Everything
16. The Lego Movie
15. Calvary
14. The Raid 2
13. Captain America: The Winter Soldier
12. Frank
11. Wild
10. The Imitation Game
9. Blue Ruin
8. Locke
7. The Grand Budapest Hotel
6. Nightcrawler
5. Boyhood
4. Birdman
3. Whiplash
2. Foxcatcher
1. Gone Girl
So yeah, that's my list. tl;dr
30. Enemy
29. Palo Alto
28. 22 Jump Street
27. Snowpiercer
26. X-men: Days of Future Past
25. Inherent Vice
24. Obvious Child
23. Guardians of the Galaxy
22. Edge of Tomorrow
21. Interstellar
20. The Drop
19. A Most Wanted Man
18. We Are the Best
17. The Theory of Everything
16. The Lego Movie
15. Calvary
14. The Raid 2
13. Captain America: The Winter Soldier
12. Frank
11. Wild
10. The Imitation Game
9. Blue Ruin
8. Locke
7. The Grand Budapest Hotel
6. Nightcrawler
5. Boyhood
4. Birdman
3. Whiplash
2. Foxcatcher
1. Gone Girl
Monday, January 19, 2015
Whiplash review
Damien Chazelle's sophomore effort Whiplash is by far one of the most stressful and uncomfortable films I've ever seen. The easiest comparison to make is that it's Full Metal Jacket in the world of Jazz musicians but the film is truly its own unique film. While Full Metal Jacket allows the audience to laugh at Gunnery Sergeant Hartman as he hurls hilarious insults at his military recruits, Whiplash creates unease as insults are hurled at our main protagonist. It's also one of the best films of the year, succeeding on basically all fronts with its exceptional acting, directing, editing, and music.
Whiplash stars Miles Teller as Andrew Neiman, a 19 year old Jazz drummer who aspires to be "one of the greats" and attends Shaffer, a prestigious music college in New York City. He finds himself under the "mentorship" of Terence Fletcher (J.K. Simmons), the conductor of Shaffer's Jazz Orchestra. However, this is no ordinary music school as Fletcher has no issue with manipulating and abusing his students which he justifies as pushing them beyond their limits.
The performances are basically driven by Teller and Simmons as all of the other characters basically serve only as foils. Teller appears in nearly every frame and absolutely delivers, proving he can play far more than just confident frat-boys. The physical acting is especially impressive as Teller allows his stress and anxiety to translate to the audience. While it has been a strong year for leading actors, it's too bad that Miles Teller didn't get more Oscar buzz.
J.K. Simmons can be easily compared to R. Lee Ermey's performance in Full Metal Jacket, except it's better. It was a legitimately frightening performance filled with rage that never felt over the top. But the best scenes might be the scenes where he puts on a friendly persona, making his true colors all the more confusing to the audience and allows him to be more than just an angry caricature.
Perhaps Whiplash simply resonated with me so much because I can relate to Neiman, at least in some ways. I'm no Jazz musician, but I am a 19 year old College freshman who likes to dream big and would love to be "one of the greats". The film definitely caused me to examine my own situation and wonder what it would take and if it would be worth it.
That's why Whiplash is such a compelling film. It's far more complex than just a story about a kid who wants to be a Jazz drummer and practices a lot. It asks thought provoking questions like "How far is too far?" and "At what cost is being one of the greats?" Fletcher dishes out more than just tough love as he has no problem with hurling not only insults at his students' music abilities but uncomfortably personal territory about the students themselves. In Fletcher's mind, there are no limits, but is that really true?
The ending feels a bit abrupt and certainly left me yearning for me but that just goes to show how I was never bored for even a second while watching this film. Whiplash is a film with intensity that never lets up from the first yelling scene. It's by far one of the most immersive films I've ever seen. It's the kind of film that makes your heart beat faster. It's easily one of the best films of the year and I can't wait to see what Damien Chazelle brings us next.
5/5
By Alex Bauman
Whiplash stars Miles Teller as Andrew Neiman, a 19 year old Jazz drummer who aspires to be "one of the greats" and attends Shaffer, a prestigious music college in New York City. He finds himself under the "mentorship" of Terence Fletcher (J.K. Simmons), the conductor of Shaffer's Jazz Orchestra. However, this is no ordinary music school as Fletcher has no issue with manipulating and abusing his students which he justifies as pushing them beyond their limits.
Miles Teller in Whiplash
The performances are basically driven by Teller and Simmons as all of the other characters basically serve only as foils. Teller appears in nearly every frame and absolutely delivers, proving he can play far more than just confident frat-boys. The physical acting is especially impressive as Teller allows his stress and anxiety to translate to the audience. While it has been a strong year for leading actors, it's too bad that Miles Teller didn't get more Oscar buzz.
J.K. Simmons in Whiplash
J.K. Simmons can be easily compared to R. Lee Ermey's performance in Full Metal Jacket, except it's better. It was a legitimately frightening performance filled with rage that never felt over the top. But the best scenes might be the scenes where he puts on a friendly persona, making his true colors all the more confusing to the audience and allows him to be more than just an angry caricature.
Perhaps Whiplash simply resonated with me so much because I can relate to Neiman, at least in some ways. I'm no Jazz musician, but I am a 19 year old College freshman who likes to dream big and would love to be "one of the greats". The film definitely caused me to examine my own situation and wonder what it would take and if it would be worth it.
That's why Whiplash is such a compelling film. It's far more complex than just a story about a kid who wants to be a Jazz drummer and practices a lot. It asks thought provoking questions like "How far is too far?" and "At what cost is being one of the greats?" Fletcher dishes out more than just tough love as he has no problem with hurling not only insults at his students' music abilities but uncomfortably personal territory about the students themselves. In Fletcher's mind, there are no limits, but is that really true?
The ending feels a bit abrupt and certainly left me yearning for me but that just goes to show how I was never bored for even a second while watching this film. Whiplash is a film with intensity that never lets up from the first yelling scene. It's by far one of the most immersive films I've ever seen. It's the kind of film that makes your heart beat faster. It's easily one of the best films of the year and I can't wait to see what Damien Chazelle brings us next.
5/5
By Alex Bauman
Thursday, January 15, 2015
So how were the Oscar nominations?
Bleh.
Let's get right down to it.
.jpg)
Let's get right down to it.
Best Actor
Steve Carell- Foxcatcher
Bradley Cooper- American Sniper
Benedict Cumberbatch- The Imitation Game
Michael Keaton- Birdman
Eddie Redmayne- The Theory of Everything.
Jake Gyllenhaal didn't get an Oscar nomination for his tour de force performance in Nightcrawler, despite it being the best performance of his career. Instead Bradley Cooper got in for American Sniper. I should have known that Eastwood making his first (allegedly) non mediocre film in years would have benefits. I guess I just question if we truly needed a Chris Kyle movie in the first place, since he was kind of an asshole, but I should probably see the movie before judging. I still think Gyllenhaal should have been a contender for WINNING. Hell, you can even keep Cooper and move Carell to Supporting actor if that's how it's gotta be, but there's no excuse for not nominating Jake! Hell, you could even replace Bradley Cooper with Ralph Fiennes for Grand Budapest Hotel. But seriously, I'm going to overhype Gyllenhaal's performance right now. It ranks up their with Robert De Niro in Taxi Driver. That's right! Taxi Driver. It's one of the greatest performances of all time and no Oscar snub is going to change that. Now do yourself a favor and see Jake Gyllenhaal in Nightcrawler. He's never given such a commanding performance.
Jake Gyllenhaal snubbed for Nightcrawler
Bradley Cooper squeezing his way in for American Sniper
Best Actress
Marion Cotillard- Two Days, One Night
Felicity Jones- The Theory of Everything
Julianne Moore- Still Alice
Rosamund Pike- Gone Girl
Reese Witherspoon- Wild
Marion Cotillard in Two Days, One Night
This was surprising but I'm okay with this. I haven't seen Two Days, One Night yet but I love Marion Cotillard and everyone who's seen it was hoping against hope that she was nominated. I knew Aniston was in danger but I figured Amy Adams would be the replacement. I hope the awards hype will encourage Jennifer Aniston to do more serious roles (like The Good Girl) even though she didn't get in. But all that really matters is that my gone girl (get it, hahahahah) Rosamund Pike got in. We love you, Amazing Amy. If you haven't seen Gone Girl, go see it now and you'll understand how amazing Rosamund Pike truly is.
Rosamund Pike: the face of perfection
Best Supporting Actor
Robert Duvall- The Judge
Ethan Hawke- Boyhood
Edward Norton- Birdman
Mark Ruffalo- Foxcatcher
J.K. Simmons- Whiplash
Robert Duvall, the filler slot
Well, it's the exact same thing as SAG and the Golden Globes. Only Duvall's nomination was in the air since it was a film that nobody liked and nobody saw. But he somehow made it in regardless. Though it's not a surprise, it's nice seeing Ethan Hawke get his first acting nomination in 13 years and Edward Norton's first in 16 years. And I'm glad Mark Ruffalo continues to get more recognition. I would have been happy seeing Josh Brolin getting in instead of Duvall or Steve Carell getting a supporting nomination for Foxcatcher instead of leading (making room for Jake Gyllenhaal or Ralph Fiennes). But deserved or not, I suppose it's nice that Robert Duvall is getting what could very well be his final nomination since he's 84 now. I just question how deserved it really is.
Josh Brolin's underrated performance in Inherent Vice
Best Supporting Actress
Patricia Arquette- Boyhood
Laura Dern- Wild
Keira Knightley- The Imitation Game
Emma Stone- Birdman
Meryl Streep- Into the Woods
So in news that surprises no one, Meryl Streep gets her 19th Oscar nomination but as a fun fact, this is only her 4th time being nominated in the Best Supporting Actress category, so that's something.
Rene Russo in Nightcrawler
In news that is surprising, Laura Dern got nominated for Wild over Jessica Chastain for A Most Violent Year and Rene Russo in Nightcrawler. My love for Nightcrawler had me pulling for Rene Russo who hasn't had a performance this good in years and at 60 years old, would have gotten her first Oscar nomination.. I mean Laura Dern was pretty good so I'm not upset over this but I would have preferred Russo.
Best Picture
American Sniper
Birdman
Boyhood
Grand Budapest Hotel
The Imitation Game
Selma
The Theory of Everything
Whiplash
Whiplash's poster, highlighting the critical acclaim
So the Academy did 8 instead of 9 this year, huh? Alright then. I understand the reason for making it between 5 and 10, that way filler nominees don't get in, but I almost wish it would just be 10. I'd be totally fine with seeing films like Gone Girl, Foxcatcher and Nightcrawler get Best Picture nominations if it meant a few not quite as deserving films had to be nominated alongside them.
By the way, it's quite a surprise that none of those three got in. I at least thought Foxcatcher got a shot since it got a directing nom (see below). Selma's nod is strange since it only got one other nomination (for best original song). And American Sniper got in which isn't really a surprise anymore since it suddenly built up momentum in the last couple of weeks. But Whiplash got nominated so that's pretty awesome. For a time, I thought it was only going to get away with a Best Supporting Actor nod but it got 5 nominations.
A lot of articles are STILL mentioning how Unbroken got snubbed even though it stopped being a contender the second it got a 50% rating on Rotten Tomatoes. Come on, it's over. Go home.
Nightcrawler's poster, also highlighting the critical acclaim
Best Director
Wes Anderson- The Grand Budapest Hotel
Alejandro González Iñárritu- Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance)
Richard Linklater- Boyhood
Bennett Miller- Foxcatcher
Morten Tyldum- The Imitation Game
Well this was weird. Bennett Miller got a nomination but his film wasn't nominated for Best Picture. While that's happened before, it's never happened since the best picture nominee number got increased. It's too bad since Miller was so close to being the first director to have his first 3 films nominated for best picture. Still, I'm happy he got in, since I figured Ava Duvernay or Clint Eastwood would take that fifth slot.
Wes Anderson got his first directing nomination for a very non-Oscar baity film so that's awesome. Tyldum got nominated for The Imitation Game which is cool but I would have preferred seeing David Fincher get nominated for his amazing work in Gone Girl or even Dan Gilroy for Nightcrawler (not that he was ever a contender).
Best Original Screenplay
Birdman
Boyhood
Foxcatcher
Grand Budapest Hotel
Nightcrawler
No real surprises here but I'm glad Nightcrawler was included.
Best Adapted Screenplay
American Sniper
The Imitation Game
Inherent Vice
The Theory of Everything
Whiplash
Inherent Vice getting in over Gone Girl was surprising, a film I personally would have picked to win the Oscar. But it's cool that Paul Thomas Anderson gets his 6th Oscar nomination. I just can't believe Gone Girl didn't get in. I would have replaced ANY of those films for Gone Girl.
Best Original Score
The Grand Budapest Hotel- Alexandre Desplat
The Imitation Game- Alexadre Desplat
Interstellar- Hans Zimmer
Mr. Turner- Gary Yershon
The Theory of Everything- Johann Johannsson
Hey, where the hell is Gone Girl? To the Academy's credit, Trent Reznor and Atticus Ross won for The Social Network but then they weren't even nominated for their equally strong score in The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo and now they've been snubbed for Gone Girl. Just listen to it.
But on the positive side, Mr. Turner's score got nominated which shows how a movie with very little Oscar buzz can still have it's technical merits recognized by the Academy.
Oh and The Lego Movie wasn't even nominated for Best Animated Feature. What's up with that???
So yeah, these weren't too bad, I guess. Actually in a lot of ways, they were pretty good, but the Nightcrawler and Gone Girl snubs are enough to make me really upset. Some might say that award shows are stupid and don't matter and they're kinda right but I still disagree. Award shows bring attention to great movies. I doubt I would have seen A Better Life if its lead actor Demian Bichir didn't get a surprise Oscar nomination, but I'm really happy I did. Many more people will probably see Two Days, One Night now. If Nightcrawler got more recognition, like a Best Actor nomination, I'm certain it would have gotten a lot more attention to make up for its not very impressive box office performance. So that's why I'm upset. The award itself is nice and all but it's the power the award has that matters. So regardless of its number of oscar nominations, go see Nightcrawler and Gone Girl. Just do it.
So yeah, these weren't too bad, I guess. Actually in a lot of ways, they were pretty good, but the Nightcrawler and Gone Girl snubs are enough to make me really upset. Some might say that award shows are stupid and don't matter and they're kinda right but I still disagree. Award shows bring attention to great movies. I doubt I would have seen A Better Life if its lead actor Demian Bichir didn't get a surprise Oscar nomination, but I'm really happy I did. Many more people will probably see Two Days, One Night now. If Nightcrawler got more recognition, like a Best Actor nomination, I'm certain it would have gotten a lot more attention to make up for its not very impressive box office performance. So that's why I'm upset. The award itself is nice and all but it's the power the award has that matters. So regardless of its number of oscar nominations, go see Nightcrawler and Gone Girl. Just do it.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)