Change Your Image
bibeaultj
Ratings
Most Recently Rated
Reviews
A Girl Like Her (2015)
Important, but Melodramatic and Slightly Out of Touch
As a High School student, I have heard about how amazing and profound this film is through social media and word of mouth; of course, being a teenager with an interest in the art of film making, I often disagree with my peers in regards to the quality of a film, but the concept of this caught my eye and I felt it warranted a viewing. Plus, bullying is a serious issue that many films seem to overlook - nobody ever wants to talk about it - so I'm willing to support any film that explores its complexities. I saw how well it could be done in the documentary "Bully."
I half understand the praise that this film has received, but the other half of me simply cannot comprehend it. If I focus my eye on the good of this film, a few things come to mind: the acting is overall competent (if a bit cartoony - I'm referring to the performance by the Bully when she's an actual bully - I can't really imagine anyone being so blatant and over the top in real life), I like the decision to humanize the bully and let her tell her side of the story (but I acknowledge the cliché's of her background - privileged girl with overbearing parents and overall ostensibly happy home life), and I think the message is important (I know I'm undermining all of these aforementioned "praises," but even the good has a lot to criticize. Simply put, the message is ham-fisted and relies too much on emotional manipulation to prove its point.)
What we get here is a movie that never seems to hit the pause button on its soundtrack: emotionally charged pieces pulse in the background of "dramatic" scenes in an attempt to elevate the emotion. Combined with the editing and emotionally manipulative structure of the scenes, the movie ends up feeling melodramatic and cliché. This is not a spoiler, but towards the end of the film there is a montage of all the characters crying set to a somber pop song; throughout this whole sequence I was cringing, not due to the emotion, but due to the fact that it was so cliché and forced that I simply couldn't watch: it was eerily similar to other manipulative movies I have seen in the past that I needed no reminding of.
The structure of the movie is something I also take issue with. The idea of a "found-footage" or "mockumentary" film has always been appealing to me, but it can easily be done poorly and this is no exception; when you attempt to make something look realistic, all it does is accentuate everything about the film that is unrealistic, and this is no exception. Why does her supposed bully censor her swears when bullying her through text and social media? No person I know does that, especially teens. Why doesn't the victim (I'm sorry about these labels - I can't remember their names, I think the bullied is Jess) simply share this cyber-bullying with the school instead of wearing a portable camera? I'll take she's afraid as an answer, but what's stopping her best friend from doing it? It's obvious that they're close friends and he doesn't want to see her hurt. Why is her best friend allowed to walk around the school with a camera recording most of the time? It's not like any of his footage adds anything to the plot we didn't already know, and just makes everything more convoluted, so even if I did suspend my disbelief it would be completely pointless regardless. Finally, why would this bully devote her entire existence to making this girls life miserable all because she didn't let her cheat on a test? Seems like a complete overreaction, and if they were friends formerly (as the film states), wouldn't the bully understand the scenario and listen to her friends reasoning? It's these little story flaws combined with the mockumentary structure that work to the film's detriment.
Now, I'm stepping into controversial ground. While bullying still remains a potent issue across the states, this film seems to be out of touch with the kind of bullying that occurs in our schools. This is just from my perspective - I like to keep a low profile in school, so perhaps I am the one who's out of touch - but with the communication revolution sparked by social media and smartphones, I rarely see physical bullying (bumping people in the hallways, pushing them, knocking their books onto the ground) ever. In fact, I've never seen this kind of bullying. I've seen people send nasty messages to people through social media, I've heard people spout verbal insults to each other, but even then this film exaggerates it to the maximum degree. I don't think anybody in my school spends their time sending nasty emails day in and day out to their nemesis, nor do I think they spam their Facebook wall with censored insults. And if people do, I'd like to think my peers have the common sense to block the number and/or the person giving them grief on social media. Overall point being: this film is not entirely reflective of the bullying that occurs (at least in my school) in our modern age. Bullying has taken a more psychological turn - and while this film reflects this - it fails to reflect the ways that bullying has become more avoidable and tolerable, and it seems to undermine the intelligence of the teens that are victims of this abuse.
Important? Yes. Good? Not particularly.
Annie Hall (1977)
Contender For Worst Best Picture
Annie Hall, directed, written, and starring Woody Allen, begins as a witty, likable, and hilarious film that had me in tears during a few scenes. However, as the film grows on, it develops a certain tedium, and eventually becomes a redundant and repetitive film with an annoying lead performance.
Woody Allen starts off as a brilliantly written character, with tons of neurotic quirks that make him unique. Jewish jokes aside, his comedic performance was very charismatic. However, an hour into the film, I found myself annoyed by the sound of his voice, and the frequency he would complained about the most mundane of things. This is where the shift into tedium begins, because this whole time I was wishing the film would end so I would no longer have to hear him talking. The same here goes for Diane Keaton, who I loved at first, but I eventually grew annoyed with as time went on. And their insistence on being annoying could've been intentional, there's no denying that, but that doesn't make it any less annoying, and it doesn't stop Woody Allen from type- casting himself in his own movie.
One thing I can certainly compliment is the exquisite direction. I've always been a huge fan of long takes, making the feeling of the film more intimate, and this film features tons of those. There is a brilliant shot where, Woody and his friend are walking down the street, and we here them talking, but they're not yet in frame or just out of frame. As the shot and conversation continues, we see two individuals come down the street casually, and eventually we see this is Allen and his friend. The shot then continues and follows them where they're walking. It's brilliant, and in some scenes it even heightens the comedic value, especially in the scene when they're waiting in the line at the movie's with the film snob talking pretentiously behind them.
There's no doubt here that the writing here is also very well done, until the third act, because in typical comedy fashion, it brings in the dramatic plot that you don't care about,and drops nearly all of the jokes, making it even more tedious than it already was. But nonetheless, there's lots of hilarious chemistry between Keaton and Allen, especially in the lobster scene, which I found to be one of the most genuinely written in the film. The characters talk quickly too, so reading the Oscar-winning screenplay is only that much better for helping you catch all of the jokes you might have missed.
This film's winning of the Best Picture Oscar however emphasizes it's rather OK quality. Make no mistake, this is a well directed, well acted, and well written film until the third act comes in. But it's that third act that simply makes the movie OK. A bad ending is certainly worse than a bad beginning, because an audience member is more akin to remember a movie finishing bad, then starting good, and vice versa. This is a bit of a generic romcom the more I think about it, with a few artistic quirks. It's certainly not the worst Best Picture, that honor goes to either Driving Miss Daisy or Shakespeare in Love, but nonetheless, this is your typical overrated classic which people praise but don't watch.I recommend it to someone who's an Oscar completionist or somebody who just wants a quick laugh with an artistic edge, but anybody else, especially people who aren't already fans of Woody Allen, should stray away from this.
Mad Max: Fury Road (2015)
Excellent.
Wow. As a fan of the original Mad Max trilogy, this film nearly delivered on all fronts. The tone is dark, but the film never takes itself too seriously, and has an insane sense of self-awareness. Some of the concepts are so insane, outlandish, and stylish you can't help but laugh and enjoy the ride.
The visuals are utterly unforgettable, creating some of the most memorable images that I have ever seen in a film. In addition to the beautiful desert landscape, like I previously mentioned, the film takes it's ideas and multiplies them to the nth degree. Some of the smaller scenes, that have barely any significance to the story, I remember because of the smallest visual detail that is presented in them, even if that scene in the long run, really holds no significance and is never mentioned again.
Tom Hardy is great in the role of Max, keeping the mysteriousness and the likability of the protagonist in full force. What's fantastic about Max too is that, his past is never revealed in a exposition like scenario, rather it is told cleverly through visuals, a display that director George Miller respects the intelligence of the audience and doesn't want to spell everything out for them. Charlize Theron however, absolutely stole the show. Her acting is excellent- perfectly conveying her character and the emotions that are being dealt with. Some scenes she was in actually had me in near tears, her performance was so good. The exposition of her, unlike Max, is conveyed through dialog, but it doesn't feel forced. We don't get some long monologue from her about her past, rather it feels like a casual mention. It expertly tells us about her while keeping just the right amount of exposition left out, allowing us to connect the dots with other pieces of dialog or other visual details that reveal more about her. Simply put, she might be one of the best leading female protagonists put to the screen in a while.
The characters are always given time to develop, even the smallest of characters. The film has the perfect blend of action and character driven moments, allowing the audience to take a breather every now and then and just soak in the characters of this world. I forgot to mention, the action is amazing. Because the film has the perfect plot that pretty much lends itself to action, it never stops moving, and gains so much kinetic energy you wonder if it'll ever stop. And sometimes, that can be a negative. Too much action at once can leave the viewer restless, but thankfully this doesn't become much of an issue until the end. It helps that in the action scenes, you can actually see whats going on, and the film doesn't over utilize shaky cam.
I was really surprised by how much substance the narrative and the characters had, dealing much with themes of redemption and attempting to rid of a dark past. This is an action movie that isn't only a popcorn movie, this is likely something that you can analyze and find hidden meanings in. Because of this, people who are more into the artistic side of film (like myself) will enjoy it as well.
This is the best film released all year and the best summer movie since the likes of Inception. Actually, in many aspects it might be better than Inception. It very well be the best action film so far this decade, and that is no exaggeration.
God's Not Dead (2014)
"God's Not Dead" Deserves to Die
Normally I start my reviews with a brief summary of the story, the actors, the director, the writers, etc. But since this film has no regard for anything but its own agenda, I will give this movie no regard for a fair review. This might just be the worst movie I've ever seen next to "Spy Kids 4-D" and "Master of Disguise."
Watching this movie is like squirting lemon juice in your eye while periodically stabbing them with needles. Listening to this movie is like having a fly buzzing inside your ear while someone is simultaneously scratching their nails on a chalkboard. The movie is a Sloppy Joe that is overfilled with melodrama to the point of bursting. Every time you are meant to feel something, the movie queues the sappy music, or the inspirational music, or the happy music. In many ways, this is actually the Christian version of "Crash" without any of the good qualities Crash had.
Actually, more comparisons to Crash can be made. The film follows a series of irrelevant characters that pop in and out of the movie and leave with no closure. Some of the stories actually feel very irrelevant until the ending...say, kind of like Crash! Moments between the intersecting characters are so melodramatic, so forced, and so poorly done that you'll be flailing your arms in an endless rage. The actors are all competent melodrama artists, giving exaggerated performances to the infinite degree. Mind you, they're not bad, but there's no subtlety in the acting, you don't feel the kinks and cracks of the characters, all emotions are full frontal. Also, why are the guys from Duck Dynasty here? Or one of the guys, rather. The only purpose he serves is so the viewer can go "Oh, I saw that guy on Duck Dynasty, and he believes in God! Therefore God must exist!"
This film is disgusting. And I'm not saying that because I'm an atheist. As a Christian, I'd be furious too. Spoiler alert for those who actually care.
The professor in the film gets hit by a car and dies. However, before he dies, he is given faith in the lord by a passing minister, priest, pastor? (I have no idea, I didn't pay that much attention, do you blame me?) Is this film saying that you need to die or have a near death experience to find God? Absolutely absurd! Also, the professor makes the claim that people who have traumatic experiences turn to God for help, yet he had a traumatic experience and that made him in atheist! It's completely contradictory and the movie's "argument" (It's not an argument, there is no argument presented, it's irrefutable. The movie wants you to believe God is a cold, hard, fact. collapses in on itself. In addition to pulling all of the tricks, the movie also has the nerve to insult great scientists like Charles Darwin and Stephen Hawking by saying they don't have a right to their beliefs, and by trying to argue their statements against them.
Now you're probably wondering why this "movie" isn't getting a 1 from me. And it definitely deserves it. However, as a critic, I believe there is always some good to every movie, no matter how bad it is, and no matter how terrible its agenda is. I know I said I wasn't going for a fair review here, but there is a quality of the movie I actually, personally liked. And well, the direction is actually pretty good. There's some nice shots in there and it captures the locations well. But other than that, there's nothing. Not a single thing.
Also, the movie ruined Macbeth-my favorite Shakespearean play-by having the professor quote it, so thanks for that.
American Sniper (2014)
A Tedious Slog
I'm not going to talk about my political views on the Iraq war-or war in general in this review. This is a review of the movie itself. However, I will say that this is pure American military propaganda and shouldn't be seen by anyone who has the slightest anti-war sentiment.
By the way, this review has extremely minor spoilers (can spoilers for a biopic really be considered spoilers?)
American Sniper is directed by Clint Eastwood and is based on the autobiography by soldier Chris Kyle of the same name. It features Bradley Cooper as the soldier during his time in the Iraq war. It also details his experience as a child and shows how he first met his wife, played by Sienna Miller. During his time period in the war, he also has to make many difficult situations in which he is forced to make a quick decision. These scenes would be intense, however they're incredibly overdone. There were more POV shots of him looking down his scope than I can count on my right hand. But we'll get into that later.
Bradley Cooper is functional as Kyle. He doesn't give an amazing performance, not one that you haven't seen in other similar war films anyway, but it's gripping enough to the point where it pretty much becomes the best part of the movie. His wife is good, although I found her to be a bit over the top in a few scenes, and his fellow soldiers do good jobs of playing soldiers, despite not remembering any of them.
One of the biggest issues with this movie is the direction. Clint Eastwood, an 84 year old man at this point, continues to become more lax with his films. It isn't directed with any passion at all like his other films like Million Dollar Baby or Mystic River. It seems like he's trying to set a world record for most reused shots in a single movie. Like I said earlier, there are so many shots looking through the sniper scope, and then cutting to the finger itching on the trigger. The action scenes aren't poorly filmed, but they do a poor job of building tension. It just seems like Eastwood put a camera on top of a building and told people to run while shooting guns.
The story becomes pure tedium. It follows a structure that is: Kyle goes to war, returns home, goes to war, returns home. His wife is portrayed as a stereotypical naggy wife who keeps telling him not to go back. She even threatens one time that if he goes again she probably won't stay, yet he goes anyway, and of course she stays with him. So what was even the point? When he finally returns home for good, his experience with PTSD is completely overlooked and is wrapped up in about 10 minutes. I know I said I wasn't going to talk about the propaganda in this movie but this is a moment that can't be missed. It basically says "Oh, go to war and one session of therapy and you'll be fine in no time!" when really it takes months upon months to get over the horrors of war. I guess while I'm on the topic it should be mentioned that throughout the whole movie Kyle is portrayed as a hero, which isn't true to fact at all, and is really frightening, especially since this is a man who's idolized for killing over 100 people and being extraordinarily racist.
Something I've noticed with more and more biopics lately is how they never show the death of their subject, it's told to the audience through text. Despite not being a fan of Kyle in real life or his portrayal in the movie, raw, emotional power can certainly be drawn from the death of the movies subject, yet the movie doesn't show it. It's just as perplexing as not showing Turner's suicide in "The Imitation Game" but that's another story.
The dialog in this movie is functional. The editing, sound mixing, even the score, are pretty functional. None of them really stick out, which is an extremely big issue, since there are so many war movies nowadays. It does nothing to distinguish itself.
The one word that can describe "American Sniper" is lazy. Every aspect of it, with the exception of the performances, seems extremely dry and passionless. It feels like Eastwood looked at the finished product and said "Eh, good enough!" If it wasn't for the propaganda, I'd give this a 6/10, but it can't be ignored that this movie idolizes it's "hero" and the military, which is why I give it a 5/10. A good central performance can't save this lazy effort from Eastwood. Maybe it's time for him to retire.
Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) (2014)
A Fantastic Film That Covers a Broad Spectrum of Ideas
Birdman is directed by Alejandro González Iñárritu (most known for the excellent "Amores Perros") and stars Michael Keaton as Riggan, a washed up actor who used to play a superhero (Birdman) and wants to be taken seriously, which leads him to write a play for Broadway. In the midst of this, he is struggling to have a relationship with his daughter Sam (played by Emma Stone), and is forced to deal with an extremely demanding and overall hard to work with lead actor named Mike, who is wonderfully portrayed by Edward Norton.
As the title states, the film isn't just about the making of this Broadway play. It's about blockbuster movies, a superhero obsessed culture, it's about pretentious film critics, and struggling to bond with your family. It's about struggling to find purpose in your life. This film is a lot more complicated than a plot synopsis would have it appear, and the film and it's messages, especially the ending, can be interpreted in thousands of ways.
Monologues are one of the first things that come to mind when I think about this film. Emma Stone delivers a seriously powerful one to Keaton, and Keaton delivers potentially the greatest monologue of all time (slight exaggeration, but one of the greatest) to a film critic. These monologues are a true testament to the ability of these actors and actresses. Like I mentioned earlier, Norton portrays the character of Mike extraordinarily well, in fact it might even be his best performance next to Fight Club. Keaton is amazing, much worthy of his Golden Globe win and his Oscar nomination, and Emma Stone is great, as always. It impresses me that these characters were able to remember their lines with such long takes. Speaking of which...
For those of you who don't know, the whole film, besides the beginning and close to the end, is designed to look like one take. You can spot some places where they most likely used editing tricks to make it look like one take when really it was just a transition into another take, but other than that, the film is completely seamless. The one take cinematography makes you feel like you're actually there with the actors, tagging along with them for the ride. "Rope" from Hitchcock pioneered this style, but Birdman nearly perfects it. This is truly a remarkable achievement in cinematography, directing, and editing.
The writing is fantastic in addition to all of this. With perfect comedic timing, excellent (previously mentioned) monologues, and just really good banter between the characters, the films kinetic directing perfectly matches the the energy of the writing.
The single flaw I have with this movie is the drum based soundtrack. It feels very out of place, and doesn't have the same energy the rest of the film has. It kills some moments, but this is a very small price to pay for the scenes when it's not playing, which are just incredible.
With wonderful performances by it's excellent cast, a great comedic tone that blends perfectly with the drama, and some excellent direction, cinematography, and editing, this is a film that perfectly displays a mastering of the craft. The drum based score might be a bit "meh" but it's a small price to pay for this profound experience. Go see it. One of the greatest films of 2014.
Selma (2014)
One of the Most Powerful Films I've Seen This Year
Selma (directed by Ava DuVernay and written by Paul Webb) features Martin Luther King Jr. (played by David Oyelowo) leading a civil rights march in Selma because he is tired of African Americans being denied the right to vote. On top of this, he and his wife Coretta Scott King (played by Carmen Ejogo) are having marriage issues. All of these things combined results in an intense, emotional, and masterful film that stands as one of the most important biopics of the year and arguably ever made.
Must I talk about David Oyelowo's portrayal of Dr. King? For an actor who I'd never heard of until seeing him play a principal for 5 seconds in Interstellar, and for the guy who played the unmemorable Doctor in Rise of the Planet of the Apes, he gives the best performance of the year. David is not playing Dr. King, he IS Doctor King. He talks like him, acts like him, looks like him, sounds like him, has his haircut like him, etc. I felt like I was legitimately watching Dr. King on screen. Some of the scenes that are extremely emotionally intense, I'd always pay attention to David's expressions, and in every one of them he'd be at the top of his craft. Unfortunately, David's performance is so spectacular that moments he isn't on screen results in the film slowing down. In fact, I feel that if the performance of Dr. King wasn't as compelling as it was, I'd be giving this film a 7 or an 8. Without David carrying the film, it would simply be an above average civil rights movie, in my humble opinion.
Lets forget about the acting and story for a second and appreciate the technical aspects of this film. Ava DuVernay is not a director I'm familiar with, in fact I've seen none of her movies. But seeing this one, I feel compelled to check them out. This movie is wonderfully shot and directed. Some cinematography is absolutely stunning and the film does a great job at depicting the time period. When moments are intense, the camera is intense. When it's time for a rousing speech by the Doctor, the camera is rousing. It's perfectly directed for the most part, besides a few scenes where a character is killed or beaten and the camera goes slow-mo for a straight minute holding onto the slow motion shot. I get its meant to give the audience time to grieve and be shocked, but it would've been more effective if the scene went by quickly. Also, the soundtrack of the film ranges from inspirational to downright intense, and scenes with the soundtrack playing are just as emotional as scenes without it playing.
The writing in this film, especially the dialog between Dr. King and his wife, and Dr. King in some of his civil rights buddies, is excellent. I think the best however is the speeches and monologues given by Doctor King. With the writing being delivered passionately by David, some scenes had me completely engaged with chills up my spine. It's extraordinary.
I've seen a lot of reviews of this film critiquing the fact that it is not entirely "historically accurate." However, I must ask the same reviewers if they like Braveheart, and if the answer is yes, why don't they critique that film fore being historically inaccurate? Yes, the film may be inaccurate, but people have to realize that historical pics are only trying to convey the message of what was going on in the time period, they're not trying to recreate word for word what actually happened in that time period. Plus, some thematic elements need to be added. If I wanted to learn about the Civil Rights march in a short amount of time by watching something, I'd watch the history channel. This is meant to be a film depicting the rampant racism and violence that the African American people had to deal with, not a PBS special on Dr. King.
Overall, this is a film that I will be picking up on bluray. Featuring a masterful performance from David Oyelowo, and a strong supporting cast, in addition to the brilliant writing and direction, this is a must see biopic. However, I can't say it'd be amazing without the inclusion of David (and it shows with scenes that don't include him, which slows the film down as a result), which is why I have to give this film a 9. Go see it.
The Room (2003)
"Oh hi Mark!"
After reading the book "The Disaster Artist" by this films one and only Greg Sestero, I felt extremely compelled to write a review for this tour de force of "so bad it's good" cinema.
The plot of the film is that a man named Johnny (played by Tommy Wiseau) has a "future wife" named Lisa (played by Juliette Daniel) who is having an affair with Johnny's best friend Mark (played by the previously mentioned Greg Sestero.) Also, there's this creepy kid named Denny (Phillip Haldiman)who hangs out with them and likes to watch them have sex. This kid doesn't have much relevance to the plot, in fact most scenes he is in make no sense at all, such as a drug dealer scene where he's held up before Tommy and Mark come to his rescue. This scene is never mentioned again.
I have been a fan of "The Room" for nearly a year, and within this time I have seen it about 5 or 6 times. Every time I watch it, I notice something new. Whether it be about Tommy's acting, or about how during Tommy's freak out a picture he knocks down leans on the camera, I always find something new to laugh about. This is the film that saves me from having to find a good comedy at social events. The Room is always acceptable to watch at parties, as anyone can find it funny.
The Room is one of those movies that you have to see to believe. Tommy Wiseau is one of the strangest actors ever. Not one of his pieces of dialog is pronounced correctly, not one of his lines is said in unbroken English. But he says these ridiculous lines with such confidence and passion you can't help but laugh. Some other moments are really funny too, for example a scene where Lisa's mom (played by Carolyn Minnot) admits to having breast cancer and has no reaction to it at all, and neither does her daughter. Also, it's never mentioned again.
That's a common theme right there. Most scenes in the Room are just pointless and serve nothing for the central plot. Even when there's a "tense" argument between Johnny and Lisa, they tell each other that they love each other and not to worry about it. Plus, the flower shop scene. My god, the Flower Shop scene. I implore you to watch the Flower Shop scene and not at least chuckle. Again, something you have to see to believe. The main characters also throw a football around in tuxedos, and afterwords Tommy and Greg sit in a coffee shop and Tommy makes the most abrupt change of subject ever that is never mentioned again. All of these scenes add nothing to the plot, but what you don't want to do is watch the film for the plot. You watch it for the hilarity.
You can't talk about the film without mentioning the painfully long sex scenes that are an assault on all of the senses in the human body. They have the most cheesy music and cinematography that feels like its straight out of a 1984 VHS porn tape. But in a strange way- they're extremely hilarious. Two of the things I just mentioned, the score and the cinematography, are two of the things that add to the movie. The cinematography is completely strange, switching from HD film to 35mm film at random. The score is so soaked with melodrama that you can almost feel it dripping down your neck. Again, these things only elevate the hilarity of some scenes, especially the ones that have "dramatic" music to Johnny doing to worst chicken impression ever conceived.
Going off the technical aspects, the green screen of San Francisco during the roof top scenes is so bad it'll make you cringe. It is the worst green screen I have ever seen, but guess what? It's hilarious.
"You're tearing me apart Lisa!" Is the most quoted and one of the most hilarious scenes in the film, next to the "I did not hit her, it's not true..." scene. In fact, the first time I watched these scenes I had to catch my breath and wipe my eyes because I was laughing so hard. That's a valid description of the film right there.
I can't find a way to properly conclude a review about one of the best worst movies ever made. It's a crazy movie-in short-but it'll change your life in ways you couldn't think imaginable. The Room gets a 1, which is to be expected, but in terms of hilarity it gets a 10. Seriously, take a break from all those Hollywood comedies and watch the Room. I'm sure you'll find it funnier than most of them anyway. I can't end this review without saying: "Ha ha ha, what a story Mark."
Requiem for a Dream (2000)
A Mixed Bag
Darren Aronofsky, who would go on to direct masterpieces like "Black Swan" directed this sophomore effort which is ultimately better than his debut film "Pi" but considerably less attractive than more of his recent efforts.
The plot of the film is quite simple, Jared Leto has a girlfriend played by Jennifer Connelly and a mother played by Ellyn Burstyn. He also has a friend played by the surprisingly good Marlon Wayans. Basically, each of the characters (including the mother) spiral into some sort of drug addiction, whether it be addiction to diet pills or heroine. This addiction causes them to end up in some very disturbing circumstances.
Let's start with the good.
1.The acting. Every actor gives it their all and the performances can be powerfully moving in the correct circumstances.Like I said, Marlon Wayans is probably the most surprising of the bunch, and this movie only gave me another reason to love Jared Leto. Burstyn is also quite good, although I'm not quite sure her performance was "Oscar worthy." Not to discredit her, it's hard to act when most of your lines consist of "my red dress."
2.The direction. It's a Aronofosky movie, it's going to look good. Every shot looks so well composed and some of the bleak images in the film have stuck with me for weeks.
3.The score. Despite only consisting of pretty much one song, this song literally fits every situation in the film and is just plain epic. This is the kind of song I would listen to YouTube on loop for hours on end.
4.The message. Anti-drug films are definitely hard to come by, since most movies that feature drugs are usually about partying. This film shows the darker side to drug use and how it can ruin somebodies life, or multiple peoples lives. It was a much needed message that films usually do not convey or do not convey properly. Ultimately however, I think the anti-drug message was much more well done and less preachy in "Trainspotting" but that's just me.
And now, the bad.
1.The plot. Why is this film so over the top? Somethings were just so melodramatic and insane that it was hard to get the full effect of the scene. Take for example the scene where Burstyn ends up in the hospital for taking to many diet pills. They stuff food into her mouth and force feed her. This took me out of the film because this would never happen in an actual situation like this, they would put an IV in her and give her the needed nutrients. Also, why did they use electric shock therapy on her? It didn't make any sense and "he was trying to convey a message" isn't an excuse. You can convey a message without making a film over the top.
2.The ending. Every character ends up in some negative situation that shows the effect of their drug abuse. This is supposed to be emotionally draining and leave the audience trembling in fear of the consequences of doing drugs. However, it was really hard to care about these characters as everything that led them to their positions was extremely over the top. It doesn't help that the characters aren't very memorable either, besides maybe Burstyn.
3.The message. I know I said this was a positive, but the message is a bit of a double edge sword. The film gets a bit to preachy with it's anti drug message, especially towards the end, and I think the message gets lost in all the melodrama that happens along the way.
4.The dialog. I can't remember a single line from this film. Usually I'm able to quote whole scenes from a movie after I finish it, but I just can't remember anything. The dialog isn't terrible but I don't think I would really call it realistic or pretentious. It's somewhere in that gray area.
"Requiem" is a good film. But it isn't spectacular and it didn't change my life or make me depressed for several weeks like some people may have you believe, and it's certainly not the best film of 2000 (that would go to Crouching Tiger, Hidden Dragon.) Overall, if you're just looking for a movie with some powerful performances, a great score and some exquisite direction, you'll find it here. Just don't expect too much from the films plot.