2017: My Year in Movies

Watched: 1st January

When I saw the tag line and brief synopsis I was immediately hooked. I adore when filmmakers attempt something daring and innovative, especially when the film form has significant meaning to the plot and context. In this case, the perpetual motion of the camera emulating the constant momentum of the criminals' lives; the one long take encapsulating the real time action, not allowing the characters or audience to take a breath or make a cup of tea, and exhibiting the pace at which things can get out of control.

The acting was fantastic and the dialogue felt genuine and natural. The incorrect grammar and syntax spoken by the non-English speakers was authentic rather than coming across as dialogue written by a fluent English speaker. However there were moments where I couldn’t quite believe the reaction of Victoria. Where the guys, who can be assumed to be reasonably experienced criminals, seemed tense and even scared, Victoria seemed to remain oddly calm and composed. There are times in the film where she shows amazing emotion so when the character merely blinks at the “real gangster”, it doesn’t sit right.

While I appreciate the difficulty in coordination of capturing an entire film including two nightclub scenes, two car rides, an intense shootout, and spanning across multiple buildings, there were moments of jolty camera movement, awkward mise-en-scène and poor lighting. Generally the film made great use of practical and natural lighting – and it could also be said that if the characters we’re following are shrouded in darkness, why should the audience be able to see – but there were moments where the shot was too dark and difficult to follow. Overall the film executed the craft very well and the film makers should held in high regard for the ambition.

Watched: 2nd January

Usually I avoid rom-coms as the plots tend to follow similar superficial patterns and the production is usually simplistic enough for me to find it boring. However I gave Drinking Buddies a chance as I was intrigued by the so-called “mumblecore” film movement, under which this film falls. Most of the time I find Jake Johnson funny though he does tend – especially in New Girl – to resort to shouting and jokingly-aggressive disposition to carry a joke through. However I feel like he played the character well and was consistent and enjoyable to watch throughout the movie. Olivia Wilde and Ron Livingston also played interesting character with good lines and humour and emotion. Anna Kendrick was Anna Kendrick and not much else.

While the character relations were evolving and amusing, I felt some emotional beats were forced and moments within scenes didn’t feel totally realistic. Overall, the film lacked subtlety and it was clear from the outset of each scene every character’s intentions, feelings and relations to one another. The flirting between Jake and Olivia was all too obvious and over-played. That said, the final act provided some well-acted scenes and subverted the happy-ending expecting. I felt the film ended naturally and realistically but still hopeful for each of the characters.

The “mumblecore” form – being the reason I put on this film in the first place – provided some elements of authenticity to the dialogue, sets and mise-en-scene. Learning that the film was entirely improvised makes the acting seem in retrospect all the more impressive. The film also made good use of practical and natural lighting.

Watched: 4th January

Spike Lee delivers an impressive performance he also wrote, produced and directed. Featuring a big cast of over-the-top yet likeable characters played by an ensemble of great actors, the film presents an enjoyable look into the life of working class Brooklyn. Though some acting felt exaggerated and campy, I felt it fit with the colourful music, clothes and attitudes of African-Americans. The film was very well written with quick and characterised dialogue and great dynamics between the characters.

The cinematography was quite unique with the use Dutch angles and looks directly into the lens. The dynamic camera work in one way broke the tension and didn't carry the film's message across in much weight. Not to say this is the wrong way to portray meaning, it just meant that scenes featuring the racial tensions between characters always felt more comedic than dramatic.

The climax of the film felt slightly forced, the destruction of Sal's Pizzeria didn't make total sense following a number of scenes in which characters expressed their affection for the store. I understand that it was the brutal strangling of Radio Raheem that spurred the riot but it might have made more sense if there had been a different catalyst to the rampage, or a different target. This gripe aside, the finale featured great performances and it was powerful nonetheless

Watched: 5th January

I only chose to watch this film so that I could watch YourMovieSuck's deconstruction of how bad it is. And it is pretty bad. When your entire plot is "three kids get stuck on a chair lift", your film probably isn't going to go far. The film starts with superficial, poorly written dialogue and some pretty subpar performances. Then far too many conveniences occur to get them stuck there with no help or way down. They pad out the run time with attempts at humorous dialogue and character development. But not much of either can happen when they're just stuck in a chair lift.

Once the attempts to escape begin, I have to admit I became tense. That's mainly due to the fact I scare easily. But I have given an extra point to the film for managing to make me cringe at the broken legs (as bad as the previous scene was) and then again at Iceman's sliced hands, and once more when the girl peels her hand off the rail. But why the hell did she have her hand there in the first place.

I don't feel like spending too much more time on this film. It's a fun idea but it belongs to a short film and indie horror festivals.

Watched: 5th January

This film was a fun and quick look into the indie horror comedy. It was enjoyable to watch how Tarantino and Rodriguez, long-time friends, interact with one another - as well as with other cast and crew. The director also provided welcomed glimpses into the lives of perhaps some of the more over-looked roles such as electrician or catering assistant. Kelly films and presents the documentary with wit, pace and honesty.

The documentary's main problem with the film is that it lacks on overall direction or cohesiveness. The inclusion of the spat with IATSE provides the earnest truth of the difficulties of independent filmmaking. And though it was interesting to see the crew's reactions to the problem as well as the happy ending, I felt it broke the documentary in two: half about the union and half about the actual making of the film. While both halves are equally as important, they didn't fit together in the way it was presented.

This aside, the documentary roused in me what it should in any budding filmmaker: the simultaneous fear and excitement of everything that comes with making a feature film. From dealing with personalities such as George Clooney, to managing a hungry crew working 18 hour days, to dust storms in the Mexico desert, it does not look an easy business.

Watched: 6th January

Usually war films are not my evening choice of entertainment but my housemate was putting it on so I sat and watched it with him. Trying to put my initial prodigious aside, I aimed to enjoy the film. However for the majority of it I found myself either bored or annoyed. To start with - and I know this is almost unavoidable when making an English language film set in a foreign country - but it's difficult to see the events from a Russian perspective when the main cast have trained English accents. If we take it as it is, they could have at perhaps matched the social class of the characters to the accent performed. For example, Jude Law's character states several times that he is from a working class family. Then perhaps a similar English actor could have been cast. Which brings me to the next point. Every main character in this film is unnecessarily gorgeous and presented consistently well kept throughout the film, even though they are spending countless hours squatted in shelters.

I believe the film could have become an intense cat-and-mouse thriller between two expert snipers, set with the devastating context of a freezing war in Stalingrad. However this comes second to the unrealistic and forced relationship between Law and Rachel Weisz. Even in the most intense standoff between Law and Ed Harris (who played his part incredibly and was the best part of the film), the scene is only a setup for the two lovers to save one another. The affair seems to motivate every other plot point and character decision, being connected to the young boy who plays both sides, and upsetting Fiennes' character for reasons that aren't quite made clear.

Overall, the film shows some aspects of engaging action and emotion but let down by the unnecessary emphasis placed on the relationship over the war happening around them.

Watched: 7th January

Coming from watching (and loving) The Lobster, I was excited but understandably trepid to watch this film. It is difficult to watch a film with subtitles and not feel like you are missing out on subtle verbal cues and clever use of language. However the film was engaging enough that this never felt like a notable problem. The concept is simple yet engaging, and reveals information carefully and subtly throughout. Extremely little expository dialogue leaves honest character discourse - within the context of the characters, that is. Just like The Lobster, the majority of the dialogue is performed in a flat monotone that substantiates the film's black humour. The discussions are matter-of-fact and all characters speak as they mean to. The one exception would be the father speaking with his co-worker, where the conversation appears more normal, which helps to further disassociate the family from society.

The film takes an exaggerated look at how a family would evolve with extremely controlling and protective parents. While the content may seem extreme, nothing appears unlikely. The absurdist nature of the plot and events are grounded in stark realism. The violence is brutal, the sex scenes awkwardly physical, and the brief glimpses of emotion earnest. The film makes great use of white clothes and walls to perpetuate the innocence of the adult children and stripping the entire family of names presents each of the characters as objects rather than people. The climax of the film rose quickly but naturally, leaving the oldest daughter in the trunk of a perfectly ambiguous ending.

The colouring and lighting are consistently very attractive throughout the film. Making use of bright sunshine and flat colour schemes within the house, the visuals played well into the themes of control and subordination. The lack of music worked to draw every scene across a flat line and further punctuate the moments of violence or shock.

Watched: 8th January

I absolutely loved this film. Classic Jeunet produces a cast of wonderfully enjoyable characters, gorgeous visuals, fantastic set design, lovely music, and creative plot turns and gags. The characters are comical in nature yet the actors manage to carry out their performances with sophistication and sincerity. The characters are introduced in natural and comedic ways that serve the entertainment and the story. The dynamics between the characters are established well and from early in the film you understand the conditions.

One of the best aspects of the film is how it relays information. There is little to no gratuitous expository dialogue; everything is presented visually. The character relations are presented through their physical relation to one another. The humour is displayed through physical or situational means. The plot develops through a series of well established scenes making great use of set design, audio design, and creative camera work and editing.

The film lulls a bit after the opening act; the jokes wane a small bit and the plot becomes a little stuck. Once the film progresses into the third act, the pace picks up and the finale is fun and enjoyable. It does devolve somewhat into pantomime-esque physical humour and set pieces, but as the film had become progressively sillier and more more outlandish, the explosive climax kept in tune with the film's tone.

Watched: 10th January

I was disappointed with this film as a whole. Conceptually, I can see what the film was trying to achieve and there were definitely some interesting ideas and questions posed by the narrative. However, overall the structure was messy and convoluted, becoming a cluttered mix of an art-house satire (à la A Clockwork Orange) and an apocalyptic thriller (à la Mad Max). That's not to say a director can't cross over genres and themes but High-Rise unfortunately devolved into a series of non-sensical scenes that never formed into a consistent narrative.

The opening of the film showed promise and began establishing the central character and the setting well. I enjoyed Tom Hiddleston's performance and his character at the beginning was intriguing. But as the film progressed, the character became less and less important to the story; he became more of a bystander than a pivotal role in events. Wilder was the one that instigated the revolt and the spearheaded the assault on the upper floors. Hiddleston just seemed to wander between the scenes and floors but yet had no real impact on anything that happened. This means that when other characters refer to him as important or threaten to throw him off the building, I can only ask "why? He's done nothing of concern?"

The story itself evolved with not much rhyme or reason. Yes, I understand that the power failures and neglect of the bottom floors caused the unrest and the pool incident became the catalyst to the revolt, but the rampage and destruction escalated confusingly quickly and the building seemed to devolved into complete disarray before I could get a grasp on what was happening. This is when the film became a series of scenes rather than a story. Characters who are never properly established or developed feed expository dialogue in attempts to tie the scenes together. The third act and the architect's involvement made little sense so by the final scene I had disconnected and wasn't interested in the events unfolding before me.

If there are any positives, it would be some of the stunning visuals and a fun score. Hiddleston's and Iron's performances were very good but their characters lacked significant development or direction. Costume and set design were also quite attractive.

Watched: 13th January

I worried that this film would be concept over context; that the plot development would begin and end with "three thieves break into a blind man's home". But the film provided some welcomed surprises and overall, it was a well made film. I will begin by mentioning that some have lauded the film for its original story, yet "Wait Until Dark", a 1967 film starring Audrey Hepburn (based off a play written in 1966) features a very similar story; three thugs break into a blind woman's home searching for drugs. Don't Breathe also featured a lot of similarities to David Fincher's "Panic Room" from 2002, which was definitely a better film. So while this movie was interesting in its plot development, it certainly wasn't original.

The three central characters were pretty much cookie-cutter, low-budget-horror-film characters. Their personalities were shallow and fairly uninteresting. The blind man however became a surprisingly compelling character. His quiet but powerful demeanor made him a genuinely intimidating force. His dialogue that came later in the film was well delivered and while it felt a little forced into just one scene, it kept in tune with the man we saw throughout the film. I would have liked more development of the character throughout the film so that the final scenes had more impact.

I felt extremely tense for the majority of the film, which is of course how I should have felt. The long take at the beginning of the film was well choreographed but the "foreshadowing" of the objects to be used later in the film was extremely unsubtle. It also made some of the plot turns predictable as we were literally showed was going to be used in each scene. There were also moments in the film that seemed a little forced or coincidental; the blind man always seeming to be at the exact spot one of the main characters were. This said, there were a number of twists and beats that kept my heart beating and me wondering what would happen next.

Watched: 13th January

There are some films that become timeless; the themes, ideas and characters resonating throughout audiences for years to follow. This film was not one of those films. Overall, the film was enjoyable on a superficial level with some witty dialogue and some entertaining action. But it was hard to see past the Sergio Leone copy-and-pastes and the blatant and rampant sexism.

The film begins with almost an exist mirror of the opening of A Fistful of Dollars, it seemed as if Clint Eastwood didn't even change clothes since the finale of that trilogy. The character sets himself up in the town, killing three random men and raping the first female he sees. I understand that the film is establishing the character as a total hard-ass that doesn't can't be controlled, but in a film with elements of mystery and - as Eastwood put it - the supernatural, there must have been better ways to set up the film's conflicts.

The townsfolk and villains were all pretty much stereotypical Western characters, not really adding much to the story or creating any interesting dynamics. The plot itself had some genuinely interesting ideas and developments but unfortunately it was carried out through two-dimensional characters with non-existent motives. The finale, however, was well directed and entertaining to watch.

Watched: 14th January

Most of Hero had me in genuine awe. The action choreography, the cinematography, the set and costume design; it all came together in one of the most visually spectacular films I've ever seen. The acrobatic and fantastical martial arts sequences were so wonderfully and creatively choreographed that it made it impossible to look away. The choreography was brilliantly varied for each fighter to unsure unique and consistently entertaining combats throughout the film. The set design was used very well; incorporating rain, leaves, arrows or water in a blissful display of movement.

The set design itself, combined with the stunning costume design, made each scene stand out from the last. Colouring each scene and location not only made for beautiful imagery but helped to unify the scene, bringing characters, choreography, set and costumes all together in gorgeous synchronisation. The excellent cinematography enhanced the fantastic action and glorious visuals with sharp and fluid camerawork.

The story overall was engaging enough and provided some clever turns. The flashbacks within flashbacks and varying recollections made the plot confusing at times - perhaps not helped by reading the dialogue through subtitles - but in a film so visually incredible, the plot becomes less important.

Watched: 19th January

Ex Machina is a terrifically executed film featuring three outstanding performances.

Watched: 19th January

Watched: 23rd January

Watched: 3rd February

Watched: 4th February

Watched: 6th February

Watched: 6th February

Watched: 6th February

Watched: 8th February

Watched: 9th February

Watched: 9th February

Watched: 10th February

Watched: 10th February

Watched: 11th February

Watched: 13th February

Watched: 16th February

Watched: 17th February

Watched: 24th February

Watched: 25th February

Arrival was tense and breathtaking from start to finish. Denis Villeneuve proves he is one of the greatest modern directors working today with his fourth stellar film in succession (and hopefully his Blade Runner sequel will deliver later this year). Bradford Young's gorgeous cinematography and Johann Johannson's moving score converge in stunning harmony.

Villeneuve simultaneously subverts genre expectations and makes use them to deceive the audience and deliver information with impact. The film begins with a montage of Adams' daughter, growing as a child, getting sick and sadly dying. Being a common storytelling technique, we are left to believe she is a grieving and broken mother, disconnected from the world. But of course we later learn her child hasn't been born yet and we begin to question the character we were just following. The UFO and the aliens are presented in almost a classic sci-fi manner and we are constantly waiting for the inevitable moment when they get angry and attack. But this never happens, giving much more weight and significance to the film's actual climax.

The only problem I really had with this film was Amy Adams. I admittedly have only seen her in a small number of films, but I've never seen anything different from her. She plays characters with a straight-forward concentration, and while she remains a strong actor, I never see anything particularly interesting in her performances.

Arrival accomplishes with its third act what Interstellar didn't quite manage. In the latter, McConaughey discovers "love" was the defining force all along; it was humanity, not science. Where this unfortunately feels like a cop-out, Arrival's revelation has much greater effect as it changes everything we just watched, and everything that will come after.