redhotchilipieper Reviews

The Neon Demon (2016)

Refn is possessed by a demon that feasts on all that is trite and shiny

[2/10 · 24 June 2016]

As a viewer who has enjoyed a handful of Nicolas Winding Refn's works like Drive, Bronson, Valhalla Rising, and even Only God Forgives - which I defended wholeheartedly in a 2013 Amazon review - it pains me a little to kick off my review with the following statement: It is difficult to decide what I dislike most about Nicolas Winding Refn's The Neon Demon. Critics giving Demon positive reviews and arguing that its monomaniacal focus on style is intentionally on par with the film's message are missing the reality that NWR's creative juices are simply dried up at the moment.

So what is the least admirable trait of Refn's latest? Is it the paucity original thought? The onslaught of the routinely neon- drenched Kubrickian imagery? The fact that a good sixth of the movie feels like the director got away with making fetish porn with an Amazon Studios (and about a half dozen other production companies) budget? I'm not even going to start in on the film's literal blood baths, but I think that the lack of originality is probably the worst part.

Audiences have already seen everything that The Neon Demon has to offer. Cinematically speaking, there is nothing more than the usual slew of rehashed Kubrick frames (including a groan-worthy Shining shout out within the first few minutes). Aside from a memorable strobe- light inspired scene of a performance at a model- populated L. A. party, Refn adds nothing new to his aesthetic arsenal that he has not already splashed on the screen with his previous four films.

From a narrative standpoint, one should not expect a fully-formed, fleshed out story or characters. These are not Refn's preoccupations when making a movie, and there's nothing inherently wrong with that. That is, if the film's style and themes can compensate. Stylistically (see paragraph above), it does not hold any substantial weight. Unfortunately, there is even more of a thematic drought.

At one point in the film, the increasingly narcissistic protagonist Jesse (Elle Fanning) says that other girls will cut, carve, inject, and do anything else to their own bodies just so that they can look like a second- rate version of her. The girl from the small town who seemed so nice starts becoming a bit conceited by her time in the fashion industry. Can you believe it? Imagine that! Wow, what is the director trying to say about fashion? Hollywood? The male gaze? SOCIETY?

If there is one thing that 2106 films like The Neon Demon and Zoolander 2 should be teaching would-be blockbuster directors and art-house auteurs alike, it is that the fashion industry has become one of the stalest targets for satire in any artistic medium or genre. It's not that superficiality doesn't deserve it, but at this point if a writer or a director has nothing original to say about it, then they should not be saying anything all.

To be fair, the trite and shiny cloud of unoriginality that is The Neon Demon does have its silver linings. I have never felt so badly for a film score than I do for Cliff Martinez's excellent work on this soundtrack. While the message of the movie will blend in with the mental smoothie of other Hollywood/superficiality parable flicks, I will not easily be able to excise Martinez's thumping synths from my ears. I will also never forget the intensity of Abbey Lee's stares.

There are also less silvery scenes involving Jena Malone taking the tired psycho lesbian trope to whole new level and an absurdly Nicolas Cage-esque Keanu Reeves as an acrimonious motel manager that I will not forget for other reasons (primarily the random shock-less "shock value" senselessness of them). I wish I could recommend The Neon Demon as a startlingly original work from a gifted auteur, but it feels like Refn simply isn't challenging himself or the audience in any meaningful way. Here's hoping that this kind of trite and shiny would-be shock fest will not be the only thing that Refn has to offer cinema in the future.

Everybody Wants Some!! (2016)

Linklater embraces his inner weird in Everybody Wants Some!!

[8/10 · 10 April 2016]

95% of the time, I would have zero interest in seeing a movie about college baseball players reveling in alcohol and women. Luckily, Everybody Wants Some!! is more than a typical party movie: it's a party movie directed by hangout auteur Richard Linklater, who has already proved his ability to confound dubious review intro statistics and turn deceptively unambitious premises into quietly transcendent cinema.

Despite following (basically) the same blueprint as Linklater's 1993 70s shenanigan fest Dazed and Confused, Everybody Wants Some!! never feels derivative. This is largely in part due to Linklater's unparalleled ability to pepper in low-key philosophical musings into effortlessly natural settings. Linklater's latest would perhaps feel more thought-provoking if it wasn't following on the heels of his coming-of-age epic Boyhood, but in the unbridled fun department, Everybody Wants Some!! beats Boyhood by a landslide.

The film's exclamation point-riddled title begs the following pair of questions: (1) Is it truly worthy of two exclamation points? (2) Everybody wants some… but of what? Luckily, one is not required to ponder these questions to simply enjoy the experience of the movie, which does in fact warrant a tag team of exclamatory punctuation marks.

Within the film's first 15 minutes, a collegiate team of charismatic, booze-swilling athletes attempt to create a makeshift waterbed, nail an in-vehicle sing along to "Rapper's Delight", and engage in verbal jousting against a girl with a typewriter. "We have to meet them at their level!" suggests Finnegan (Glen Powell), the team's fountain of unsolicited wisdom, shortly before being bested.

Rest assured, the fun doesn't stop there. The intimate level of realism that allowed Boyhood to resonate with so many is on full display in Everybody Wants Some!! Regardless of their athleticism, Linklater makes his audience feel as if they are actually hanging out with these guys. Each scene so skillfully immerses us into gemlike moments of male bonding that we are made to feel like bona fide teammates.

We taste the sweat trickling over our lips as the team dances disco at the Sound Machine, feel the crunch of cracking peanut shells beneath our feet while they saunter across the littered floors of a Texas cowboy bar, and, for better or worse, we even tingle with the painful sting of a no holds barred round of knuckles between two particularly competitive teammates (Tanner Kalina & Austin Amelio).

Beyond physical sensations, the conversations between the guys are made to feel so real, that viewers inevitably will be reminded of the social rhythms of the real life conversations that they have had in the past, not to mention the real life emotions that accompanied them. Linklater embeds his audience in these moments to such a degree that even the oft-derided prospect of watching baseball (in this case, a preseason practice) is made to feel as taught as any thriller.

All fun aside, the second question remains. What exactly is it that everybody wants some of? The film's freshman protagonist Jake (Blake Jenner) wants to see the girl from Room 307 (Zoey Deutch) before classes start up in a matter of days, while his fellow freshman teammate Plummer (Temple Baker) just wants to find out what classes he should register for in the first place. Jake's roommate Billy (Will Brittain) wants respect from his team instead of getting called "Beuter Perkins" on account of his rural Texas accent and being further harassed for running up the phone bill contacting his back home girlfriend. Jay (Justin Street), one of Jake's upperclassmen teammates, wants fame; his intensity is apparent from the moment Jake notices him fervently squeezing a hand exerciser on the front porch. Jay even claims to be on the radar of pro team scouts due to his alleged 95 mph fast ball.

So what is the coveted some of Everybody Wants Some!!? Of course, the answers to such a vague quandary are endless, but by the end of Everybody Wants Some!! I wanted one or two more well- developed female characters (But then again, what do you expect in a movie about an 80s male baseball team?), downloads of every soundtrack cut not already on my iPod, and ultimately, to spend a few more days with a platoon of jocks that I previously believed I could never enjoy spending mere hours with.

Grade: A- Reviewed by Ben Pieper on April 10th, 2016

Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) (2014)

Birdman Soars

[10/10 · 29 December 2014]

Birdman (or the Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) has already received a flock of critical acclaim. With an impressive 93% on Rotten Tomatoes and a more than respectable 89 from Metacritic, it should be clear to readers that there is plenty to love about this movie. What will one more positive review going to do? Hopefully, it convinces readers to see one of 2014's finest films and one of the best of the 2010's (a decade that Birdman has a quite a few things to say about.) Director Alejandro González Iñárritu hatches a living, breathing masterwork that feels like nothing else I have experienced at the movies.

The story, although difficult to categorize, lands in the precariously placed nest of 'meta-film' – but in that case – it could just as easily land in the 'meta-theater' category. Obscure as those genres may be, Iñárritu's fifth feature throws in enough comedic banter, existential crises, spot-on satire, taught drama, and surreal suspense to mystify any film scholar attempting to successfully pigeonhole Birdman. Think back to the year's most critically successful film (Boyhood) and the year's most lucrative (Guardians of the Galaxy); while each of these films boast some substantial cinematic creativity, neither of them come close to the unclassifiable postmodern genre goulash that is Birdman. Iñárritu and his three co-writers (Nicolás Giacobone, Alexander Dinelaris & Armando Bo) have crafted a screenplay with a 'meta' feel that does not get off by winking at the audience the entire time.

In addition to its tantalizing cavalcade of genres, Birdman filters its action through an effective art-imitates-life lens aided largely by Michael Keaton's presence. As many critics have observed, Keaton's casting is perfect for the role of Riggan Thomson. Keaton, who played Batman in the two Tim Burton adaptations twenty years ago, has seen his career become somewhat deflated (although not entirely extinct) since donning the guise of the caped crusader. Similarly, Riggan, a Hollywood veteran who played Birdman twenty years ago, finds that his post-superhero acting career is in relatively dire straits. Introspective, insecure, and occasionally insane, the viewer encounters a Riggan who appears to have pulled it together just enough to stage a massive comeback by way of his Broadway adaptation of Raymond Carver's "What We Talk about When We Talk about Love." The film chronicles the backstage friction leading up to the play's previews and, of course, the premiere itself.

Within the first five minutes of the film, a myriad of problems arise that can potentially prevent Riggan's play from taking flight. As if Riggan's own perilous ego as the director, writer, and star of the play wasn't enough to worry about, the production must replace an originally slated actor with Mike Shiner (Edward Norton), a world class actor with world class pretensions. When Riggan isn't fighting with Mike over professional ideals, Riggan's alleged best friend and lawyer Jake (Zach Galifianakis) plagues him with reminders about the production's financial instability and impending lawsuit. This all goes without bringing up Riggan's tumultuous relationship with his daughter Sam (Emma Stone), a recovering druggie who Riggan has hired to be his assistant. Oh, and did I forget to mention the voice in Riggan's head incessantly bringing up his past failures?

With all of these factors in play, Birdman offers some of the year's richest characters and most original scenarios. Thanks to terrific writing and an all-around stellar cast, what could have been an ambitious mess becomes an ambitious masterpiece in Iñárritu's masterful hands. Keaton, Norton, and Stone deliver performances deserving of award recognition come Oscar time, but the acting is just one of the movie's exceptional assets. Despite being set primarily in a theater, the film's cinematography is surprisingly dynamic. Emmanuel Lubezki's camera work distracts from the confines of its limited space by being constantly on the move. In fact, the film appears to be composed in one unbroken tracking shot. The unedited feel of the photography intimates the most honest recording of a theatrical performance I have ever seen captured on film, and Antonio Sanchez's omni-present jazz percussion soundtrack provides fittingly kinetic aural accompaniment to the film's frenetic visuals.

Brimming with technical brilliance, Birdman also proves to be indelibly enthralling to witness, especially for stage and screen aficionados. According to Christy Lemire's review of the film, Iñárritu sent the cast a picture of Man on Wire's Philippe Petit walking along a tightrope between the World Trade Centers. The film's every aspect channels this balance between success and failure. Birdman examines and mocks; from its characters to modern culture, nothing is sacred. Thankfully, its critiques dodge didacticism and are never anything less than constructive and thought-provoking. For every bump, twist, and turn in Birdman's roller-coaster, there is a deeper message demanding unpacking from its audience.

Grade: A

By Ben Pieper (November 17th, 2014)

Foxcatcher (2014)

Wrestling with the American Dream

[10/10 · 29 December 2014]

If Stanley Kubrick had ever gotten around to making a sports movie, it would look and feel a lot like Foxcatcher. Director Bennett Miller's former feature films make him an apt artist to deliver the haunting story of the Schulz brothers and their financial supporter, John E. du Pont. Miller has crafted an unforgettably ominous picture that combines the real life crime genre he chronicled in Capote with the theme of American sports he mastered in Moneyball. The steady stream of subtle foreboding that courses throughout the entirety of Foxcatcher places the film on a trophy shelf of the past decade's other masterworks.

In terms of its plot, many of the trailers for Foxcatcher have given away very little as to what the film is actually about. The incident that Miller and screenwriters E. Max Frye and Dan Futterman bring to the screen is the strange but true story of how millionaire du Pont (Steve Carell) ensnared two Gold Medal-winning wrestlers (Channing Tatum & Mark Ruffalo) in his perverted pastiche of patriotism and paranoia. On account of its historical reality, the plot, though intriguing, could be looked up on the internet and revealed to anyone with little fanfare. Miller's chillingly compelling direction ensures that Foxcatcher is first and foremost a psychological film.

A fellow critic from Screenrant has criticized Foxcatcher for "struggling to convey insightful conclusions about its subjects." While the film is less than lucid, there is no doubt that any room left for interpretation was a purposeful move from Miller. The film studies its three male leads with a level of focus similar to Paul Thomas Anderson's literary character study The Master. Miller's movie says little explicitly, and leaves ample room for audiences to sift through some disturbing subtext. Throughout the course of Foxcatcher, the viewer sees Mark (Tatum), David (Ruffalo), and even du Pont wrestle on the mat, but the true indications of the character's strengths and weaknesses come through cinematographer Greig Fraser's tormented close-ups. The only thing that these mesmerizing Olympians have trouble grappling with is their inner anguish.

There has been a lot of buzz over Steve Carell taking on a dramatic role in Foxcatcher, but skeptics will question whether or not the buzz is justified. Here is the justification: Carell turns in his finest film performance to date as du Pont; the unsettlingly entitled, perplexingly stolid member of America's wealthiest family who has more than his fair share of, shall we say, eccentricities. While the buzz is certainly well-deserved, it turns out that du Pont has much more in common with Carell's signature Dunder-Mifflin manager Michael Scott than one might think. Like Michael, all Du Pont seems to want is love and admiration; validation from human beings who genuinely care for him. However, as infuriating as Michael Scott could be, it is more than safe to say that du Pont proves to be a bigger nightmare of a boss. Carell's understated work in the film elicits gripping fascination from the audience; it is the kind of comedian-turned-dramatist performance that would make the late Robin Williams beam with pride.

Beyond Carell's performance, there is much more to commend in Miller's third feature. Tatum and Ruffalo also turn in career high- point performances. Tatum acts against type as an aloof and stand- offish champion, while Ruffalo portrays the picture's most headstrong character: a family man becoming progressively aware of the strings du Pont has attached to everyone he ropes into his estate. Audiences going to Foxcatcher expecting the next Chariots of Fire or Miracle will be sorely disappointed – viewers should not even approach the movie expecting to learn anything about wrestling itself. One critic from Tolucan Times complains that "it doesn't explain a thing about Olympic wrestling." This criticism is invalid. Although there is nothing wrong with being a sports movie, wrestling is virtually irrelevant to the Foxcatcher's real concerns. The filmmakers have turned torpid tabloid fodder into rumination about the all too thin veil of delusion separating the wealthy from the poor, the strong from the weak, and the American from the American Dream.

Grade: A

By Ben Pieper (November 30th, 2014)

Interstellar (2014)

The Vastness of the Universe meets the Intimacy of Family

[9/10 · 29 December 2014]

Ever since director Christopher Nolan's teaser for the film appeared last fall, Interstellar has been drawing comparisons to classic science fiction epics; primarily, 2001: A Space Odyssey. Despite these lofty associations, visual gravitas and meticulous scientific references are not the sole features that made Kubrick's seminal 1968 film a classic – these aspects are also not what solidify Interstellar into the canon of future classics.

In Interstellar, Nolan and his brother/co-screenwriter Johnathan tell the story of Cooper (Matthew McConaughey) a reluctantly retired astronaut who is given the opportunity of a lifetime after stumbling upon a secret space exploration program. The operation is conveniently being led by Cooper's old mentor Professor Brand (Michael Caine), and convinces Cooper – who is after all "the best pilot he's ever seen" – to come aboard the Endurance, a spacecraft about to embark on a mission during which its crew will hopefully discover a new home planet for the human race in a neighboring galaxy. Hokey, even hackneyed, as this pulpy sci-fi premise sounds, it also helps rocket Interstellar into the stratosphere of out-of- this-world entertainment.

Without giving away too many of the film's secrets, I will say that, like every Nolan film, there are exciting twists and solid performances by a game ensemble cast. Nolan is one of the few directors today whose name is well enough known beyond the confines of the cinephile community to make every film he releases a major event; a Christopher Nolan film is marketable as a Christopher Nolan film. As a result, Nolan's directorial presence dominates almost every Nolan movie (with the exception, perhaps, of Heath Ledger's performance in The Dark Knight.) Though Nolan's directorial perfectionism is a formidable force in Interstellar, it is impossible not to bask in the film's audible majesty. The score, composed by frequent Nolan collaborator Hans Zimmer, can only be described as magnificent.

In a time when blockbusters must tantalize audiences with astounding special effects, Interstellar definitely delivers. But, as impressive as visual and technological advancement can be in a film, it seems that with every passing year, there is at least one film that boasts "groundbreaking visuals." Last year, this film was Alfonso Cuarón's Gravity; another movie touted as a modern 2001. Today, with technology's rate of advancement, it is very possible that in a decade, both Gravity and Interstellar's visuals could be considerably dated. The fallibility of visual technology is exactly why it is worth acknowledging that Interstellar's most timeless accomplishment is its rumination on human themes (faith, love, persistence, and family) that transcend the time and space its characters attempt to navigate.

Nolan has scaffolded the viewer's experience of Interstellar through his previous films; specifically with Inception, a film where numerous faux-intellectual dialogic expositions confuses some viewers, but really should not have to endure too much cerebral scrutiny. Questioning the convoluted dreamscapes of Inception, and similarly the scientific feasibility of Interstellar, poses the risk of being denied access to the true treasure of Nolan's work: unbridled film geek joy. Luckily that feeling, that must-see-it- again relish that overwhelmed me as I walked out of The Prestige and The Dark Knight, runs rampant throughout Nolan's latest.

The finer points of narrative convolution are by no means new to Nolan's filmography, but many critics have noted the seldom seen warmer side that the auteur reveals in his galactic odyssey. Only a master filmmaker like Nolan could have placed a story in the vastest setting possible and still meditate so beautifully on a subject as intimate as familial devotion. While Nolan the man and Nolan the director are no strangers to familial love, his previous films have only addressed familial relations as peripheral concerns, and rarely as the primary focus. In spite of its indisputably ambitious scope, Interstellar still remains constantly interested in capturing Cooper's inner turmoil about leaving his family on a doomed Earth rather than the monumental discoveries of the mission at hand. Nolan ensures that the film's scientific development is ultimately second to emotional.

Grade: A

By Ben Pieper (November 8th, 2014)