Change Your Image
bzarras
Reviews
Oppenheimer (2023)
As close to a perfect movie as I've ever seen
So much to say about this remarkable achievement in film, but I will just say that it's quite possibly the best film I have ever seen. Not to be confused with it being my favorite, although I really did enjoy it as well as recognizing it being a pretty flawless film.
I won't delve too much into the story, but will say that similar to his outstanding hit Inception, Christopher Nolan manages to conduct three separate but connected stories in this film, all connected to the title character, J. Robert Oppenheimer.
One story is of Oppenheimer's life leading up to, including, and aftermath of his being put in charge of the US' creation of the atomic bomb in WWII.
The second story is of a sham hearing put together by his nemesis, Lewis Strauss, to discredit him after he speaks out in favor of restraint following the successful detonation of two of his bombs over Japan to end WWII.
The third story follows a few years later when Strauss himself is before a hearing of his own when trying to be confirmed as President Eisenhower's Commerce Secretary.
The film shows the many ironic parallels between the hearings of Oppenheimer and Strauss, mixing in Oppenheimer's life story as it proceeds.
Not going to give all the specifics and spoilers but here's what I found so exceptional about this film - the story itself was incredibly compelling, both collectively and individually among the three aforementioned sub-plots, the cast was as deep and talented a cast as I've ever seen assembled on film, the performances were all perfectly done with no glaring overacting or miscasting, and the writing and directing were brilliant, in typical Nolan fashion. In particular, outstanding performances from Murphy, Downey Jr, Blunt, and Damon stood out.
It's very rare that I give a movie a perfect 10 score but this movie earned every bit of it along with the many Oscar nominations that I'd expect are coming early next year.
The Son (2022)
A heartbreaking exploration of juvenile mental illness
This movie was written/directed by Florian Zeller, who won an Oscar for his screenplay of The Father. While The Father explored the crushing disease of dementia through the lens of a father/daughter relationship, Zeller's follow-up The Son explores mental illness through the lens of a father/son relationship.
When I first saw this movie, the synopsis provided by IMDb said "Peter has his busy life with new partner Beth and their baby thrown into disarray when his ex-wife Kate turns up with their teenage son, Nicholas." While this is somewhat accurate, it does not mention the predominate theme of the film, which is Nicholas' severe depression and the inability of his parents (Jackman & Dern) to cope with or even recognize their son's crippling mental illness. This is the real story this film is trying to tell, and it does so well through a difficult and heartbreaking two hours that ultimately ends up exactly where you fear it would.
Before it gets to the seemingly inevitable outcome, we increasingly see how blind both Nicholas' parents are to what is really happening to him, whether through ignorance or wishful thinking. Numerous times throughout the film, Peter (Jackman) frustratingly asks Nicholas (played exceptionally by Zen McGrath) to explain his bizarre behavior, in attempts to rationalize it to himself. At times, Nicholas says bluntly to his mother, Kate (Dern), "I'm not well" but she, too, either does not recognize his behavior as mental illness or simply prefers to rationalize it as something else, with Peter's leaving of Kate and Nicholas for another woman, Beth (Kirby) being the convenient scapegoat for his behavior.
When watched through the lens of someone with severe mental illness crying out for help to the people who love him most, only to have those people fail to recognize his illness and be unable to give him the help he truly needs, this movie is gut-wrenching. I felt it was a good analogy on how some view mental illness (even some of those who wrote IMDb user reviews trivializing Nicholas' illness and behavior) as something that is a choice and not a genuine disease with serious risks.
As is sadly too often the case, no one closest to him either recognizes or admits that Nicholas is seriously mentally ill, and that ignorance ultimately costs him his life. After a failed suicide attempt lands him in a psychiatric hospital, Peter and Kate go against the pleading of medical professionals and bring him home, in yet another example of them not understanding and/or downplaying the severity of what is happening to their son. Shortly after they bring him back to Peter's apartment, Nicholas kills himself with his parents in the next room. The final scene shows us Peter dreaming of an interaction with Nicholas where he survived his second suicide attempt and managed to turn his life around. For a moment, the audience is teased with the prospect of a happy ending, only for that to be shattered when Beth walks into the room and asks Peter what he's doing, and the viewer sees the room is empty. The final image we see in this film is Peter breaking down as Beth consoles him, a fitting ending for a film that explores the devastation of mental illness.
While admittedly not as good of a film as The Father, I did think this was a good movie, albeit a tough watch. The kind of solid performances you'd expect from this cast (which also included a cameo by Anthony Hopkins as Peter's father), and what I believe is a refreshing and brutally honest look at mental illness without the glossing over that films often do with this subject matter. I gave it a solid 7/10.
Heat (1995)
One of the best crime films ever made
I was fascinated by this movie when I first saw it almost thirty years ago, and all these years later it still holds up as one of the best crime films ever made.
On the surface, it's a story that's been done a million times before - a story of cops and robbers, specifically bank robbers. What Heat does differently that I think separates it from so many other movies in the genre that came before and after it is that it transcends the crime genre and delivers a master class in character study. Unlike so many crime movies, none of the characters in Heat are one-dimensional. The story shows what makes every main (and many secondary) characters tick, and does so no better than with the two main characters, Pacino's Lt. Vincent Hanna and DeNiro's Neil McCauley.
It also illustrates both subtly and overtly the similarities between the two men, even though they operate on opposite sides of the law. This is something that had not been done in many crime films prior to Heat (which more often than not painted the cops and robbers as polar opposites), but has been imitated many times since, although nowhere near as masterfully as Michael Mann did in this film.
Heat also has a lot of other things going for it that can never be duplicated - a truly substantive script written by Michael Mann, a master writer/director of the crime genre, two films the finest dramatic actors In DeNiro and Pacino in their prime, a deep roster of supporting cast including Val Kilmer, Ashley Judd, Danny Trejo, Mykelti Williamson, Tom Sizemore, Jon Voight, and Any Brenneman, all of who just perfectly deliver their parts without any overacting. Even smaller roles given to Hank Azaria, Piven, and Tone Loc are delivered just perfectly. The other part of this movie that I think Mann nailed was the use of Los Angeles as a dominant character in the film, and not the glamorous side of LA either. Many of the scenes are shot in industrial and abandoned parts of LA (think the opening armored car heist, Pacino's stakeout, and the famous coffee scene). There aren't any scenes in Beverly Hills and almost none of the ocean. Mann shows the gritty side of LA, which adds to the general theme of the film in a highly effective way. Of course, no mention of the nuances that make this film such a classic would be complete without mentioning the bank robbery scene which in my opinion is the heart of this film. Without giving away any spoilers, this scene (which occurs about 2/3's of the way through the film) is the best bank robbery/shootout scene ever put on film. This was true when the movie was released in 1995 and it still holds up today, despite attempts from newer films like Den of Thieves to duplicate this (which they all fall short of). The robbery scene creates a frantic and intense tone to the final act of the film that wraps the film up perfectly, no matter how you feel about the ending.
This movie remains one of my top five favorite films of all-time, and by far my favorite crime film. I watch this movie once or twice a year and it still holds up almost every bit as well as it did in 1995. A true masterpiece by Michael Mann.
The Shawshank Redemption (1994)
One of the best movies I've ever seen.
I first saw Shawshank the first year it came out. 28 years later, it remains one of the best movies I've ever seen. A remarkably well-written cast complimented not just by a talented cast, but by a group of actors perfectly cast in their roles. It's a story about friendship, hope, perseverance that still holds up three decades after it was released. I rarely give movies a perfect 10 rating, but Shawshank is up there with as close a perfect film as there is, and one of the greatest films of all time.
Harper's Island (2009)
Great cure for summer lull
I'm old enough to remember a time before streaming apps like Netflix provided us with good shows 12 months a year that all the big network shows would end their seasons in May and not start their second season until the fall, leaving a gap for quality entertainment on TV in the summer. Unless you liked baseball, there really wasn't much worthwhile to watch on TV between June-September. Then some networks would try a few limited run/mini-series type shows to fill the gap. Most weren't any good, but I remember Harper's Island being an exception. It didn't have an overly unique plot, but for the most part it was well acted and well-written and ended up being good murder mystery that helped fill the summer lull in entertainment in the summer of 2009. Not sure if/where this is streaming these days and it may be a bit dated seeing it's over 13 years old, but still a good suspense series that's probably still worth a watch.
Mother! (2017)
Thick on analogies and symbolism, to the point of overkill
I saw this at TIFF and the point this movie was trying to make became clear fairly early on. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but as the story developed, the analogies and symbolism went into overkill, to the point where their excessive nature diminished what was an interesting story.
The movie is helmed by Jennifer Lawrence and Javier Bardem, two actors I'm particularly fond of. The short summary of this movie is that they are a couple who live in a beautiful, remote home. One night they take in an unwanted house guest (Harris), more at Bardem's choosing than Lawrence's. This leads to countless other house guests and invasions from the outside world, often to the detriment of Bardem & Lawrence's beautiful home, and Lawrence's well-being.
As the movie goes on, these violations against the home and Lawrence get increasingly bizarre and excessive. They get laid on so thick that, even if you have figured out the analogy by the midway point of the movie and enjoy the way the movie is getting it's point across, the sheer madness that transpires in the second half of the film is likely to sour you on the overkill applied to the message.
It becomes fairly apparent that the house and Lawrence's character from which the movie is titled represent our planet. Bardem's character represents a creator/God (in credits, his character is simply known as 'Him'). Harris and Pfeiffer, the original, invasive guests, are the original Man & Woman (Adam & Eve), and from there, a lot of the plot initially descends from biblical references and then into His desire to provide for his followers and to be adored by them, ignorant of how detrimental they are to the house and Mother.
At the very end, the house becomes overpopulated with people who are both zealots and warmongers who descend into utter 'WTF' madness while they destroy the home, murder the couple's child, and force Mother to burn down the home she so painstakingly created, killing everyone inside it. After the fire, He carries her out, and recreates the home with a new Mother.
As I said, it's a story thick on symbolism and message. I personally liked what they were going for, but think it could have been a much better movie if they had done it far subtly than with the extreme overkill they employed in the second half of this film. Looking at the reviews, I see a lot of people torn by this movie, and I think for these reasons. Some people didn't clue into the message very well and just thought it was a movie that made no sense. Others may not have liked the pro-environment analogies, while some may have loved how excessive the movie hammered it's point home. Another group likely felt how I did - that the plot and point was unique and interesting, but the sheer madness the film careened into during the second half was extremely excessive.
Overall, I give it a 6/10, with disappointment that a promising concept wasn't executed more sensibly.
Arrival (2016)
Exceptional & Thought-provoking
Saw this at TIFF and was incredibly impressed. This movie has all the right components of an exceptional film - great cast, great director, and a great script that took a somewhat tired premise and turned out a script full of thought-provoking substance, and a highly original twist.
This movie's true beauty was how it masterfully balanced the plot and sub-plot throughout the entire film - to the point that the build-up to the sub-plot (which also ends up being the twist at the end) is done very subtly throughout the movie without the viewer even knowing for the most part. It's only in the last half hour that Villeneuve starts presenting it's relevance for to the viewer. However, the primary plot does not suffer, it's only enriched.
This movie was an exceptional combination of great story-telling and a cast and crew at the top of their game delivering an entertaining film that will have audiences talking about the questions it raises.
Spectre (2015)
Good, but not great. Conflicting end for future Bond films.
I saw this last night at an advanced screening. I will say I came away a little disappointed, but perhaps my expectations were too high due to the excellence of Skyfall, and the casting of Christoph Waltz as the antagonist.
The good - the scenery and locations were excellent, as always. The acting of Waltz, Craig, Fiennes, Whishaw, Harris, and even Seydoux (for most of the film) was pretty good for the most part.
The bad - I felt the writing was weak. Not a lot of dialogue or character development outside of Seydoux's character, and even that was somewhat unrealistic, as she went from cold to Bond to completely in love with him in a matter of one train ride. Didn't utilize Waltz or Bautista enough.
I left feeling fairly conflicted about how this movie wrapped things up for future Bond films. On the one hand, it tied up all the Daniel Craig movies together (albeit not very neatly) should this be his last run as Bond (I hope it's not). At the same time, the introduction to Spectre and Oberhauser is one that I felt would have been a good entry point for the Spectre storyline to continue in future films. The problem? It was made clear that Waltz' Oberhauser had a personal connection to Craig's Bond, which fueled the rivalry between the two, and I think it would need both actors to continue in the role in the future for it to be effective. I think replacing either actor and having Waltz try to duplicate that connection with a different actor (or Craig with a different actor) would be odd.
In any case, if this is Craig's last turn as Bond, it was another solid performance from a solid actor, and arguably the best performance as James Bond in the fifty-year run of the series. I would rank it behind Skyfall and Casino Royale (although not too far behind the latter), and well above Quantum of Solace.
The Judge (2014)
Exceptionally cast, well-rounded movie.
I just saw this movie for the second time - the first being shortly after it's release. I enjoyed it as much as the first time around, if not more. To address some of the complaints - yes, it is a little too long, but the strong performances put out by most of the primary cast, especially Downey & Duvall (who thoroughly deserved all the acclaims and nominations he received for supporting actor) ensure that the movie doesn't feel like it's dragging on, even when it is.
Yes, there were some unnecessary developments and sub-plots, like the love interest angle between Downey and his old flame. There was so much substance in the other, more relevant areas of this movie that it could have done just fine without a love interest angle, but apparently there is a rule in Hollywood that any mainstream release with a reasonable budget has to have a love interest, so we have one here, although it wasn't too out of place, just unnecessary.
At the end of the day, if you were looking for something truly new and original, this probably isn't it. It is not without it's clichés, but the sheer enjoyment any movie buff will get from watching two of the best actors of our time at their very best easily offsets those clichés. As a legal movie, it's a solid courtroom drama with a fairly simply premise and two outstanding performances by Downey and Thornton going head-to-head. However, I felt it was it's role as a family drama where this movie really shined, with Duvall and Downey delivering two exceptional performances as estranged father and son, and D'Onofrio and Strong provide solid supporting performances as Downey's siblings.
Overall, I gave this an 8/10, with it being one or two clichés removed from being a 9. Either way, it's a great movie that I believe will become one of those underrated classics that you'll see for years to come and continue to appreciate how excellent of a film it really is.
Boyhood (2014)
The year's most talked about & disappointing movie.
When I first heard of this movie a few months back, all the buzz was about how Richard Linklater had made a film over a twelve-year period with the same core cast. Like most people, I found that to be incredibly impressive and was eager to see the film. I finally got around to watching it last night and can't say anything other than I was incredibly disappointed. This movie not only failed to deliver on a lot of fronts, but the combination of the unique filming process as well as the general theme of the movie could have produced such a better movie.
Before I dissect, a quick synopsis of the plot. The film follows a 5 year-old boy, Mason (played by Ellar Coltrane), and his somewhat dysfunctional family up until he leaves for college at 18. His father (played by Hawke) appears sparingly in the lives of Mason and his older sister, Samantha (played by Linklater's own daughter, Lorelei). His mother (played quite impressively by Arquette) marries twice, both times to alcoholics who clash with Mason. However, she also gets her life somewhat together throughout the film. As the movie starts, she is moving back to Houston to go to college while her mother helps her with the kids. Eventually, she becomes a college professor herself. This was a very strong performance by Arquette and easily the best of the movie. The film basically follows Mason and, to a lesser degree, his family, through this crucial period of life where the man he will eventually become will be influenced and shaped by the people and events around him. Among other things, we see him fall in love, get his heartbroken, get a job, go through school, drink, smoke weed, move, switch schools, and become a talented artist.
Here is the problem with this movie - despite seeing all of this, and filming the characters over a dozen years of their lives, with the exception (maybe) of Olivia (Mason's mother) you don't feel any real connection to them. Mason has a very bland personality and nothing really of interest to offer the world, or the viewer. Samantha isn't really any better. There is a scene in the film in which Mason comes home past curfew and is confronted by Olivia's second husband, Jim. I felt like Jim was speaking for the audience when he points out how Mason just mumbles his way through life, never really says anything and then yells at Mason to "speak up!"
There were a few times little things in this movie reminded me of things from my own childhood, something I think most viewers will relate to. However, this made me reflect a little more on my own childhood (or 'boyhood,' if you will) and only made me more disappointed at how much better this film could have been. You see, when I reflect on my childhood now, in my mid-30's, I realize almost every moment of it could have been defined one of three ways - significant, insignificant, but most of all, seemingly insignificant at the time but holding much more significance as I got older.
I feel for a movie to do true justice to the period of childhood which will largely define us as adults should have focused far more on the things that were significant in the child's life as well as the things that seemed insignificant but carried much more significance as time went on. This is the period of our life where we develop many of the values, beliefs, skills, goals, personalities, interests, flaws, and even baggage that we will carry through the rest of our life. This movie did a very poor job of displaying the significance of those moments in Mason's life, as well as really developing most of the characters into any type of person who the audience could really empathize with.
I give the movie six out of ten, because I really do think the concept of filming over 12 years is exceptional, and should not be discounted because the end result was so lackluster.