7 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
8/10
Character Study in the Truest Sense
14 April 2018
You Were Never Really Here is a film whose marketing and narrative might have gotten the better of it. The promise of Joaquin Phoenix as a brutal lone wolf on the tail of criminals, and promotional imagery and hype speaking to the film's hardcore violence ("#DropTheHammer") might propose 2018's Man on Fire (2004), or even the year's arthouse thriller, a la Drive (2011.) Disappointment among some of the entirely-negative reviews on IMDb find the film boring, or slow, or both, or incomprehensible, or whatever it might be. To say these opinions are "wrong" would be illogical, instead, they're more misguided than anything.

Phoenix's Joe is a man who, we've heard it before, is haunted by his past. Lynne Ramsay, the film's director, fleshes the damaged hero archetype out to extremes rarely seen or felt, and for that reason alone ...Really Here deserves attention. Joe is an avenger, a righter of wrongs, but his is a sad existence. Through flashbacks verging on horror film snippets, we see Joe to have been the subject of verbal, physical, and perhaps sexual abuse by a brutal father, or father figure. Daddy issues a cliche? Sure, but the way Ramsay jolts the audience with abrasive cries for help or flashes of domestic horror, you're truly transported into a sort of nightmare, one that isn't excessive, visually or sonically, but rather one that is ever-present while we trudge the streets of downtown New York and some of the city's deceptively-residential burroughs, passing the sort of people one passes on the streets. Ramsay populates her locations with believable people, leading believable lives.

"Believable" is perhaps the best way to describe Phoenix's performance, and the Joe character. He has a heavy walk, not a slick one; his clothes are baggy and unfashionable, the kind of person you see who isn't homeless, who is able to eat and has a roof over his head, but is checked out of this plane of existence, pushing forward out of stubborn nihilism.

And that's ultimately what the film is about; a man who perseveres through a personal hell for no discernible reason, looking for some grip on his existence. Joe's been guided by exterior forces his whole life: His abusive childhood leaves him with deep emotional scars, evident in his suicidal tendencies (scenes of Phoenix asphyxiating in an attempt at some sort of high are horrifying); his family's military history, briefly hinted in the form of a uniform in a closet during a flashback, sets him up for that career; the war-fighting, and what seem to be subsequent jobs (police officer, maybe? security of some sort?) leave physical damage and even more horrible images, seared into the mind; and then at the end of the film's episode, in an attempt at some catharsis, he can't even receive the satisfaction, the closure, of killing the man we've come to be decide as responsible for the events of the film. Joe is strung along from abuse to abuse, though our final moments with him are, ultimately, optimistic.

I've avoided explicit detail of the story, though I will address the alleged difficulty some have with following it, whether because of the abrupt editing or Phoenix's mumbled dialogue. You Were Never Really Here presents a story that serves as more of a background we can frame Joe against. It provides the underworld hellscape and plot devices (shady contacts with money in envelopes, brutal sex traffickers, corrupt politicians, etc) we're familiar with so that we have a context for Joe's world and experiences. While not irrelevant, the story is there to serve the idea of Joe as a person, rather than string the audience along.

In what feels like too long a review, I've not even mentioned Thomas Townend's cinematography (it looks good, though is nothing mind-blowing) or Jonny Greenwood's terrific score, varying between synth pulses that will instill the hardcore crime genre, as well as more soothing, traditional chords. I've not mentioned the soundscape and layering of dialogue, between the flashbacks and Joe's walks through the bustling streets. The relationship between Joe and his Mother (Judith Roberts) I've left entirely undiscussed, and that too is a crucial pillar of what makes the film worthwhile (to this I say, read someone else's analysis!) I've ignored all this in a minor attempt to help some understand that the film isn't particularly exciting; the violence is brutal yet detached, the major events of the story don't surprise or intrigue, they simply occur. Lynne Ramsay's film is literary in the way is subjects the audience to a perspective and tries, subtly, to have them understand what breaks a man and pushes him to being capable of violence. And in this I'd say it succeeds.
4 out of 6 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Inherent Vice (2014)
9/10
Hippie Scum
6 October 2014
Warning: Spoilers
I was fortunate enough to see this at the 52nd New York Film Festival; the centerpiece of this year's festival, Paul Thomas Anderon's Inherent Vice (adapted from the Thomas Pynchon novel of the same name) will no doubt divide critics and audiences. It certainly divided me.

Immediately, the plot starts rolling. "Doc" Sportello (Joaquin Phoenix in his '70s glory; mutton chops and scraggly hair), a pot-head private detective, is disturbed by the arrival of his ex, Shasta Fay (Katherine Waterston). She clues Doc in on a mysterious plot to kidnap a real-estate mogul (Shasta's current boyfriend) for his money, and the scrappy "gum-sandal" ventures off into the the beach-towns and high-hills of California. Receiving help/hindrance from his "friend" at the LAPD, Lieutenant "Bigfoot" Bjornsen (a clean-cut, hippie-hating Josh Brolin), Doc rubs shoulders with no shortage of strange and potentially-dangerous characters. And that's about as much plot as you're going to get out of me. Doc's adventures are almost episodic, and connecting the dots from A to B to... G? can be difficult. I have a somewhat-strong idea of how things unfold, but the specifics are lost on me. And I even read the book! However, I believe this wasn't entirely accidental.

In describing Inherent Vice, Anderson has made reference to all kinds of classic detective stories and zany comedies. On the Hitchcock classic North by Northwest, he said "Tell me again how he (Cary Grant's Roger Thornhill) gets to the middle of the field with a plane after him? I can't. How does he get to Mount Rushmore? I don't know, but it's great." PTA goes for a film that is high on emotion and fun situations and low on intricate story. I describe it by saying "There's a lot of story, but so little of it matters," and that's in the best way possible. Doing so allows Anderson to focus on his eclectic cast of characters.

Phoenix's Doc is most-definitely comparable to The Dude (Jeff Bridges) of Big Lebowski fame, but he's a far more human character than "The other Lebowski". He has opinions, he's far more active and realistic than The Dude. He has moments of violence (one in particular that shocked me and, I'm sure, the other thousand people in the theater). The trailer's narrator mentions something like "Doc's not a do-gooder, but he does good." An apt description. Complimenting this burnt-out detective is Josh Brolin's charismatic badge-holder, "Bigfoot". Brolin plays Bigfoot as a straight man whose anger can burst out in comical brilliance. Even ordering pancakes with this guy is funny. The supporting players are equally on their game, but they have such little screen time it really boils down to Phoenix and Brolin. Martin Short appears for a scene that many I know are already considering to be the film's funniest; Owen Wilson plays a great character whose very nature I find hilarious; Katherine Waterston is excellent as Shasta, being morose and desperate. The others among the star-studded cast are all at least "good", but I won't delve into their roles, which are more like cameos.

Now, it may come into conflict with what I've just said, but to me, Inherent Vice isn't particularly hilarious. The trailer certainly makes it appear to be an almost Tarantino-esque crime/comedy, but truly the tone is more melancholic. It's not a "downer", but the pale, sort of washed-out cinematography of Robert Elswit is far more subtle and restrained than something like Pulp Fiction or Anderson's own Boogie Nights. This came as a shock to me, as many were touting Inherent Vice as (paraphrasing) "Anderson's most-anarchic film since Boogie Nights". Perhaps so, but it never reaches that film's levels of kinetic energy and life. It's the yin to Boogie Nights' yang, to get metaphorical. It's more The Master than Magnolia, to keep the comparisons coming. However, with Inherent Vice, Anderson applies some of his hallmarks in new and interesting ways. His incredible tracking shots in Boogie Nights are replaced with more subtle long takes that will sometimes follow the action, but often stay nearly-static on a conversation for minutes. This immersive, unflinching approach allows you to become invested in the performances.

Similarly, Anderson's knack for putting together a soundtrack is tested in a new way. Rather than blaring '70s rock tunes, the Jonny Greenwood score and licensed tracks are included in a far more subtle way. Greenwood's score ranges from classical noir-ish tones to beach-like guitar music. It's an interesting choice, and one that didn't immediately strike me upon first viewing.

Some have called Inherent Vice meandering, and I'd say they're partially right. Depending on how they mean that. It wanders like a lost dog, yet clearly there's a story going on. It's fragmented, maybe like Doc's mind as he's stoned, but it isn't exactly a first-person view we're getting. It's odd, to say the least, but not in an in-your-face way. It's odd because you'll walk out likely-unable to connect the story, but you'll remember distinct scenes. Even those scenes though, may have subverted your expectations.

My "review" here probably sounds inconclusive, and that's because I'm still not positive how I feel about Inherent Vice. It's definitely worth seeing; Anderson is an incredible force with a pen and some film stock (nicely, we were shown 'Vice on 35mm; referring to the Film Society of Lincoln Center's slogan, Anderson said something like "Tonight, film really DOES live here!"), and I truly believe him to be one of the all-time greats already, with only seven films under his belt. So hopefully my little pontifications have been of some interest. Able to hold you over until this goes limited in December, or for some of you, wide in January. Temper your expectations, take the trailer with a grain of salt, and I'll see you on-line when it opens again--I need to see it again!
203 out of 279 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
A Burst of Intense Violence and Street Culture
7 May 2012
Street Mobster is among my favorite yakuza films, and from one of my favorite Japanese directors. This is a great, less-popular Fukasaku film, and it really deserves more attention.

Okita is our "hero", if you can call him that. He's hot-heated, violent, and unapologetic. I can't think of a time in the film where he really shows restraint. He's just such an over-the-top, punk rockin' character who doesn't care about rival gangs or other thugs; he wants to do what he wants, when he wants to. And that's definitely the driving force behind the film, it's explosive nature. It's so unglamorous and filthy at times, and yet you have this sense of a man living his life, maybe not to it's full potential, but having a hell of a lot of fun doing what he's doing. And maybe he's not even enjoying it, everything else is just too conformist for him. He simply doesn't back down. So he really is a hero, a hero to the downtrodden. A counterculture icon, a raging machine.

With it's boisterous protagonist comes a slew of background characters who are really just there to make Okita the centerpiece. Aside from the prostitute that he raped years earlier and now forms a bond with (Whose name I can't even remember!) there are few other noteworthy characters. And that's really okay. When they speak, they speak to get Okita's reaction. If you don't like Okita, then you're probably not going to like the film. Me, I enjoyed this rebellious, non-conformist gangster, yelling and picking fights. It was just so over-the-top and the director clearly embraced the punk style that was emerging at the time of this film's release.

Speaking of release time, I just watched the film again a few minutes ago, and I still can't believe it was made in 1972. I'm sure you've heard it before, but it's way ahead of it's time. It looks 90s-ish to me. The shaky-cam and jump cuts stand out most as then-foreign techniques. Of course, now they've become the norm in films.

So that's my short review. I don't feel that there's a whole lot more ground to cover as Okita is really the main attraction. So if you're looking to kill 87 minutes and consider yourself a fan of exciting cinema, look no further than Street Mobster.
2 out of 3 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
8/10
Great Revenge Thriller
26 February 2012
I'm a big fan of both revenge films and Korean films. Having seen some great movies out of Korea over the past few years, I decided to give The Man from Nowhere a watch. I loved it!

So it starts with our hero, Tae-Sik, as a sort of rundown figure. His hair is long, he's quiet, lonely, and hiding a dark past. No one really pays him any attention except So-mi, a little girl who lives near Tae-sik and doesn't have the best family life. They sort of relate to each other, until So-mi and her mother are abducted by a ruthless mafia of organ harvesters and drug dealers. And our movie takes off from there.

I was reminded of several popular American films. From Taken to Man on Fire, and the presentation of the Bourne films. However, I found The Man from Nowhere to be a much better film. Something about the relationship between this lonely man with a violent past and this little girl who he works so hard to rescue came off as genuine. And boy does Tae-sik work hard.

The action in this film is great, a mix of well-choreographed hand-to-hand scenes as well as intense shootouts and struggles. One thing that puts The Man from Nowhere above other well known Korean revenge dramas of (fairly) recent years is that the gore isn't too over-the-top. Believe me, I've enjoyed my fair share of ridiculous violence, but something about the unrealistic brutality in, say, I Saw the Devil by Jee-woon Kim takes me out of the experience. I'm distracted from the emotion. That's not to say that The Man from Nowhere isn't over the top. Tae-sik is a super-soldier of sorts, and is seen taking on armed men, outnumbered sometimes twenty to one, and still coming out on top. And yet, these scenes didn't have the blood geysers of Kill Bill or anything like that. There was indeed blood, but the right amount of blood where the film can still be taken seriously.

And that's my analysis of the violence in the film! I felt that was an important aspect when comparing it to other Korean films of this genre. The violence is really used as a way of expressing Tae-sik's passion for rescuing his captured neighbor. Often, I felt, that his emotions were told by his facial expression. I've never seen lead actor Bin Won on screen before, and from what I understand some see him as a teen idol of sorts, but his performance was really well done here. And not to mention that young actress Sae-ron Kim as So-mi actually wasn't annoying, as I personally find most kid actors.

On the negative side, the beginning is a little slow. I can think of several movies that people would consider boring and slow that I like very much, but this came across as slow even to me. That's only the beginning though, it does get very good during the second half. There's really not much more bad I can say about this film. My score would be a nine were it not for the first act's pace. As it stands, consider my review a "high eight". Thanks for reading, and enjoy the movie!
6 out of 8 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Chronicle (2012)
8/10
A Great Development in the "Found-Footage" Genre
22 February 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I went into Chronicle with expectations unusually high for a film like this; I had previously noticed several positive reviews, and a high IMDb score. By no means confirmation of a good movie, but it gave me hope. I also kept in mind previous attempts at this style of film making. I enjoyed Cloverfield, and The Blair Witch Project was okay, but the shaky-cam and intensity of these films never really interested me. Especially the Paranormal Activity films.

Anyway, as you can tell by my score given, Chronicle is different. It's set up very well. Andrew, our protagonist, is bullied and a bit antisocial. He has a mother dying of some unnamed disease and a violent alcoholic of a father. In his boredom, Andrew decides to start filming his day-to-day life. Whether or not the character believed this would help his social life, is debatable. But it's all for establishing the world of Chronicle.

Andrew is accompanied by his cousin, Matt, and Steve, who is running for class president. I was pleased to see that the writers didn't have the typical "popular kid bullies outsider" type of thing going on. If anything, Steve is the kindest and most likable character in the film. When attending a rave, the three guys (two of them clearly under the influence) stumble upon what appears to be a hole in the ground that is emitting slight tremors. They go inside, see some weird stuff, and it's history from there: they have superpowers.

Next we see the guys in someone's backyard, messing around, levitating a baseball. And here's where the movie gets good. It's just FUN to see these guys fool around with their newfound powers. It's believable stuff. Just goofing off. And they get more powerful. They can fly. They're having fun. They're bonding. But when Andrew starts to abuse his power, we see a gap put between the boys. It's the classic story of the weak man given the ultimate power.

Andrew becomes the strongest of the three, and he knows it. He believes he has become the "apex predator", which really is an accurate description. "You don't feel guilty when you squash a fly" Andrew says to the camera. It's true; compared to Andrew, everyone else is a fly. Even Steve and Matt. But not until the end of the film does he really use his power as a form of leverage. But when Andrew becomes angry, instigated by his father, he takes it out on everyone and everything around him. And that was another great part of the film. Seeing what was basically a battle between two superheroes in downtown Seattle from the perspective of hand-held and security cameras. It's exciting stuff.

The drama in the film is often hard-hitting, especially the pivotal moment I won't spoil here. I think it's because we get to know these characters as who they are; teenage boys. We see them around their friends, being open and honest. That's what makes what would otherwise be meaningless important.

I'm sure Chronicle won't be the last of these found-footage films (I'm trying to think of another term for them; I sound redundant!) but in a genre that is growing by the day and often times getting worse with each release, Chronicle stands out. Hopefully it influences a wave of other films of it's genre. And I'm going to go on record and say that I think that Chronicle is the best of it's kind yet.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Predator 2 (1990)
5/10
Not A Good One
23 January 2012
Warning: Spoilers
I just finished watching this about five minutes ago. I've liked Predator for years, the Alien films for even longer. Hated AvP for a few years, and disliked Predators since that came out. I figured I HAD to see Predator 2. The concept is interesting; a Predator stalks his prey in Los Angeles while the city is experiencing a crime wave. A change of scenery from the first Predator. Sounds kinda cool, right? Wrong. The movie shoves that crime wave down your throat from the start.

The movie begins with an over-the-top, silly shootout between these downright ridiculous gangsters and the police. I don't like to be nitpicky, but these guys are packing more firepower than the Marines. They retreat into their little hideout and snort coke by the handful, rejuvenated and ready to kill more cops. It's just dumb. I thought "Okay, maybe this is just to emphasize that the city is full of these heavily armed bad guys." Throughout the rest of the film we're constantly reminded that "Hey! I'm big, scary, and tough an- What?! What's that? A shadowy figure just stabbed my friend! Shoot it!" I mean, yes I suppose the original Predator had it's fair share of silly moments, but they were carried out with far more class than this garbage.

I don't want to compare this to the original; it's a bad film on it's own. The characters are cardboard cutouts. I'm all for having your typical array of characters in a film, but there needs to be some redeeming factor, something that makes up for it. The thing that stops this movie from a score any lower than a five is the Predator itself. It's a great monster! It combines all the aspects of your standard scary creature and gives it an intellect and tons of gadgets. Combine that with the concept of "Now we're the hunted!" and that's why the Predator has become such an iconic figure in the Sci-Fi world.

I'll admit, about an hour, hour ten minutes into the movie I started to enjoy it. Not so much the one-on-one showdown with the Predator, but when Gary Busey and his guys were hunting the Predator. It was slightly suspenseful, as opposed to the hour of film before it. I was entertained. But right when the Predator reaches out and makes the audience jump and scream, and it delivers it's line, that's when the movie shifted back into mediocrity. That brings me to another point.

While this doesn't weigh in on my score or opinion, how can the Predator talk without it's mask? Or better, how can it speak English without it's mask? I had thought all the dialogue we've ever heard from a Predator was from recordings it had made. As well, after the Predator's mask is removed, when we see things from the Predator's point of view, we still see in the heat vision that has become such an iconic part about the character. I mean, I could poke holes like this into some of my favorite movies; I don't mean it as criticism. Just wondering if I know the monster as well as I thought! So if you're reading this and shaking your head, still thinking "This idiot doesn't know what he's talking about; it's a classic!" Fine, so be it. I just can't understand these (mostly positive) reviews on here. Or at least, the ones I saw mostly ranged from seven to tens even! Hey, it's all opinion, and mine is that the film is bad. You DON'T have to watch it if you like the original, it'll just leave you very, very disappointed. I never thought I'd say it, but if you're looking for more trophy-collecting action, watch Predators!
0 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Bronson (2008)
8/10
A Reassessment
17 January 2012
When I first viewed Bronson, it was the day after Drive opened in theaters. I was utterly blown away by its style and technical perfection, and the actors' performances so I decided to investigate director Nicolas Winding Refn's earlier films. Perhaps Drive was the wrong film to start with. Bronson, radically different from Drive, sports a much more avant garde style; I'd go as far as to say it's very similar to Kubrick. I was caught off guard. I enjoyed the style and Hardy's brilliance, but I wasn't quite in love with it. I gave it a 6/10, and moved on. Now here I am, having recently fallen in love with Refn's Valhalla Rising, giving Bronson a second chance. And I'm glad I did.

Bronson is about a man, Michael Peterson, (Tom Hardy) who is bored with life. Maybe not even bored--from the start he's a nonconformist. He goes about his early years committing petty crimes until he one day robs a post office, gets arrested, and it's history from there. I'll avoid summary, as you may read that elsewhere if you wish. So Peterson seeks an outlet for his pent up boredom. His rage. Naturally, assaulting anyone near him is a viable passtime! Adopting the "stage name" Charles Bronson, Peterson becomes a celebrity of sorts. Tom Hardy is absolutely menacing as Bronson. At times you're convinced he's absolutely insane (and he is pretty crazy) while others he's simply flamboyant and over-the-top. But the times where he unleashes his anger and insanity are truly heart-stopping. Presenting his inner thoughts to us (literally the audience of the film) Bronson is a one man show giving his heartfelt take on his own feelings and inner thoughts.

And I think that's what I missed about the film the first time around. I sought a storyline I could cling to; a beginning, middle, and end. Structure. Bronson, both the film and the man, is the opposite of structure. He's raw anger incarnate. The film is about his rage and his expression of anger and how he (sometimes) suppresses it. There is no structure when a mad bull charges. That is the equivalent of this film. Hardy's mustached, grinning madman is our guide through his own uncontrollable anger.

So yes, Hardy is absolutely perfect in the title role. According to the real Bronson, no one else could've played him! But the other half of Bronson's brilliance comes from behind the camera. Refn has a true talent for framing shots, and often gives the film a surreal and colorful palette. Not only are the images mesmerizing, but they are accompanied by music that is both appropriate and the complete opposite of the images we see. Classical music playing as Bronson charges prison guards, or thumping electronic beats as he enters the underground fight scene (I particularly love the song that recurs throughout the film, and plays over the credits). The music adds a sort of order to the disorder, and creates a soothing scene that would be shaky-cam intensity with another director. That is Refn's brilliance: calmly displaying violence.

So I hope my change of heart spurs you to revisit Bronson if you were unsatisfied initially. It's an odd film, but I found that it became more enjoyable once I allowed Bronson's chaos to overcome my concept of "what a film should be".
8 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed