Not long ago I watched "Dragged Across Concrete", another movie directed by S. Craig Zahler, as well as "Bone Tomahawk". Two things I didn't like there, the ending a bit too "unhappy" + a couple scenes that were over the top as violence level. The same issues - especially the latter - I have also with "Bone Tomahawk". On the other hand, what I liked in "Dragged Across Concrete" were the dialogues. And "Bone Tomahawk" it's even better on that account, this being the main reason that convinced me to choose the movie for this entry.
The context is set somewhere in the wild west, close to the Mexican border. The movie starts with two thieves who ravage a camp in the dessert and find themselves after attacked while crossing some Indian territory. Only one of them escapes, and the action moves a couple days later, in the evening, in a tiny town, where the brigand ends up in a bar. There's not long until he gets a place on the "suspects" list of the backup deputy, an old widower, who seems to get bored of too much free time. And like that we're getting in a situation where the thief gets a bullet in his leg shot by the local sheriff, who has the unfortunate habit to do that too often with who tries to run instead answering his questions. Unfortunate business also for the wife of a local cowboy, the only apparently qualified for bullet extractions and consequently summoned to do that in the middle of the night. The problem is that in the morning she's still not back home, and the missing list is joined by the thief, the first deputy left to guard them and a couple horses in a stable. The tracks left: some arrows and a corpse in messed up state, analyzed by the local Indian expert lead to a somber conclusion - the attack was carried out by an isolated tribe of cannibals, living in caves and led to the town by the trespassing thief. Despite the warnings, the sheriff doesn't have much choice and forms a posse to recover the taken together with his backup deputy, the missing woman's cripple husband and another guy with some childhood trauma after his interaction with the Indians. And so, we get on our way...
As I was saying, the strength of the movie is mainly in the dialogues, and secondly in the acting. But the script is the base for that. You can feel that the author is also a writer. I've seen some comparison with Tarantino, given that the movie was released the same year as "Hateful Eight", but it's not in the same category. I found it much more clever in the lines construction. We have a sort of humor that alternates somewhere between dry and dark, which maybe can be seen also in the movies of Jim Jarmusch ("Ghost Dog") or Martin McDonagh ("Three Billboards Outside Ebbing Missouri", "Seven Psychopats", "In Bruges"), although it has something particular here. We're left however with the problem of the excessive violence, which actually is mostly about a single scene, but a really hard to watch one. Practically, it stands out in the movie, in strong contrast with the rest. I can understand the intent of shock, but I doubt it serves to anything else here than marketing, and it's not even very honest, since the rest of the action runs relatively peacefully in comparison. I even had to search for a poster to not include "brutal" as tagline. Well... maybe it's catchy for some audience, for me it spoiled my rating, but the movie definitely deserves watching for the rest of it.
As aggressive as the title may seem in the start of "A Most Violent Year", as much lack of dynamic we get till the movie ends. I even was in doubt: to watch or not to watch, given the context - 1981, the most violent year in the history of New York City - because I really wasn't in the mood for a realistic exposure of the period. No worries, even this statistic fades out in the film. But that's not the main problem...
The action follows a period of 30 days from the life of Abel Morales, a young entrepreneur in the industry of fossil fuels - we don't get a precise activity domain explicitly, stuff that's quite irritating at least for the first half of the movie, where you need to deduce by yourself what's the exact area of operation for this guy. We start with a transaction for a shore property, where Morales pays and advance with a term of a month to complete the sum. Also in the start we see a fuel truck hijacked, the driver beaten and left lying on the highway, finally being visited and encouraged by Morales in the hospital. Like that we get to find out that he's the owner of a truck fleet that got to be a target for such attacks. On top of everything we have a prosecutor interested in a career advancement, intending to place charges on the company on multiple counts, not clear for a while which all these might me, or why there are so many. This wouldn't matter much, but in the context of an investigation that looks more fit for a drug lord, and not for a small business, the motivation should probably be made more explicit quicker. The conclusion is that Abel's request for a loan to complete the transaction we started from is rejected by his bank, which brings him close to bankruptcy. Somehow contradictory with moving into a new villa. In any case, he's forced to look for an alternate money source... and that's pretty much the subject that the movie offers in its second part, after we manage to untangle a bit the whole context...
I'm sorry but I'm not within the same page with J.C. Chandor, who got praise for both this movie as for others like "Margin Call" in regard to screenplay and direction. For me it looks like a contradictory "performance" - the narrative tires you with a bunch of gaps that either you must fill in or to keep in mind and wait for an explanation to come out, while at the same time it bores you with a slow pace, which if you look over the story is not actually there! I mean, we have action, but somehow from what's on paper to the screen it mysteriously fades away and we're left with a general slowness garnished with a pretentious unjustified feel of middle-class social analysis. I don't know where's the precise issue, maybe it's about how all this is staged, but except the acting I find it to be way below the critics appreciation it received.
"The Lost City of Z" starts with a title, poster and trailer that are unfortunately more promising than what the movie delivers in the end. What we have here is a sort of a biopic, where the central figure is Percy Fawcett, officer of the British army and one of the explorers of the Amazonian jungle in the beginning of the XXth century, who got credit as one of the first supporters for the idea of an ancient civilization in the area. The movie follows his foot steps into his main expeditions, his more or less fortunate associations with team members, and catches a glimpse also of his family troubles caused by his prolonged absences. There's nothing that moves out of the "average" area in the movie - neither the script, nor the technical part, the acting is not bad, but it's not brilliant either. From some perspective is probably more fair to not have an excessively "romanticized" exposure, in favor of one that's more close to the simple truth, which starts looking more like a documentary from some point onward. But even this feeling - spoiler alert - is messed up by the end, where the truth is left in limbo in regard to the last expedition where colonel Fawcett got forever lost. Moreover, there some speculation in the movie completely lacking any credibility, of him either passing gently to the other side or even more, "relocating" and continuing his life in the middle of the Indian tribes. This comes in the context of pretty much all other sources agreeing on a sad end of the guy. Especially given that neither him, nor his son who was along, never gave any sign of life for their family (contrary to a symbolic "message" as suggested in the film). But well, probably such an ending would've looked too bad. I don't have any other explanation. Anyway, the rest is fine for improving your general knowledge. Although, a more productive activity towards this purpose might be just watching some documentary on National Geographic.
I promised that I'll write a predictions entry, although I'm more and more convinced with each passing year to give up on this habit. I've said multiple times why, so I won't repeat it (I might say it again without intending to later anyway). As usual, I'll stick to the categories where I've managed to see everything = thanks to the Academy for the approachable dispersion rate among the nominees :P
Animated Feature Film - 2019 wasn't a very bright year for animations. "How to Train Your Dragon: The Hidden World" closed the franchise with a sort of GoT finale feeling. Lazy, boring and senseless writing. Doesn't deserve more comments. "I Lost My Body" is a French animation that plays the role of "the something different" for this year, a typical habit of the Academy to throw in a title that looks more "artistic"/mature to save the appearance of a category for kids. In brief, it's the story of a severed hand looking for its owner, which gives us the opportunity to get through the guy's life. The premise is promising, the final result is too pretentious and ends abruptly. Moreover, technically, the animation is not the best - it's done in the classic 2D manner, which is actually a nice thing, but there are parts where the frames are scarce leaving more of a stop motion impression (which I always thought it looks terrible in 2D). To conclude, we're left here with three candidates with some real chance: "Klaus" - a cute version of the Christmas origin story, which actually gives some sense to the gifts tradition and other customs; "Missing Link" - where a Sasquatch looking for a family meets some very unfriendly Yeti; "Toy Story 4" - (aka "The Search for Forky") on which I wrote last summer. All three of these are ok, but I'd say none of them is a memorable piece of animation. So, as much as I'd be fed up with the typical Pixar over-sentimentalism, I guess the latest "Toy Story" is the one that has that something required to move you a bit more than the rest, ergo my bet goes there.
VFX - In the last few years the award for visual effects typically was given to movies including less CGI. Probably because you can't see much difference between the movies relying on that for VFX. So, on this ground I'd exclude the latest "Avengers" and "Star Wars" from the nominees. What's left? "The Lion King" is a "real-life" animation that's not much more than what we've seen in "The Jungle Book" a couple years ago, when it also took the Oscar, the team behind it being the same. So, I'd say it won't happen for a second time. There are many saying that "The Irishman" is the main contender here due to the digital rendering of De Niro, Pacino, etc passing through different age periods. As I was saying in the review I did at the end of last year, for me the result looks almost as hideous as "J. Edgar". So, as final option, I'd go for "1917", which might bring up the question "where are the VFX?". Well, actually in many scenes, and the plus comes from the way these blend in with the rest ;)
Sound Editing & Mixing - In brief editing = effects, mixing = the sound track arrangement. Almost every year the lists of nominees have a single difference (probably to justify splitting in two categories - BAFTA or other awards have just one sound section). This year the single entries are for "Star Wars" on editing, and for "Ad Astra" on mixing. I doubt either has any chance - although the the final track in "Ad Astra" is actually nice. To continue cutting from the common nominations, the first to fall out is "Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood", basically here just to fill up the numbers. We're left with three options. "Joker" doesn't seem to have much on editing, but scores better on mixing. I guess though that the final call will be between "Ford v Ferrari" si "1917", which are a on top of the rest. I'd risk to go again with "1917" on both counts. The final track is by far the best I've heard last year. On the editing side is closer to the other one, but well... I might be subjective :-) I was more impressed by the sound variation from the "silence" of the woods to the bombs explosions than by the wheels screeching and engines hurling in the other movie.
Music - Score - As above, for the score I think we're also left with two choices. First, the ones to pass I'd say that are: "Star Wars" - the soundtrack written by John Williams is nice, we have some new elements, but still it sounds a bit too much alike to what we've heard before; between "Marriage Story" by Randy Newman and "Little Women" by Alexandre Desplat I can't decide on the irritating factor (probably the latter), but I might be again subjective - anyway, I find these two repetitive, and a bit too present for the genre of the movies they're supposed to fit. So the choice would be between "Joker" by Hildur Gudnadottir and "1917" by Thomas Newmann. The first is given as favorite by pretty much everybody with a score that amplifies well the tension in the movie. However, I prefer the soundtrack of "1917", which for me brings exactly the needed contrast, where is needed. So, maybe we'll have a surprise here ;)
Costume Design - Usually I'm avoiding this section because I have zero experience for a qualified opinion. Still, this year I'd give a quick one. From what the online says, the main contender is "Little Women". Strictly visual, I'd go for a surprise, which is "Jojo Rabbit", where this part contributes to the colorfulness of the movie. We might go further with some philosophy about the meaning of this colorfulness :-) but let's stay on track. The other nominees here are "Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood", "The Irishman" and "Joker".
Production Design aka art direction = location setting + set decoration. To start again by cutting off the outsiders, "The Irishman" is first to drop. "Jojo Rabbit" and "Parasite" probably break even, and what we see there is actually probably a bit above the online favorite here, which is: "Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood". I assume the reason for that is to walk out over some movie sets and bringing some variation by doing this. On my side, I see "1917" miles away from the rest of the nominees. Basically, at least half of the movie is built over a perfect integration of the scenery with the camera work. Only the fact that the lengths of the prepared terrain was calculated to sync with the length of the shots is something to count for already. Anyway, the clip below says much more, but its second part is probably more relevant than anything else I could write here.
Film Editing - This is probably one of the most difficult to predict categories of this year. I guess that we can place "The Irishman", "Jojo Rabbit" and "Joker" in a second tier. The other two nominations where I think the battle will be are "Ford v Ferrari" and "Parasite". It's hard to compare the editing of the two movies, since it's directed towards completely different directions. In "Ford v Ferrari" we have fast race scenes, with cuts made to keep you caught in the alertness of the action, in "Parasite" we get a thriller editing with enough moments where you don't know what the next second brings, the fitting of sequences giving a certain rhythm and counting much in the final feeling you get. I'd say that "Parasite" is technically superior, but I might be subjective again. In any case, the clip below provides an excellent analysis, sparring me of any justification ;)
Cinematography - As complicated it is to give a prediction for editing, as simple is to give one for the camera work. There's a clear distance between Roger Deakins and "1917" and the runner-up which I'd say it's "The Lighthouse", followed further by "Joker", "Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood" and "The Irishman". I wrote already that together with the production design this is where the strength of "1917" lies.
Original Screenplay - From all the nominees here I mostly liked the story & script in "Knives Out", but I have to admit it doesn't have the density of the script in "Parasite", which I see as winner here. There are also chances for "Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood", but that's not really Tarantino's best. The nominees list is completed by "Marriage Story", which is a Woody Allen story written by, and "1917" where the script is fine, but not really among the best traits of the movie.
Directing - Again, we have a pretty certain prediction here: Sam Mendes for "1917". We also have here Bong Joon Ho for "Parasite", Scorsese for "The Irishman", Tarantino for "Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood" and Todd Phillips for "Joker". Compared to other years (and other categories) the level is quite high here; you can feel a consistent role of the directing and a personal touch in all the five movies. Still, I'd say the way Sam Mendes managed to stick together all elements composing "1917" place the directing here in a different league.
Best Picture - Nominations: "1917", "Ford v Ferrari", "Jojo Rabbit", "Joker", "Little Women", "Marriage Story", "Once Upon a Time... in Hollywood", "Parasite", "The Irishman". The most important category was a bit of a surprise win at the latest Oscars, maybe with the exception of last year. I wish to not be again the case, because the widely accepted prediction is that "1917" deserves the title of best movie, and I totally agree. I don't want to make this long entry even longer. For most of the above I had a review, and about "1917" I wrote a couple weeks ago. Any result we'll have, "1917" is a win for cinema in general, and that's what finally matters.
If a month ago, I wouldn't have thought that my next max rating will be for a war movie = "1917", the least I was expecting that immediately after to warmly recommend another war movie = "Jojo Rabbit". Or again, actually another anti-war movie, although the resemblance with "1917" stops here.
Johannes Betzler, aka Jojo Rabbit, is a kid, who close to the end of WW2 still strictly follows his beliefs taken directly from Mein Kampf, missing none of the meetings of the Hitler's youth movement. Moreover, his imaginary friend is the "mein fuhrer" himself, making the boy totally devoted to the Nazi cause, despite his mother's suggestions towards moderation. Rosie Betzler is actually doing more than that, sheltering a young fugitive jew girl. Discovering this, brings shock and horror to Jojo's life, who's facing now an existential dilemma: his antisemitic cause vs. throwing his mother into Gestapo's claws.
"Jojo Rabbit", as most of Taika Waititi's movies, is a comedy before being a "war/anti-war movie". But slowly it gets you into the drama world, up to the moment where it starts reminding you a bit of "La Vita e Bella". There are actually at least a couple scenes that are in deep contrast with the usual "playful" atmosphere present in the movie, and you'll be at risk of shedding a tear or two. The major difference is that the script doesn't fall into the tragic zone, and somehow manages to get out with a clear smile from these hard moments. Again I'm not in my best writing mood, so I might be subjective, but I really prefer this "happy" version. In the end I guess it's more ok as view over life, even if it might be less real ;)
Posts
