Again, I don't have the mood and neither the time for writing. But "fortunately" also no sleep. "Whiskey Tango Foxtrot", or briefly "WTF" in NATO phonetic alphabet in case it wasn't clear, is a sort of satire and the only movie fresh enough in my head to use as subject in today's posting.
We don't have a very well defined narrative here. The movie is based on a book of memoirs gathered by a female journalist, war correspondent in Kabul, Afghanistan. So, as the intro on the credits says, it's based on real facts. It starts as a light comedy where the main character is trying to leave the boring office life for a more adventurous position. Starting from this part, the development of the story might seem disturbingly derogatory at times, reflecting a lighter Western position over a real situation in a conflict area that comes packed with all sort of problems, from social issues to tragedies on the battlefield. So, a context that in practice doesn't offer much material for a comedy. Slowly, the movie migrates though, in a relatively predictable fashion towards a more dramatic nuance = it also adds an unlikely romance episode, a kidnapping that brings some real tension and a more serious approach to a case of bad injury on the front. So, as I was saying we end up with a sort of satire that somehow looks decent enough in the end.
I'm still not sleepy enough, but also still not in the mood for writing, so adding that half of the movie's watching value comes from Tina Fey's acting, I'll end this here.
"Vice" is written and directed by Adam McKay, who three years ago did the same thing in "The Big Short", has at least two actors from "The Big Short", has a subject as real as in "The Big Short", it's worked in pretty much the same manner as "The Big Short", and has a happy ending as positive as in "The Big Short", so there's not much left to say.
Rating: ..
Well, not yet :) But I couldn't help it. You'll get it when you'll see the movie ;) The truth is that I don't have much left to say, and what's above is valid. It's a sort of biopic of Dick Cheney, former VP in the Bush administration, brought to screen without his support or consent. So, mostly based on common knowledge, packing enough satire - within the limits you could have that in the context of the latest Irak war. Somehow unexpectedly, the movie, in its depth, is not completely one-sided. Although the story might seem clear, there's a fine dose of objectivity that should be appreciated, suggesting that in the end life is not black & white, but very, very, very gray... - more or less between the lines there's an idea suggesting that from someone's perspective, his own actions might seem fair, which puts a question mark over a guilt on coming not of bad intentions but out of sheer incompetence. Which is not the same. But let's take a break on philosophy...
Moving back to "The Big Short" :)... As it was there, here the editing is also exceptional, and practically that's what makes the whole movie. Obviously it won't work without the way the script is structured. Probably it's the best approache for a subject of this type - you're somewhere between a drama and a comedy, "dramatically" alternating between both. On the other hand, the result seemed a bit better in "The Big Short" - but maybe it's the subject, which has more "movie potential" there :) I'd really like to see an adaptation brought to screen by the same team for "Flash Boys" (same book author as "The Big Short" - the story behind high-frequency trading ~10-15 years ago)... but I doubt there are chances for that to happen soon, although I heard some rumors. Maybe the subject is yet too hot :P...
"My life is like a maze I continually think I have gotten out of, only to find another corner right in front of me." ... it got me at this one ;) despite the context... let's say a bit "strange" of associating this line in the movie :)) No spoilers - just that "The Favourite" is not really a drama in the strict sense, contrary of what looks like.
Queen Anne ruled ove the United Kingdom sometime at the beginning of the 1700s. The exact date is less relevant. More relevant are the intrigues, the political clashes, the war seen more or less as a board game, etc., which either 100 years before or 100 after (or more..) probably won't show much difference. What we have in the movie is an episode with lots of satire in it set in this environment, where a duchess and her less noble cousin end up fighting for the status of a "favourite" at the court of a queen plagued with diseases, anger and solitude. And contrary to the relaxed tone it starts from, this conflict evolves towards hardly predictable Machiavellian proportions.
Let's take a slight detour to the more technical side, otherwise I'll lose some ideas, and I'll move back to the story in the end. We have some camera angles resulting in a very interesting cinematography, and a score based on a classic line, but bringing a series of intermezzos simple but very effective, mostly in underlining the tensed moments. The three actresses in the main parts - Olivia Colman, Rachel Weisz, and especially Emma Stone, are brilliant in their acting. I've been recommended at some point to watch "The Lobster" directed by the same Yorgos Lanthimos, but I got scared by the perspective of an acute depression when I saw a tagline saying something like "single people obliged to find a romantic partner in forty-five days or are transformed into beasts", so I skipped that. I don't know what this guy did there, but what we have here looks like a lighter "royalized" and "anglicized" Tarantino :) I'm exaggerating a bit, but the movie is structured in the same episodic style, in which every segment comes with a "punch" that changes a bit your perspective over the story.
And coming back to that... I have the unfortunate habit (due to losing time + filling my head with cu useless stuff) to do sometimes a "fact check" when a I watch a movie based on real stuff. And here you get a bit intrigued by the evolution of a character, who you wouldn't believe at scene two how far could get. What you see though in "The Favourite" seems way more romanticized compared to the historical truth. Including the not so orthodox relationship between the three main characters that gets a lot of attention in the movie, about which there doesn't seem to be any solid proof. But in the end, it doesn't write either anywhere that William Wallace cried "Freedooooom!" before the axe fell down, or that he had any affair with the future queen of England. But how would've been "Braveheart" without these? :) Honestly... I'd even say that I regret that "The Favourite" has the ending it does, which might leave you a bit disappointed waiting for a more... balanced closure of the "war". But going so far to re-write who won the fight probably won't work... or?... :P just referenced Tarantino, "Inglorious Basterds" anyone?...
I've chosen for the final entry of this year to do something that I don't remember doing before = instead of a movie to pick a book as subject for an entry: "Redshirts" by John Scalzi. Don't worry :) considering how much I'm able to read outside work related stuff, it definitely won't become something regular.
Looking at what I just wrote is somehow irrelevant to say that "Redshirts" is one of the best books I've read in the last five years ( with an average of something like one book/year :) ). Maybe it's more relevant to say that's the book that got the Hugo in 2013 ( + the Locus award ). If that doesn't say much either, maybe you're not a SciFi reader and normally I would recommend picking another book. But maybe you enjoyed "Star Trek" :) or maybe you're attracted by time travel ( oh yes, I'm back to that ;) ).
What's the link with "Star Trek" ? "Redshirts" starts as a sort of satire taking place on the Earth's flagship, and you cannot miss an obvious similarity with: "Enterprise" and the missions "where no man has gone before". With something particular though: we see the action developing through the eyes of some crew members who don't have a high rank on the ship, and who are asking themselves why only a small group of officers are surviving each away mission. And more precisely, why each time somebody of a lower rank must die in the most crazy and tormenting ways that nobody would predict. That's actually where the title comes from .. in "Star Trek", the original series, the red uniform bearers where apparently cursed to a similar fate.
What's the link with time travel ? Well, without spoiling much, solving the above issue seems to rely on time traveling :) And again, we have a quite nice approach of the topic, even though this time it's pure fantasy (no life loops theory analysis, just a light version of alternate universe strings).
Leaving the subject aside, I have to point out the literary style. It's the only book by John Scalzi I've read, and if the early beginning didn't seem to show much more than a cheap novel, what followed changed dramatically this impression :). The satire in the first part of the book is excellent, and the comic punchlines in some dialogs take you by surprise. I don't remember laughing loud while reading another book. The second part switches towards drama, and the final is again surprising (positively) in the way it's approached. Normally you would expect a novel ending in a final chapter .. or well, with an epilogue. Here, we have three codas. Narrated in the first, second and third person. And if you are still thinking that what you've read is some light satire, this part will probably change your perspective. Besides boosting the drama effect (although keeping the comic side), the ending manages somehow to integrate also some romance in this story even if (light spoiler) up to the last page it won't be obvious how solid (and surprisingly non-cheesy) is this nuance.
To conclude, despite being an often acid satire, after you turn the last page you realize that "Redshirts" it's an incredible warm book. And short, to "burn" fast :) So I recommend it warmly. That's all for now ... and of course Happy Holidays ! ;)
Welcome to the corn mafia world .. a bit exaggerated, but that's pretty much the impression you get after the first 10 minutes of the movie. Movie which is based on the real case of ADM, one of the biggest cereal processors worldwide. As a genre I don't know exactly where to fit the movie - it seems like a drama with a serious quantity of satire/dry humor and of course with sufficient documentary value. Talking about the last part, maybe is better to start with some history ...
In the middle of the 90's the aforementioned corporation was involved in an international price fixing scandal. If the term is not very clear, in a few words it relates with explicitly negotiating the product prices, or other factors directly influencing these, between more firms, theoretically in competition on the market or at least involved in the same industry somehow. The idea is of course to get maximum profit from the sales, and the described practice is illegal as far as I know in many countries, at least on some markets. Well .. getting back to the movie and to the particular case it depicts, ADM got to be investigated by FBI in US based on the information provided by one of its high ranking executives - Mark Whitacre. "The Informant!" pretty much tells all the guy's story, and what is said about that on the movie poster: "unbelievable" is quite close to the truth. Without giving too many details, I'll refer to a line from the movie, quoted approximately - why a guy with a wife, children, a salary of 350000$ per year and at two steps from the CEO position in the firm will wake up one day thinking to bring down his own employer ? As a light spoiler, the movie doesn't answer you explicitly to this question. You could choose a reason from what is presented to you, starting from plain remorse on doing right vs. doing wrong or just getting in the mood to spice up your life by getting a James Bond assignment (well .. more the feeling, less the action), but all pretty much all of these contradict between themselves at some point. Anyway, if I'm gonna continue the idea I'll say too much, and besides that the opinions are quite personal (and I think that's exactly what the movie wants, for everybody to get their own interpretation of the facts) .. so, I'll stop here with this part.
I think this is the first movie made by Soderbergh, that I actually liked. Not very much, but I can consider it as being ok - it wasn't boring at least, thing that happened with the "Ocean's ..." trilogy and also with another real-case based drama: "Erin Brockovich" (I haven't seen "Traffic" yet). As a general feeling, it reminded me a bit about "Catch Me If You Can" by Spielberg, which is again real-case based, although a different kind of story. Matt Damon, who's not actually on my favorite actors list, makes one of the best roles in his career in this picture. Besides that, I don't know what else I might add ... The cinematography and the editing are pretty much Soderbergh specific to say so = the idea, as least as I can feel it, is to give you an air of real drama that happened some years ago (which is after all the case here). The score is on the comic/satire side of the movie, and is probably the main "technical area" element meant to cut the tension so it won't rise to a level where you can actually feel it.
Overall, a watchable movie, but a bit less than I expected (and talking about expectations, in a different sense however ... what you can see in the trailer isn't very much related as feeling with you get to see in the movie ... = less comic, more drama)
Posts
