I had a version of this thread at a forum whose name is now lost to history, but in it, I tried to chronicle every movie I watched. It got tedious as I watch like 5 to 10 a week, so I got sick of it and gave up. In this iteration, I'll only post when I see something notably good or notably bad.
Seemed like the week to start it because I saw three new movies in the theater this week and two of them are in the top ten or maybe five I've seen all year. Both share the quality of being a joy to watch while also being difficult to analyze in a meaningful way. Different interpretations of each might lead you to different conclusions as to how good each is, but the truth is that they're both so rapturously entertaining in different ways that it almost confounds the discussion.
First, Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance):
Hard to say precisely what's going on or what's intended a lot of the time in this movie. Clearly the director is asking the audience to confront prejudices for and against stage productions and big budget schlock, but what is the director's true feeling about either? It's a bit of a satire of both. And the ending - I'm not spoiling anything, but what really happened and what are we supposed to take from it? Maybe someone will come along with a clear, coherent analysis and explication of the themes, but it almost doesn't matter because it's just fucking great wire to wire. It's hysterically funny and also truly touching.
I have a real soft spot for Michael Keaton, so I'm not surprised to have loved his performance (though I'm glad he's again getting the praise he deserves) and Edward Norton is almost uniformly incredible in everything, but I have always hated Emma Stone and she really won me over. Fantastic.
It is said that the movie is most notable for its technical accomplishments. It's filmed in such a way as to appear to have been shot in one continuous take. It plays with time enough that it's obvious the director isn't intending to actually fool anyone into believing it's one take, but the technique has the quality of building and maintaining tension throughout the movie. And that works because Michael Keaton becomes more and more unhinged and erratic as the movie moves along. It's only helped by the score, which is almost entirely drums - and not orchestral drums, but a drum set. It's like one long continuous bebop drum solo and it's mesmerizing.
Next, the movie I saw tonight, Nightcrawler:
I've heard enough about this one for the past few months that I guess I was primed to love it, but it did not disappoint. Like Birdman, it's hysterically funny and extremely dark at times, but enthralling every minute. Probably my favorite Jake Gyllenhaal performance - right up there with Zodiac, which I adore.
Also like Birdman, it's hard to tell precisely what the director is trying to say. It's clearly a bit of a satire of media, but that's such a tired theme that it's hard for me to believe that's what he was trying to do. Yeah, we know television news is disgusting and damaging to its audience and the world. I see it more as a character study of a sociopath. Gyllenhaal is unrelenting in his drive and maybe the only thing that made me doubt his character is that he hadn't been enormously successful until the events of the film. He's obviously willing to do basically anything to get what he wants and capable of operating smartly enough to avoid the consequences of unethical or illegal actions in the pursuit of his goal. Still, his scenes with Rene Russo are fantastic and it's a tribute to both of them that the quasi-romance between a 33 year-old and a 60 year-old seems not just plausible, but natural.
I suppose you could go in and enjoy it just as a thriller, but watching Gyllenhaal embody the character so completely is what made it so enjoyable for me.
Seemed like the week to start it because I saw three new movies in the theater this week and two of them are in the top ten or maybe five I've seen all year. Both share the quality of being a joy to watch while also being difficult to analyze in a meaningful way. Different interpretations of each might lead you to different conclusions as to how good each is, but the truth is that they're both so rapturously entertaining in different ways that it almost confounds the discussion.
First, Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance):
Hard to say precisely what's going on or what's intended a lot of the time in this movie. Clearly the director is asking the audience to confront prejudices for and against stage productions and big budget schlock, but what is the director's true feeling about either? It's a bit of a satire of both. And the ending - I'm not spoiling anything, but what really happened and what are we supposed to take from it? Maybe someone will come along with a clear, coherent analysis and explication of the themes, but it almost doesn't matter because it's just fucking great wire to wire. It's hysterically funny and also truly touching.
I have a real soft spot for Michael Keaton, so I'm not surprised to have loved his performance (though I'm glad he's again getting the praise he deserves) and Edward Norton is almost uniformly incredible in everything, but I have always hated Emma Stone and she really won me over. Fantastic.
It is said that the movie is most notable for its technical accomplishments. It's filmed in such a way as to appear to have been shot in one continuous take. It plays with time enough that it's obvious the director isn't intending to actually fool anyone into believing it's one take, but the technique has the quality of building and maintaining tension throughout the movie. And that works because Michael Keaton becomes more and more unhinged and erratic as the movie moves along. It's only helped by the score, which is almost entirely drums - and not orchestral drums, but a drum set. It's like one long continuous bebop drum solo and it's mesmerizing.
Next, the movie I saw tonight, Nightcrawler:
I've heard enough about this one for the past few months that I guess I was primed to love it, but it did not disappoint. Like Birdman, it's hysterically funny and extremely dark at times, but enthralling every minute. Probably my favorite Jake Gyllenhaal performance - right up there with Zodiac, which I adore.
Also like Birdman, it's hard to tell precisely what the director is trying to say. It's clearly a bit of a satire of media, but that's such a tired theme that it's hard for me to believe that's what he was trying to do. Yeah, we know television news is disgusting and damaging to its audience and the world. I see it more as a character study of a sociopath. Gyllenhaal is unrelenting in his drive and maybe the only thing that made me doubt his character is that he hadn't been enormously successful until the events of the film. He's obviously willing to do basically anything to get what he wants and capable of operating smartly enough to avoid the consequences of unethical or illegal actions in the pursuit of his goal. Still, his scenes with Rene Russo are fantastic and it's a tribute to both of them that the quasi-romance between a 33 year-old and a 60 year-old seems not just plausible, but natural.
I suppose you could go in and enjoy it just as a thriller, but watching Gyllenhaal embody the character so completely is what made it so enjoyable for me.