For the first half of this movie, I couldn’t help comparing it to Carol. They share the dynamic of a young, shy woman being attracted to an older, more glamourous and confident woman. But for me, Eileen felt like a lesser version; its dialogue is somewhat shallow and obvious, lacking in mystery.
It turns out that the film is more of a thriller than it sets itself up as. I won’t spoil it, but it goes to an intense and uncomfortable place. While it succeeds in setting the movie apart, I didn’t feel like there was much depth to the story overall.
A non-narrative documentary in the vein of Koyaanisqatsi and Baraka. Ascension doesn’t quite reach those heights; what’s missing for me is the music, which is key for “vibes” films like these.
I appreciated the film’s look at China’s working class. For the most part, the goal that these people are trying to ascend towards—wealth—remains an invisible spectre that hangs over them. You don’t see the bosses that they’re trying to please by taking smiling lessons; you don’t see the VIPs that they’re training as bodyguards to protect; you don’t see who they’re constructing the sex dolls for.
I almost wish that the film that kept that limited perspective for the entire runtime, but we do see a fancy dinner with those who have ascended all the way to the top. But for them, there is a higher goal: they seem preoccupied with the Western influences of the table settings and glassware. Is the Chinese Dream really worth chasing if it just leads you into the same materialistic folly as the American Dream?
The premise and setup of this thriller drew me in. A family is home-invaded by twisted doppelgängers, monstrous versions of themselves. Cool idea, but unfortunately, the extended middle section of the movie doesn’t do much with the idea. It’s mostly generic chases and fights, and their attackers could have been anyone. The action scenes are well done and I felt the tension, but ultimately I was disappointed because the concept isn’t fully developed. The only explanation comes in the form of a long villain monologue… I wish it had been integrated into the story instead.
I think this movie is much funnier than I felt it was on the first viewing. Julianne Moore plays Gracie, a woman who committed statutory rape, was imprisoned for it, and then ended up in a long-term and seemingly happy marriage with the much younger man. Natalie Portman plays an actress who will play Gracie in a movie, and is embedding herself in Gracie and her family’s life for the sake of research.
The subject matter is so uncomfortable and awkward that I was probably too tense to laugh. Don’t get me wrong: it’s not supposed to be a comedy, and the characters go through some painful realizations. But the fact that I chuckled on more than one occasion is a credit to the strength of the dark humour. I look forward to rewatching this in the future.
For the first time, I’m revisiting and writing about a film that I’ve previously reviewed. It’s enlightening to see how my tastes have changed since over a decade ago.
My earlier rave was not completely misplaced… I still agree with myself that the strengths of the film lie in its poetic style and rhythm. However, I see in my past self a style-over-substance attitude that maybe I’ve outgrown?
Most notably, I’ve come to take more seriously any story about trauma and mental illness. I’m not above enjoying thrillers or horror or action films that deal with revenge, but I think that the style needs to be heightened enough for it to feel fantastical, e.g. John Wick or Kill Bill (although it’s been a long time since I’ve watched the latter).
I had trouble swallowing Confessions this time around because its style is melancholic and realistic. Genre films like action movies or murder mysteries can skip over the trauma of death in favour of plot; but when the trauma is the plot, it carries much more weight. Are we really supposed to revel in the mental torture of children by an adult?
Trader is a one-person, single-location thriller.1 As such, the discussion must begin with actor Kimberly-Sue Murray, who carries the film with chameleon-like confidence. The character is all about deception and manipulation, as she puts on a different accent for each of the conversations she has with the other characters over the phone. With hair, makeup, and body language changes, she sometimes looks like a different person from scene to scene.
Another strength of the film is the visual design and propulsive editing. It all takes place in a dingy basement apartment, so there’s not much physically for the filmmakers to work with, but using creative lighting and mixing in a generous dose of screenlife shots, they are able to create a whole world, which feels like it’s always in motion.
I had trouble with the morality of the film, which I’m sure is the point. It seems to say that the only way to survive in a horrible world (i.e., the world of stock market finance, and more broadly, capitalism) is to be even more horrible.2 The film in its final moments makes (click for spoiler) a mass shooting seem triumphant, and I really can’t go there with it.
I came to this via the rabbit hole of vocal coaches on YouTube analyzing singers’ performances. “Never Enough” from the soundtrack of The Greatest Showman is apparently a good showcase for vocalists because it has a lot of big notes. I liked the song so checked out the movie.
The character of P.T. Barnum is kind of a jerk… he commits fraud to get a bank loan, he’s mean to his employees, and he abandons his family. The movie plays this with an “aw, shucks, whoopsies” kind of tone, like we’re supposed to root for him just because he does a song and dance. The most egregious scene suggests that he treats his sideshow “freaks” as equals, whereas, just a few scenes earlier, there’s a whole song sung by the bearded lady and her colleagues after being rejected from a party by Barnum.
In my opinion, this movie spends most of its runtime on the least interesting part of the story. What fascinated me was the scientific and technological developments in creating the bomb. On multiple occasions, supporting characters say how important and brilliant Oppie is, but the film doesn’t let him demonstrate it. Instead, it’s more concerned with the question of whether he is a Communist. On a script level, I respect the interweaving timelines, framed through hearings and interrogations, because I know it’s difficult to pull off. But I kind of wish the movie had been less complex, and more deliberately paced, so that we could a) see the science happen, and b) sit with the moral questions that it raises.
P.S. I think that The Social Network is the superior “flashbacks via hearings” movie.
