The Films of 2012

[colinr0380]

I'm curious as to whether this might inspire any release or update of the directors previous films in the UK in the wake of The Raid: Redemption. The horror film Footsteps has never had a UK release despite being made in Wales (it has a DVD out in the US through Unearthed Films though), and while Merantau has a cheap DVD in the UK (under the title Merantau Warrior), the US also has a Blu-ray available.

[mfunk9786]

Just got done watching Indie Game: the Movie and was pretty impressed at how these little stories were told. The pic clearly has an immense amount of respect for its subject, so there's no finger pointing or laughing here, only a sincere attempt to convey the amount of work that goes into the production of an independent video game and how much is on the line if an inferior product is put out into the world. It would have been interesting to have perspective on games that are worked just as hard on and lay an egg out in the marketplace, but as it stands, this is a pretty excellent piece of work and will certainly give non-gamers and gamers alike more perspective on just how much effort needs to be put into even the simplest little games that we all take for granted in this day and age. Certainly made me want to go out and buy the games given a lot of facetime in the film, and makes me reevaluate my typical aversion to work that doesn't have a major development studio's muscle and sheen behind it.

[The Narrator Returns]

This may seem downright Armond Whitian to say, but having seen Madagascar 3, I can compare it to Tokyo Drifter and other Seijun Suzuki films. The plot is of little to no importance, nor should it be (even a five-year-old could predict every plot point). The real star of the show is the sheer weirdness going on joke-wise and visually. The actual circus in the film resembles an acid trip, and the chase through Monte Carlo is stunning. I don't know if its superiority over the previous films is because Noah Baumbach co-wrote it, or if the creators just got bored with the franchise and decided to have some fun with it, but either way, it's a lot of fun.

P.S. The "afro circus" bit you've probably seen in advertisements is just as bad you think it is. Even worse, they mix it with "I Like To Move It" during the credits, for twice the annoying!

[cdnchris]

I'm taking my daughter to see it, and based on that I'm now actually looking forward to seeing it.

[knives]

I haven't seen it yet, but likewise I've heard a lot of positive things to the sound of them just dropping everything and turning the film into a cartoony cartoon.

[roujin]

It certainly makes zero sense. It might depend on your mood if you find that fun or completely inconsequential.

[hearthesilence]

Quick reviews on two films I did see:

Sleepwalk with Me, a new film co-written by Ira Glass. (WBEZ - or This American Life, forgot which - is even credited in the opening.)

Pretty much what you would expect from an indie film with Hollywood ambitions. Smaller budget ($1 million) but the visual style, soundtrack and the approach to the material wasn't all that different from a major studio movie. Wasn't that crazy about it, though it did have a few genuinely funny moments.

Also saw The Impostor, a documentary based on the New Yorker article about the 23-year-old fugitive Frenchman who masqueraded as a missing 15-year-old San Antonio boy.

Incredible story, but there were a lot of serious problems with the way it was presented in this film. I talked to a friend afterwards who had read the article and it sounds like some of the issues I had also marred the original reporting (and which the magazine seems to have regretted later on).

[Matt]

I talked to a friend afterwards who had read the article and it sounds like some of the issues I had also marred the original reporting (and which the magazine seems to have regretted later on).

This is the first I've heard that the New Yorker had problems with David Grann's reporting in this piece. Can you say more?

[hearthesilence]

Not the best source for this as all my information was secondhand...

Spoiler

...but the reasons why the family believed Bourdin was the boy was presented in a fairly distorted fashion. The one reason it explored the most was the one that turned out to be an outright lie, and in the documentary, I thought the way the filmmakers presented Bourdin's allegation that the family killed the boy was arguably irresponsible, both on a moral level and especially from a journalistic standpoint. It pretty much magnified everything I didn't like about the first half of the documentary.

[Fierias]

Spoiler

...but the reasons why the family believed Bourdin was the boy was presented in a fairly distorted fashion. The one reason it explored the most was the one that turned out to be an outright lie, and in the documentary, I thought the way the filmmakers presented Bourdin's allegation that the family killed the boy was arguably irresponsible, both on a moral level and especially from a journalistic standpoint. It pretty much magnified everything I didn't like about the first half of the documentary.

Spoiler

For me, this so-called 'irresponsible' reporting was a deliberate manipulation (that being the film's core theme) of the audience, provoking us to question our own gullibility. And since the film ends up basically saying that all of Bourdin's allegations are probably false anyway, I'm not sure why you'd be left questioning the morality of this tactic.

[hearthesilence]

Spoiler

...but the reasons why the family believed Bourdin was the boy was presented in a fairly distorted fashion. The one reason it explored the most was the one that turned out to be an outright lie, and in the documentary, I thought the way the filmmakers presented Bourdin's allegation that the family killed the boy was arguably irresponsible, both on a moral level and especially from a journalistic standpoint. It pretty much magnified everything I didn't like about the first half of the documentary.

Spoiler

For me, this so-called 'irresponsible' reporting was a deliberate manipulation (that being the film's core theme) of the audience, provoking us to question our own gullibility. And since the film ends up basically saying that all of Bourdin's allegations are probably false anyway, I'm not sure why you'd be left questioning the morality of this tactic.

I don't disagree that it was a deliberate manipulation. Just to backtrack a bit, during the first half of the film, when we see how Bourdin pulled off his masquerade and we see the family's account of these events (i.e. how they hear from the authorities that their child has been found, about nine years after his disappearance), it felt like the picture was taking pleasure in how Bourdin tricked everyone, including the family, more than anything else.

Before I elaborate on that, I should say the director made it clear in an interview that he's not a fan of Bourdin. Looking back with that in mind, I think a lot of choices he made were meant to convey something different than what (at least for me) came through on-screen.

During the first minute or so, we see this family from San Antonio and learn how their child disappeared, and I didn't think it was hard to empathize with the family and what they went through. Then we're introduced to Bourdin, and as the first half progressed, it was hard not to think about how the family was being manipulated on an emotional level as Bourdin's masquerade came together. But the film played more like an action film, and the more I empathized with the family and considered the emotional trauma that was being set up for them, it felt like the picture was downplaying what's really being done to that family for the entertainment value of the rest of the story. Again, this was the sense I had from the first part of the film.

Spoiler

Later when Bourdin throws out that "this family must've killed that kid," it played like a twist in the story, but one built on no real evidence. It was more striking considered how detailed everything else was presented - here, they just have Bourdin toss out that accusation, and the only thing that's there to feed it is an anecdote from a family friend and wild speculation.

And I think this is very problematic - if the filmmakers were trying to manipulate the audience in a way that's supposed to reflect Bourdin's manipulation of the people he dealt with, I can see why they'd want to go along with Bourdin's lie. It's morally problematic for me though, because it feels apiece to what I felt in the first part of the film, how the effect this was having on the boy's family probably should've been given a lot more weight. If I had my emotions and private life violated on the same level as that family, then had suspicion cast on me for something like killing my own child, I think I would be pretty pissed off to see that suspicion take up the last third of a documentary in this manner. Sure, the filmmakers showed in the last few minutes that we couldn't trust anything Bourdin said, but those minutes felt like a blip compared to the amount of time they dedicated to the investigation into that family. (And it didn't help that those few final minutes show him dancing around and laughing - it's the same sort of feeling I get when I come across a reality TV show, we're watching the media make a celebrity out of someone for being a scumbag.)

The more I think about it, the more distasteful it seems. It felt arguably irresponsible when compared to news stories that are repeated over and over again even when they're known to be false. Just talking about, even when pointing out that it's probably false, still keeps the notion alive.

Anyway, if I had more time, I could probably write this more succinctly, but in a nutshell, as I was watching the documentary, I was really bothered by how certain things were done.

Also, I wasn't crazy about the use of two songs that some may strongly identify with Wes Anderson movies, particularly "Queen Bitch" which accompanied a slow-mo shot...felt like the wrong place for an homage, but that's another issue.

[willoneill]

I saw a preview screening of The A-mah-zing Spider-man last night, in IMAX 3D, and while I honestly don't have a whole lot of thought about it, I do think that 10 years (or 5 years, depeding on how you look at it) is too soon for a reboot. But hey, CGI's always getting better, right?

Also, when we were leaving, this was a big line for a 10 pm early showing of Magic Mike ... and there was not a dude in sight. It may have all been contest winners from the local cupcake shop.

[hearthesilence]

Liked So Yong Kim's latest film, not nearly as slow as some reviews made it out to be and Paul Dano was very good.

[mfunk9786]

Paul Dano's become a very underrated actor. I still always bristle at the criticism of his There Will Be Blood performance being too hammy - he was playing a small town western preacher in the '10s - it's akin to bumming out about a habanero pepper being too spicy. It's part of the job, man

[warren oates]

Paul Dano's become a very underrated actor. I still always bristle at the criticism of his There Will Be Blood performance being too hammy - he was playing a small town western preacher in the '10s - it's akin to bumming out about a habanero pepper being too spicy. It's part of the job, man

As if Dano's any more OTT than Daniel Day Lewis or than the deliberate and powerful bombast of the filmmaking itself? I've never seen Dano give a bad performance, even in a middling and obvious crowd pleaser like Little Miss Sunshine.

[matrixschmatrix]

Yeah, I thought Dano fit in perfectly into Meek's Cutoff, too. I think people might be conflating dislike for his characters with dislike for the actor.

[Drucker]

Paul Dano's become a very underrated actor. I still always bristle at the criticism of his There Will Be Blood performance being too hammy - he was playing a small town western preacher in the '10s - it's akin to bumming out about a habanero pepper being too spicy. It's part of the job, man

As if Dano's any more OTT than Daniel Day Lewis or than the deliberate and powerful bombast of the filmmaking itself? I've never seen Dano give a bad performance, even in a middling and obvious crowd pleaser like Little Miss Sunshine.

I really liked Little Miss Sunshine, and caught it on TV the other day. Feel like it still holds up.

I agree with your sentiment, and substitute the movie Girl Next Door as an entry for movies he still plays well in!

[mfunk9786]

Oh, he's in that? I've only seen that movie on Mr. Skin

[Brian C]

Yeah, I thought Dano fit in perfectly into Meek's Cutoff, too. I think people might be conflating dislike for his characters with dislike for the actor.

I was thinking about Dano the other day, actually, after seeing the Ruby Sparks trailer. And it occurred to me that I think he's a very annoying actor, full of forced tics and seemingly random exagerrated emotional outbursts. But I also thought that, I'll be damned if he's not convincing and even affecting in every role I've seen him in. It's a strange dynamic he has going on, kind of Pacino-esque in a way.

[The Narrator Returns]

I saw Rock of Ages today, oh boy.

First, this movie should be 40 minutes shorter. Second, what the fuck did I just see? This movie is a clusterfuck of bad ideas. Everyone in the cast can't sing worth a damn, which makes the already-terrible songs unbearable. At best, they're passable imitations of the original. At worst, they're absolutely hilarious. Sadly (aside from an unintentionally funny performance of Sister Christian at the very beginning), they're mostly at their best. The two lead actors, Diego Boneta and Julianne Hough, have no screen presence, and it's a terrible decision to make the movie about them, instead of anybody else in the movie. At least the other actors look like they're having fun.

Finally, the movie gets a 3 on the Cranston Scale. It gives him more to do than in John Carter, but the only memorable thing he was involved with was when he got spanked (sadly, the highlight of the movie).

[flyonthewall2983]

It worries me his stock in Hollywood might go down, especially if Total Recall flops.

[mfunk9786]

I wouldn't be too concerned. Everyone adores Breaking Bad and he gave a great performance in Drive.

[knives]

Plus I'm sure it helps that he's likable in that obtuse uncle sort of way. Being nice for a character actor probably does more to help get jobs than anything else. On the other hand Eugene Levy.

[roujin]

IJohnnie To's Romancing In Thin Air. A very entertaining, very good looking, very well performed romance (with plenty of comedy and melodrama mixed in)..

I liked it a lot. I think you undersell it a little bit. After all, Wai Ka-Fai had a hand in writing it, and the places it goes in its final passages are not unlike something you might find in, say, Written By.

[Robert de la Cheyniest]

For all the NYC area cinephiles out there, Chantal Akerman's new film Almayer's Folly begins a week long run Anthology Film Archives on Friday. I saw it at Lincoln Center a few months ago and it is superb, one of the best films I've seen this year.

Here's a review