The Official Review Thread of 2012

User avatar
flipp525
Laureate
Posts: 5897
Joined: Thu Jan 09, 2003 7:44 am

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2012

Postby flipp525 » Sun Feb 10, 2013 7:04 pm

First Truman Capote, now Alfred Hitchcock. Does Toby Jones not have his manager or whoever do some research on whether or not the historical characters he portrays have been (or will be) seen in another film from another actor? It seems like he always turns in the more nuanced version of the person, but gets overshadowed by earlier competition.
"The mantle of spinsterhood was definitely in her shoulders. She was twenty five and looked it."

-Gone With the Wind by Margaret Mitchell

Mister Tee
Laureate
Posts: 6793
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 2:57 pm
Location: NYC
Contact:

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2012

Postby Mister Tee » Sun Feb 10, 2013 5:56 pm

Precious Doll wrote:Regardless of accuracy of truth, which one must always take when anything is said about anyone that has passed away is not no longer able to defend themselves, Jones gives a spot on portrayal of Hitch.

I wasn't aware that Hedron's allegations were that recent.

I read them in the Donald Spoto biography, which must have been close to 20 years ago.

User avatar
Precious Doll
Emeritus
Posts: 3934
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2003 2:20 am
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2012

Postby Precious Doll » Sun Feb 10, 2013 3:31 pm

Regardless of accuracy of truth, which one must always take when anything is said about anyone that has passed away is not no longer able to defend themselves, Jones gives a spot on portrayal of Hitch.

I wasn't aware that Hedron's allegations were that recent.
“Those Koreans. They’re so suspicious, you know, ever since Hiroshima.” Constance Langdon (Jessica Lange) from American Horror Story: Season One

anonymous1980
Laureate
Posts: 5388
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
Location: Manila
Contact:

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2012

Postby anonymous1980 » Sun Feb 10, 2013 8:04 am

Precious Doll wrote:Anonymous if you (or anyone else interested in Hitchcock) gets a chance check out The Girl (2012) directed by Julian Jarrold and starring Toby Jones who does a far more convincing Hitchcock than Hopkins.

It covers the Hitchcock Tipi Hedren period and the making of The Birds and Marnie. Sienna Miller is also impressive in the demanding role of Hedren. Imelda Staunton is a far more believable as Alma Hitchcock then Mirren, though she sadly has little to do.

Whilst The Girl lacks the slickness of Hitchcock, I felt it captures Hitchcock himself in a far more interesting manner and it doesn't have all that tiresome subplot of Alma's allegedly 'affair' which apparently may have happened in the 1940s and not whilst Psycho was being made.

The Girl being made for TV would have been shot on a much smaller budget then Hitchcock and it does look it but it more then makes up for that with much better performances and a more engaging story, that of Hitchcock and his relationship with Hedron.


I've heard about this movie. Lots of film critics gave it negative reviews because they felt it's a cheap hatchet job and portrays Hitchcock as a sexual predator based solely on the allegations of ONE leading lady who only up until recently was reverential of Hitch.

User avatar
Precious Doll
Emeritus
Posts: 3934
Joined: Mon Jan 13, 2003 2:20 am
Location: Sydney
Contact:

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2012

Postby Precious Doll » Sun Feb 10, 2013 2:53 am

Anonymous if you (or anyone else interested in Hitchcock) gets a chance check out The Girl (2012) directed by Julian Jarrold and starring Toby Jones who does a far more convincing Hitchcock than Hopkins.

It covers the Hitchcock Tipi Hedren period and the making of The Birds and Marnie. Sienna Miller is also impressive in the demanding role of Hedren. Imelda Staunton is a far more believable as Alma Hitchcock then Mirren, though she sadly has little to do.

Whilst The Girl lacks the slickness of Hitchcock, I felt it captures Hitchcock himself in a far more interesting manner and it doesn't have all that tiresome subplot of Alma's allegedly 'affair' which apparently may have happened in the 1940s and not whilst Psycho was being made.

The Girl being made for TV would have been shot on a much smaller budget then Hitchcock and it does look it but it more then makes up for that with much better performances and a more engaging story, that of Hitchcock and his relationship with Hedron.
“Those Koreans. They’re so suspicious, you know, ever since Hiroshima.” Constance Langdon (Jessica Lange) from American Horror Story: Season One

anonymous1980
Laureate
Posts: 5388
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
Location: Manila
Contact:

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2012

Postby anonymous1980 » Sat Feb 09, 2013 6:18 am

HITCHCOCK
Cast: Anthony Hopkins, Helen Mirren, Scarlett Johansson, Danny Huston, Toni Collette, Michael Stuhlbarg, Michael Wincott, Jessica Biel, James D'Arcy, Richard Portnow, Kurtwood Smith, Ralph Macchio.
Dir: Sacha Gervasi.

I should like this movie. I'm a film buff. I'm also a huge fan of Hitchcock. A movie about the making of Psycho and Hitchcock's working relationship with his wife should be up my alley, right? Nah. The film largely missed the mark. Sure, it actually starts very promisingly with good moments scattered here and there and the final 15 minutes or so is quite good but it came too little too late. A huge bulk of the film feels like forced, padded drama with Hitchcock being haunted by Ed Gein and becoming jealous of his wife working and hanging out with another writer. It's all a bit obvious, generic and frankly even dull. It sinks the film. The good moments in it only highlight how much of a missed opportunity this movie is.

Grade: C-

dws1982
Tenured
Posts: 3116
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 9:28 pm
Location: AL
Contact:

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2012

Postby dws1982 » Fri Feb 08, 2013 5:08 pm

anonymous1980 wrote:Is it a thinly veiled scathing attack on Scientology? Yes and no. Is it a critique on organized religion and New Age mumbo-jumbo? Yes and no. Is it a character study? Yes and no. It's all of these things and it's none of these things.

What?

My basic thought on The Master is that Paul Thomas Anderson has the potential to be a very good or even great filmmaker. I also think that he needs to quit directing his own screenplays. Until he does, I don't think he'll ever make a truly successful film.

anonymous1980
Laureate
Posts: 5388
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
Location: Manila
Contact:

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2012

Postby anonymous1980 » Fri Feb 08, 2013 12:18 pm

THE MASTER
Cast: Joaquin Phoenix, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Amy Adams, Laura Dern, Jesse Plemons, Ambyr Childers, Rami Malek, Kevin J. O'Connor.
Dir: Paul Thomas Anderson.

As a filmmaker, Paul Thomas Anderson's evolution is probably one of the most fascinating and interesting ones for me. His early works contains lots of moments of brilliance but also some deep flaws and he's been developing into one of the most fascinating cinematic voices of his generation. There's a lot to chew on in his latest one. It's very easy to simply dismiss this as pure pretentious twaddle but I think there's way too many layers, too many complexities and ambiguities and to simply just brush it aside is a disservice. Is it a thinly veiled scathing attack on Scientology? Yes and no. Is it a critique on organized religion and New Age mumbo-jumbo? Yes and no. Is it a character study? Yes and no. It's all of these things and it's none of these things. It's a film whose contents and themes will be hotly debated for years to come. What's undeniable though is that it is a extremely well-crafted film, the cinematography and the score are superb. In addition to that, Joaquin Phoenix probably gives his career-best performance in this film and Philip Seymour Hoffman and Amy Adams make an impressive impact as well. It's not the most accessible or the easiest film to digest but it's certainly truly unforgettable.

Grade: A.

anonymous1980
Laureate
Posts: 5388
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
Location: Manila
Contact:

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2012

Postby anonymous1980 » Sun Feb 03, 2013 8:46 am

HOLY MOTORS
Cast: Denis Levant, Edith Scob, Kylie Minogue, Eva Mendes.
Dir: Leos Carax.

Who says art house films can't be fun? This sure is! At least for me. If you're into film, acting or the arts, it will probably be for you too. The film's strange, bizarre structure where an actor drives around in a limo acting vignettes is a stupendously unpredictable tribute to both the art of acting and of film in general. The film is a strange, weird but joyous ride that mixes shocks, drama and laughter in almost equal doses. I'm guessing this is what happens if a Godard film and Bunuel film meet and have a baby. These types of films for me can be either pure joy or pure torture (...and the latter can be a good thing or a bad thing). This is definitely pure joy. One of the best films of 2012, for sure.

Grade: A.

anonymous1980
Laureate
Posts: 5388
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
Location: Manila
Contact:

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2012

Postby anonymous1980 » Sat Feb 02, 2013 8:45 am

THE MAN WITH THE IRON FISTS
Cast: RZA, Russell Crowe, Lucy Liu, Rick Yune, David Bautista, Byron Mann, Jamie Chung, Gordon Liu.
Dir: RZA.

This is a pulpy, bloody tribute to kung fu movies by RZA, Eli Roth and Quentin Tarantino. There's nothing wrong with that, of course. There are lots of really good things in this movie. RZA, in his directorial debut, shows off a surprisingly decent visual sense. I'm lying if I said that there weren't moments when I was impressed and wowed by the action sequences which are often wonderfully over-the-top. Unfortunately, the film suffers from RZA' s decision to cast himself as the title character. He's deadly dull as an actor especially since the character he's portraying is supposed to be enigmatic and interesting. Instead, he comes off as a mere afterthought and because of this, the film doesn't quite reach the heights it's supposed to reach. It's too bad because the ingredients are all there.

Grade: C+

anonymous1980
Laureate
Posts: 5388
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 10:03 pm
Location: Manila
Contact:

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2012

Postby anonymous1980 » Sat Jan 26, 2013 6:51 am

THE IMPOSSIBLE
Cast: Naomi Watts, Ewan McGregor, Tom Holland, Samuel Joslin, Oaklee Pendergast, Geraldine Chaplin.
Dir: Juan Antonio Bayona.

Let's clear some things first: I didn't find the fact that they turned a Spanish family into British offensive or racist. I didn't mind that this is a story from the point of view of a fairly well-off Western European family and that it has a happy ending. It would've nice and would've been a lot better if the film didn't make it seem like the people who suffered the most are the white tourists and the Thai people were not mostly relegated to being the helpful natives which I found somewhat patronizing. But even then, the film is still somewhat a strictly by-the-numbers triumph-of-the-human-spirit type of film, well-made but cliched. It's redeemed somehow by newcomer Tom Holland's performance. He managed to add layers of growth and nuance in his character. It ALMOST made me want to forgive the film's flaws. Almost.

Grade: C+

Sabin
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 7701
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 12:52 am
Contact:

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2012

Postby Sabin » Sun Jan 20, 2013 7:10 pm

It shouldn't be nominated, but neither IMO should the screenplays for most of the movies nominated. And I'll absolutely agree with you on those last fifteen minutes. If anything, they contradict the moderate joys of the film, which is in saying "If you are an outsider, there are kindred spirits out there for you." By making him a very special person with a very special problem, we are spending time away from what the film is truly about. That storyline does not fare well at all outside of the book (which again, I've not seen).

EDIT:
I think it has the overly earnest spirit of John Hughes. If that makes it a retread, fine. I don't think that criticism is unearned.
"If you are marching with white nationalists, you are by definition not a very nice person. If Malala Yousafzai had taken part in that rally, you'd have to say 'Okay, I guess Malala sucks now.'" ~ John Oliver

User avatar
OscarGuy
Site Admin
Posts: 12689
Joined: Wed Jan 01, 2003 12:22 am
Location: Springfield, MO
Contact:

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2012

Postby OscarGuy » Sun Jan 20, 2013 4:38 pm

I don't think it was a John Hughes re-tread at all. Not every movie about teenagers standing up, taking stock and surviving is a John Hughes re-tread. Yes, there were elements Hughes used in his movies, but Hughes didn't originate them and certainly doesn't define them. Hughes went out of his way to make everything seem more dramatic and honest than it really was. Perks presents things honestly without resorting to sentimentality or trickery.
Wesley Lovell
"Any society that would give up a little liberty to gain a little security will deserve neither and lose both." - Benjamin Franklin

FilmFan720
Emeritus
Posts: 3508
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 3:57 pm
Location: Illinois

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2012

Postby FilmFan720 » Sun Jan 20, 2013 4:12 pm

Reza wrote:
ITALIANO wrote:I expected more. Certain aspects I liked - the loose narrative structure, the young actor's performance (he is actually very good, very promising), some moments which will ring true for anyone who's ever been a teenager (and, needless to say, we all identify with the sensitive and the outsiders, never with the "normal" ones). Other aspects will probably be more convincing for Americans - for example, do American teenagers (or did they use to, in the early 90s) spend their time acting in stage productions (of the Ricky Horror Picture Show, of all things)? I don't know, I'm not sure. And, American or not, cliches abound - including the inevitable "You'll become a writer" which the Literature teacher says to our young protagonist. And a writer is obviously, too obviously, behind all this - some characters are really only lierary constructions, including the flamboyant gay friend, who never even remotely resembles a real human being (dreadful performance by the way).

But, I mean, I would had forgiven anything - not the last fifteen minutes though. Not those, no. I don't want to SPOIL things for those who still haven't seen this movie, but anyway, it turns out that our hero (who's not more problematic than any other teenager, at least by European standards) has a deep, dark secret in his past which made him what he is now. And I won't go into too many details, but it's the typical, TV-style, "terrible accident" which happened when he was, of course, a child; as if this wasn't enough, the perpertrator conviently died in a car crash soon afterwards. Plus, this conventional explanation is never even vaguely doubted by the other characters. The possibility that, as it often happens, it mught be just a fantasy of the boy can't be considered in such a movie - he is, after all, our "hero". But it's a pity - it destroys the good things we had seen before. (And I don't see how such a screenplay should have been Oscar-nominated, as I've read on this and other boards).


Like I've said before this is nothing but a John Hughes retread.


I haven't seen the film yet, but have both read and taught the book and don't see much John Hughes-esque in there at all...
"Go into the world and do well. But more importantly, go into the world and do good."
- Minor Myers, Jr.

Reza
Tenured Laureate
Posts: 8442
Joined: Thu Jan 02, 2003 11:14 am
Location: Islamabad, Pakistan

Re: The Official Review Thread of 2012

Postby Reza » Sun Jan 20, 2013 3:56 pm

ITALIANO wrote:I expected more. Certain aspects I liked - the loose narrative structure, the young actor's performance (he is actually very good, very promising), some moments which will ring true for anyone who's ever been a teenager (and, needless to say, we all identify with the sensitive and the outsiders, never with the "normal" ones). Other aspects will probably be more convincing for Americans - for example, do American teenagers (or did they use to, in the early 90s) spend their time acting in stage productions (of the Ricky Horror Picture Show, of all things)? I don't know, I'm not sure. And, American or not, cliches abound - including the inevitable "You'll become a writer" which the Literature teacher says to our young protagonist. And a writer is obviously, too obviously, behind all this - some characters are really only lierary constructions, including the flamboyant gay friend, who never even remotely resembles a real human being (dreadful performance by the way).

But, I mean, I would had forgiven anything - not the last fifteen minutes though. Not those, no. I don't want to SPOIL things for those who still haven't seen this movie, but anyway, it turns out that our hero (who's not more problematic than any other teenager, at least by European standards) has a deep, dark secret in his past which made him what he is now. And I won't go into too many details, but it's the typical, TV-style, "terrible accident" which happened when he was, of course, a child; as if this wasn't enough, the perpertrator conviently died in a car crash soon afterwards. Plus, this conventional explanation is never even vaguely doubted by the other characters. The possibility that, as it often happens, it mught be just a fantasy of the boy can't be considered in such a movie - he is, after all, our "hero". But it's a pity - it destroys the good things we had seen before. (And I don't see how such a screenplay should have been Oscar-nominated, as I've read on this and other boards).


Like I've said before this is nothing but a John Hughes retread.


Return to “2012”

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest