DamienRoc's 15 from '15 | Complete List on Page 3

[BadAtGender]

#7

 

Another surprise, late entry!

 

 

There are two entirely separate things that recommend Tangerine: the technical and the political.

 

On the technical side, the film is exemplary. Filmed on an ultra low budget using iPhones, it's a masterclass in doing a lot with limited resources. The cinematography is fantastic, capturing a lush yet seedy sun-drenched Los Angeles. The musical choices are exemplary, marrying the audio to the video to create a perfect atmosphere. Sean S. Baker's direction are tight and controlled. It runs a slim 88 minutes, but that is plenty to convey the story and characters chosen.

 

However, while the technical success is enough to recommend the film, the political side is more interesting. The history of transgender portrayals in film tends towards two extremes: either as a punchline or as tragedy porn. Of late, the latter has become something trendy, with juicy awards baity roles going to cisgender men (usually) portraying transgender women.

 

Tangerine disagrees. It correctly shows that the people who should be telling the stories of transgender people should be transgender actors. To do anything less is dishonest and generally offensive, even if the people making the film have good intentions. Baker found actresses Kitana Kiki Rodriguez and Mya Taylor to play the two leads, and they do so perfectly, imbuing the characters with a depth that is fully relatable, even if their lives are not. The fact that neither had any major experience prior to the film is both a sad comment on how poorly Hollywood does at providing roles for actors who are either transgender or non-white. It also shows that you don't need a name to get a great acting performance.

 

The film is shockingly honest. It shows, as is often the case, that transgender women, especially transgender women of color, often resort to sex work to make ends meet. It neither provides the audience with characters who exist for our pity nor ones to affirm our comfort. This isn't to say that Tangerine is a serious affair. It's a comedy, after all. It takes a fairly common day-in-the-life structure to follow two women as they have their adventures. This plot is filled with larger than life characters, who are both enjoyable, funny, and fully realized. The characters are at times both ugly and beautiful. They make good choices and bad. 

 

As the film builds to it's both hilarious and horrifying climax, it acknowledges the direct difficulty and prejudice that transgender people face. At that moment, we're given the chance to ask, how do these people pull through? It's in this moment that you could see a larger film refuse to answer. The transgender people often on display are not there for their own stories, but to provide the viewer with an emotional rag to cry into.

 

Tangerine makes a different choice. In the quiet final moments, it provides an answer. It's a film about two girlfriends, after all. They get through their difficult times and support each other because of friendship, even if they don't always get along.

[Plain Old Tele]

Great write-up!

[BadAtGender]

3 hours ago, Telemachos said:

Great write-up!

 

Thanks. That one was surprisingly difficult to write.

[BadAtGender]

List will continue in a few hours, again.

 

But for now, another list!

 

Inevitably, I never get around to seeing some movies, even though I want to see them. So here are a number of films that do not appear on this list because I don't yet have an opinion on them! Maybe in a few years I'll fill in some gaps and things will change. But for now, if your favorites are among these, I apologize profusely. I'll try to get around to them.

 

Anomalisa
The Big Short
Boy and the World
Brooklyn
Carol
Crimson Peak
The Hateful Eight
In the Heart of the Sea
Kumiko, The Treasure Hunter
Mockingjay Part 2 (Actually, I still haven't seen Part 1 yet, either.)
Mortdecai
Mr. Holmes
Pitch Perfect 2
Room
Shaun the Sheep Movie
Sicario
Spotlight
Steve Jobs
Straight Outta Compton
Trainwreck
The Walk

[BadAtGender]

#6

 

One of my favorite genres.

 

 

The mental image of a science fiction film is pretty clear. Massive budgets, lots of explosion, larger than life characters. The biggest franchises in the world (Star Wars, Marvel) tend towards the genre, or its close cousin fantasy, because it would seem to jump cultural barriers fairly easily. Everyone likes a good special effect, after all. Yet this isn't necessarily true. The literary roots of science fiction are steeped in exploration of ideas, rather than cool visuals. (There was also the pulp stuff, because a fun yarn is always good, but bear with me here.)

 

The problem often faced is that exploring ideas is fun on the page, but often runs into problems on the screen. Unless it's a distinctly visual end of the world scenario, the drama can be hard to come by. Even Star Trek, the mainstay for actually caring about philosophy and science along with the fiction, has mostly discarded such things in favor of the pew pew pews.

 

This is something of a sad turn of events, because as Ex Machina shows, it's possible to deliver a very intelligent look at some complex science fiction questions while still delivering top notch, engaging drama. Alex Garland's freshman directing effort is cracking good, and succeed by focusing on the relationships and personalities of the characters involved. Just a handful of them, interacting and conversing. Despite this very focused effort, they're tackling problems that are very much earth-shattering.

 

It's interesting to contrast Ex Machina with Chappie, because both films are dealing with artificial intelligence and the question of sentience. While they provide different analysis, it's more illuminating to consider how they differ in construction. Blomkamp has a keen interest on the cool stuff blowing up, even if it gets in the way of his story, while Garland is willing to dispense with that and assume that the audience will stay along for the ride. Note that Garland also has a history of blowing stuff up. He wrote Dredd and Sunshine, after all. But Ex Machina shows he's not going to do that stuff just because.

 

This isn't to say that Ex Machina is necessarily scaled back. The budget is small, but not microscopic. The visuals are gorgeous, and quite rightly garnered an Academy Award nomination. While he may be new at directing, Garland shows a keen eye for understanding what makes for a good film, in addition to wielding a deft pen with his amazing script.

 

Of course, it wouldn't be possible for the film to work if the actors weren't up to the task of delivering on that script, but they are. Oscar Isaac and Alicia Vikander deliver two of the best performances of the year, and while Domhnall Gleeson might not quite be at the same level, he's still rock solid in this.

 

In the film's final moments, it steps back from offering any clear answers, insisting instead that the audience consider the implications presented themselves. A laser battle might get your heart pumping, but Ex Machina will make you think for a long time. With hope the recognition its received will encourage other filmmakers to give us more insightful and smart science fiction to enjoy on the screen, the same as we get on the page.

[BadAtGender]

#5

 

 

I'm not a Rocky fan. It's not that I dislike the films in any way, but the early entries were before my time, so I never got around to seeing them. Despite that, Rocky was fairly well cemented in the cultural consciousness. In fact, my strongest Rocky memory is actually about not seeing one of the films. My family was moving to England, and one of the later Rocky films was going to play as the in flight movie. I was, for no logical reason, very excited about this. However, I tuckered myself out and fell asleep as dinner was being served. I'm told I dropped my peas on the floor. Needless to say, I did not see the movie. In the intervening decades, any experience I have with the series has been in passing.

 

Still, when Creed was announced, I had reasons to be excited. Michael B. Jordan is one of the best up and coming actors around. Ryan Coogler is a hot young director. The advertising was totally on. point. Even for someone who isn't invested in the franchise, I wanted to see the film. However, the lack of any strong understanding of what came before held me back. In a last ditch effort just prior to new years, I queued up the first and second films on Netflix and gave them a watch. The later efforts didn't happen as the series was pulled from the service on January 1.

 

The new film is, in many ways, a rehash of the original. An up and coming fighter gets propelled into the spotlight to take on the world champion, trouble and drama builds along the way. Because it doesn't really stretch in terms of plot, it would be very easy to have the film turn out to be nothing more than a late cash grab. But Coogler and co. do yeoman's work to lift it higher.

 

This is a film about legacy. Both in terms of the characters, but also the film itself, there are some hefty boots to fill. The difficulty of filling a legacy while also being your own person is a constant question. It's almost as if, Creed says, how do you follow in the footsteps of a Best Picture winner. The answer, it would seem, is to make a better film. While Rocky is a perfectly strong, even great movie, Creed is better. It may acknowledge what came before, but it also stands perfectly well on its own. The emotional resonance is fine even if you aren't wholly invested and familiar with the series.

 

From a technical standpoint, Creed is a joy to watch. I found the little flash facts that pop up each time a new pro boxer is introduced to be a fun and involving little flourish. And Maryse Alberti's camera works is exceptional. The centerpiece fight midway through is one of the best "single take" shots put together. It should make Emmanuel Lubezki envious. Additionally, the musical choices are great, arguably the best of the year.

 

It's a shame, really, that Creed hasn't gotten more recognition for how great it is. Stallone's best supporting actor nod is well deserved, but Jordan and Tessa Thompson both do equally great acting, Coogler's direction is fantastic, and Alberti's cinematography should be getting at least awards nominations. I wonder if the lack of broader recognition, despite critical favor, is because it is a late entry in an old franchise. The moribund awards industry must only be seeing the old, despite the amazing amount of new that Creed delivers.

[Plain Old Tele]

Ironically, the "flash facts" are one of the few things I really didn't care for.

[BadAtGender]

Just now, Telemachos said:

Ironically, the "flash facts" are one of the few things I really didn't care for.

 

*insert @CJohn emoji spam*

[Plain Old Tele]

1 minute ago, DamienRoc said:

 

*insert @CJohn emoji spam*

 

I believe the correct term is emojigasm.

[BadAtGender]

#4

 

This one will probably lose me any credibility.

 

 

Yes. It's dumb. Yes. It's not deep. But the ascension of The Fast and the Furious into the upper echelon of movie franchises is both amazing to consider and something to be celebrated. Because for the first three movies, it followed the normal rules: cash grab sequels that saw stars leave and box office receipts decline. It seemed, back in 2007 or so, it would be yet another in a myriad of would be franchises that would belong to the curio closet of movie history. Some fans would exist, because who doesn't love a rip-off of a better action movie in a new setting, but other than "fast cars and hot women" there wasn't anything to really recommend it.

 

However, then they decided to throw the rulebook out the window. Fast & Furious brought the stars back, and then over the next two films, they built a high octane engine of pure entertainment. In a normal world, the audience doesn't grow for the fifth or sixth installment. That's absurd! Why would new people be interested in something without being already invested in the characters. Yet they did. The fifth and sixth films figured out how to top the thrills without getting overwrought with tones of being oh-so-serious.

 

In a way, this building box office isn't a surprise. The F&F franchise has carved out a niche for itself that isn't touched by other big budget affairs. It's case is diverse, serving and audience that often isn't granted tentpole budgets. 

 

When I walked out of F&F6, I thought that in the far future date of 2019, the film that people would most be looking forward to would be Fast & Furious 9. Indeed, the expectations for Furious 7 were already pretty well honed in. A big question of how it would be able to top it's delightfully ridiculous set pieces YET AGAIN rose, and a wonder if it would, for a fourth straight time, manage to buck all box office trends.

 

And then Paul Walker died tragically, in the middle of production.

 

What you do when one of your stars dies is a question that nobody would want to answer, but it's rarely a case where it's possible to just pack up and go home. The amount of money and effort that goes into any studio film is immense, and at this point the F&F Franchise is among the biggest. Retooling the film to both work around the absence of Paul Walker and to pay tribute to him as one of the core pieces of the franchise was a difficult tight rope to walk. Despite what were probably massive problems in tackling this mid-stream, I think they succeeded rather well.

 

Admittedly, the film is a bit of a mess, structurally. It's pretty clear while watching it that the main emotional through-line was to finish up the Dom & Letty plotline that had been woven through the previous three films. That still remains intact (and it's good and enjoyable), but the requisite plot to write Walker's O'Connor out of the series overshadows it somewhat.

 

Still, despite these problems, Furious 7 delivers in what the franchise has become best at: completely over the top big budget set pieces. The escalating scale of action in the F&F franchise is interesting, because while it does consistently get bigger, it doesn't do so by getting into city/country/planet-sized destruction that plague other franchises. It's a series that knows that you need that personal human connection to really feel involved. And so it keeps coming up with endlessly inventive ways to top itself. For instance, in the second film of the series, the big stunt is jumping a car onto a boat. This time they drop cars out of an airplane.

 

That honest and ernest love for pure, action fun seems like it would be a pretty simple thing, yet other franchises are often lacking in this regard. And so when Universal announced release dates for the next three films, I couldn't help but to be very excited.

 

Yet when the dust settles, Furious 7 is honest that the franchise will never be the same. The loss of Walker is going to affect it hard, and it says goodbye with a sad sentimentality that doesn't become tacky. Gone, but not forgotten. Remembered, but not replaced. With a hope that we all ride on better roads to come. In this life, or the next.

[4815162342]

We all go a little fanboy sometimes

[BadAtGender]

#3

 

 

 

 

The tightrope walk required of Disney and Lucasfilm to pull off this film is pretty astronomical to think about. Not only did they have to appease fans across generations, they needed to remain true to the continuity they'd established in the previous six films. Doing both together is a tricky Rubik's Cube to solve. Many of the older fans hate the prequels, a feeling that as only grown in the decade since they were released, thanks to the polarizing nature of the internet. But in terms of the series, all those films still happened, so they couldn't be discarded along with the rest of the Star Wars Extended universe.

 

In large part, they were successful.

 

Under the guiding hand of JJ Abrams, perhaps the ideal choice to head a nostalgic effort, The Force Awakens is a strong love letter to the original trilogy, with numerous little cues that call back to moments that people across generations fondly remember. But it does so without specifically doing anything to comment against the prequels, acknowledging that there are fans of the series who came in with them and do appreciate them, even if the fan driven sector of the internet views them as the worst things ever.

 

The neat trick of the film is how it managed to sneak an extremely diverse cast in under the noses of the fanboy crowd, which tends to be vehemently opposed to anything political. It's not blatant, but it is insidious. The lead is a woman, the two major supporting players are men of color (who may also be playing gay or at least bisexual characters), and there are efforts to have a much better gender balance than any of the earlier films in the realm of extras.

The film managed this by basically hanging onto a mirror plot of A New Hope. There are some differing details, but the major plot beats are the same. This makes for a very comfortable film, making the audience believe that they're in for more of the same while still delivering something new and different.

 

Additionally, because it's Star Wars, it's technically superb. The special effects are top notch, helped along by their desire to have classic practical effects whenever possible. And the staging of the various battles is very well done. The Jakku Chase is a highlight, but many other moments get the adrenaline pumping with the best of them.

 

All in all, while there may have been nervous moments leading up to the release, The Force Awakens shows that Star Wars remains in good hands, and the franchise will continue to entertain people for generations to come.

[BadAtGender]

#2

 

Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

Spoiler

Limitations breed creativity. They force people to come up with ingenious solutions to difficult problems, to think about them from different angles and to try new things. Limitations may be uncomfortable, but they, ultimately, make us better, because without them all we have no reason to try.

 

This is abundantly true in movies. If you give a director an unlimited budget and time, you may eventually get a movie, but it's more likely than not to be a turgid mass that means nothing, says nothing, and makes the audience feel nothing. There may be nice flourishes and exciting moments, but as a whole it's not going to be anything you could consider "good".

 

However, at the other end of the spectrum, when the filmmakers have to try and do a whole lot with very little, they need to figure out creative ways to use their limited resources. If all you have is an iPhone, you'll need to be very clever, yes, but you'll also find out new and amazing things to bring your film to life. It still might not be good, but it will be interesting.

 

What often happens in these situations is you engage your audience's imagination directly. They fill out the details that you can't show and that makes the movie feel so much bigger, more real, but also more personal. If you go back and watch the first Star Wars (not, strictly speaking, a low budget film, but bear with me here), you might be surprised at how much was left out. There are many things that are part of the Star Wars canon that aren't in that movie. Hints, sure, but much of the ongoing success of the franchise was because Lucas trusted his audience to have the imagination to fill in the gaps.

 

So that brings us to Turbo Kid. A love letter throw back to the hyper violent sci-fi films of the 70s and 80s, this brings to mind the likes of Death Race 2000 and the Mad Max films. But it's done on such a ridiculously low budget that it forced the filmmakers to come up with ingenious solutions by asking some fundamental questions. Such as "What if there were no cars or guns?"

 

The resulting film is hilariously over the top with its violence, full of creative weaponry, and has chase scenes where the principle people are all on BMX bikes. It looks like it was filmed in and around a quarry outside of Montreal. It's so ernestly cheesy that it can't help but be delightfully engaging. "We don't have much money," the film says, "But we know how to have fun." This is cemented by the brilliant 80s-style all synth score.

 

And then you have to consider...

 

Hang on. Something's wrong here.

 

I mean, Turbo Kid is super fun and I did like it a lot, but my #2 film of 2015?

 

I need to check my notes.

 

Edited February 11, 2016 by DamienRoc

[BadAtGender]

Well.

 

This is embarrassing.

 

I was reading from the wrong list.

[BadAtGender]

So, a massive course correction!

 

While I figure out how I so terribly went wrong with my list, here's the rest of the honorable mentions!

 

Honorable Mention #6

 

While it's not quite the return to greatness for Ridley Scott people touted it as, The Martian probably is his best film since the '80s. It's a cracking good entertainment and a very solid celebration of science above all else, even if it loses some of the geopolitical nuance that made the novel so fun.

 

Honorable Mention #7

 

 

Spoiler

 

In spite of the terrible American marketing campaign, Paddington is a charming, funny, and unobjectionable film suitable for family members of all ages. A great reminder that sometimes innocent imagination really does work, and you don't need to necessarily update things for them to still be engaging.

 

 

Honorable Mention #8

 

 

Spoiler

While it's a venerable genre, it's nice to see that Westerns can still be very good films and can have a nice amount of self-examination of the genre. Slow West works as both an interesting analysis of the character tropes we so often expect, and just a gorgeous film to watch. Seeing New Zealand step in for the American West is quite a treat.

 

 

Oh, wait.

 

Honorable Mention #9

 

 

Spoiler

Overly nostalgic, but still very entertaining, it's a solid entry into the Star Wars Saga. While it didn't stretch enough from the formula for my tastes, the new things it did do, such as the casting choices, should be celebrated.

 

 

I see what list I was reading from now.

 

Honorable Mention #10

 

 

Spoiler

Sometimes, when someone tries to make something deliberately cult, it's too cloying and off putting. But sometimes, as in the case of Turbo Kid, it really does work.

 

 

 

 

 

Edited February 12, 2016 by DamienRoc

[BadAtGender]

Well, I think I've got things back on track.

 

Now, where were we?

[Plain Old Tele]

Well, this is all sorts of amazing.

 

 

[Kalo]

33 minutes ago, DamienRoc said:

Well, I think I've got things back on track.

 

Now, where were we?

 

I'm confused Force Awakens and Turbo Kid are Honorable mentions? 

[Plain Old Tele]

This thread is rapidly becoming epic.

[BadAtGender]

#3

 

For real, this time. Honest.

 

 

 

Don Hertzfeldt has made quite a name for himself over the past couple of decades. His shorts are always entertaining and extremely intelligent, both in presentation and content. Additionally, he seems to resist trends or expectations with his work. His brilliant Simpson's couch gag is a surrealist masterpiece that may be head scratching to some, as it's short on obvious laughs, but stands as one of the best things to happen on the show in decades.

 

World of Tomorrow, his latest short, is his first foray into using computers in his animation. Despite this change, the film is recognizably Hertzfeldt, with all the trademark surrealist presentation, engaging stick figures, and pitch-black deadpan humor. As he always has, he's used the tools available to explore the form of the medium. He is telling stories that would not work without the animation, but also would not work with a more traditional aim.

 

However, it does feel like this is his most easily engaged film, from an audience perspective. Many of this earlier films would often skew hard with their bleak violence that may turn some viewers off. In a lot of ways, early Hertzfeldt feels like early web animation, although he's always had a much clearer understanding of how much is too much. This time around, while the world presented is still dark, it's more subtly so.

 

What is perhaps most impressive is how much he crams into a short timeframe. At just 16 minutes long, it's easily the shortest entry in my top 15, but he manages a ton of world-building, multiple plot lines, several interesting characters, and recurring humor, all without seeming overstuffed. It provides just enough information and has the key delivery beats so that the audience can, within moments, take things to their logical conclusion.

 

In some ways, I see comparisons to Ex Machina. Both are science fiction films with big ideas, small budgets, and happen largely in the context of character conversations. The key difference is that Ex Machina feels like it needs a required basic understanding of the concepts involved. "There are a lot of important things to talk about, so try and keep up," it says. In contrast, World of Tomorrow doesn't assume that. It doesn't talk down to the audience, but does feel like there's a bit more basic lifting, providing everything you need to just get what it's talking about.

 

One interesting thing about World of Tomorrow is how it doesn't vilify technological progress. Yes, the world ends, but it isn't because humanity has lost a connection to nature or destroyed it. Advanced cloning, memory uploads, and the like aren't the cause of any widespread human problems, but neither are they silver bullets to solve every problem. Technology, the film seems to say, is just an extended aspect of us. When we get down to it, how we deal with problems will happen on a personal level. Sometimes we may need a cool toy, and sometimes we need a forgotten memory of our mother.