Enemy (Denis Villeneuve, 2013)

7/10
I really have no idea what to make of this one. I enjoyed it a lot while watching it, and the ending caught me completely off-guard as I suspect it did to most everyone who watched it. I find myself impressed by its brazenness despite being frustrated with it. I unashamedly looked up the movie on Wikipedia right after it ended to see just what the hell happened and I'm not really a whole lot clearer (and I'm not sure I like the explanation) but I remain intrigued.
Jake Gyllenhaal gives a really good performance in the dual role. Despite the identical appearance of both characters the mannerisms, body language and speech Gyllenhaal uses for each really sets them apart. I really liked the mood of the film too - the score is suitably creepy and paranoid and the way the whole movie is awash in this sickly, pallid yellow does a lot for the atmosphere.
As for That Ending, well...I really like movies that pull the bait-and-switch, when you think it's about one thing but it's really about another. I can understand people feeling frustrated or cheated but I like having my expectations subverted. I don't know how much I loved Denis Villeneuve's subversion in this instance but I certainly admire it. Roger Moore, in a less-than-favorable review, says the movie is "essentially a frustrating puzzle without a solution". Which may be true, there may be no solution in the end (or no satisfying one). But the solving process, however futile, is fun and engrossing. The movie is short enough to not overstay its welcome and makes appealing the idea of revisiting it to see if things make more sense on a second go-around. I might do that sooner rather than later. For now this will be a hard one to forget.

Side Effects (Steven Soderbergh, 2013)

6/10
I will confess that for the first 30 minutes of this movie I thought that it was actually Contagion. Not that I put the wrong movie in or whatever but that I thought Side Effects' plot was the plot of Contagion. So for a while I was waiting for Kate Winslet to show up and stuff.
Anyway I just looked up Side Effects on Rotten Tomatoes and to my surprise it has an 83%. Not that it's a bad movie but I guess I expected more "meh" reactions, like my own. It felt kind of thin to me as a movie - like the plot would make for a decent airplane novel, but as a movie, it felt like it was missing some meat. All the acting is good and the twisty plot is entertaining enough, albeit a little implausible at times. There's an interesting dilemma posed about halfway through the movie about the responsibility doctors face in treating their patients but this isn't given a whole lot of attention once another twists takes center stage.
This movie felt like a throwback to the "psychological thrillers" that everyone was obsessed with in the late 90's/early 00's, albeit one of the flimsier ones. I just wasn't terribly thrilled, or even roped in much by its plot. Soderbergh's direction is fine, if rather anonymous by some of his standards.

Powaqqatsi (Godfrey Reggio, 1988)

6/10
Koyaanisqatsi was one of the first experimental films I ever saw. It was a blind buy at HMV actually, and I bought it more because it was scored by Philip Glass (I was also just getting into experimental music at the time and minimalism was very appealing) than any other reason. It's remained one of my favorites, and I still return to it every now and again.
Criterion recently released the Qatsi film trilogy which I bought despite not having seen the other two before. I watched Powaqqatsi last night and frankly it was kind of a let down. The score (again by Glass) is not nearly as powerful and the images too, focusing mainly on people in third world countries going about their business, are less captivating than they were in the first installment. Powaqqatsi as a whole just feels less "composed". Koyaanisqatsi really was more than the sum of its parts but Powaqqatsi feels like what it is - a series of sometimes-beautiful shots with music laid on top of them. Nothing more nothing less.
I started the final film, Naqoyqatsi, before falling asleep and from what I saw, I'm even less enthusiastic about that one.

Mommy (Xavier Dolan, 2014)

9/10
I saw this a while ago but just now got around to reviewing it for whatever reason. I didn't know much about the plot going in. When a pre-movie message appeared on screen positing the events as occurring in some kind of medically dystopian Canada in the future, I got really apprehensive, wondering what the hell Xavier Dolan was up to. In the end I needn't have worried because this little plot device only surfaces (expectedly) at the end and isn't the movie's central concern by any means, so it's easy to forget about.
As with all other Dolan movies, the strength is 2 or 3 (3 in this case) really great central performances - yes turned up to 11 sometimes and yes with a heaping of melodrama but Dolan has always been very unabashed about being melodramatic and I find it an admirable quality, much the way he unabashedly (and unironically) uses 90's pop staples throughout the film's soundtrack.
The movie is extremely taut, with moments of humor interrupted suddenly by moments of terror or violence interrupted suddenly by moments of sadness (one montage is particularly crushing). Dolan, as always, directs with a lot of panache and flourish, yet he still somehow manages to avoid repeating or parodying himself. Just a remarkable filmmaker who unfathomably churns out great movies almost as naturally as the rest of us walk and talk. Eventually, one assumes, he's going to step outside the cozy confines of Quebec films, either when Hollywood inevitably comes calling or to challenge himself artistically, and I'm really interested to see what he comes up with then.

Gone Girl (David Fincher, 2014)

6/10
Gone Girl is a movie that starts out realistic, eventually slips into some kind of surrealism, and lands finally in silliness. One of my biggest pet peeves are movies that go great lengths to be very realistic (i.e. the first third-ish of Gone Girl) and then write in characters who behave in no way close to a manner in which any rational humans would behave (see. everything after the first third-ish). But maybe that's the point - maybe the two principal characters are just two psychopaths and here they stand, warts and all. But so what? Who cares? Spoiler talk below:
The movie has a Big Twist, like most of Fincher's movies, and I didn't see it coming, but I was open to it. My problem was that nothing that happened after the Big Twist made any kind of sense in any kind of reality I live in. I mean yeah I guess it's possible there's people out there as crazy as Amy turned out to be, that's fine. But are there really people out there as crazy as Nick? And when the first third of the movie is told mostly through the eyes of an unreliable narrator (Amy), how much is any of it really worth? We never found out the true extent of Nick's mistreatment of her and we never see Nick's perspective of it, so whether she made everything up is left in the air. And if you strip away the window dressing of the misdirection and the twists in the story (which were well done, I'm not denying that), is this anything more than just one somewhat-believable crazy lady and her completely-unbelievable crazy husband?
In my opinion, a plot twist should serve the story. Here, the twist is the story. And that's the biggest flaw with the movie (and I guess the book but I've never read it). It feels like Gillian Flynn came up with a clever twist, and then worked to build a story around it. But it doesn't hold together for me. Particularly the end of the movie, when Nick decides he'll stay with Amy despite the fact that she's a murderous psycho and Nick's sister goes "well OK" and the investigator goes "well OK" and the lawyer goes "well OK"...what planet am I on?!
The movie just ran out of steam after the twist and got dumber and dumber and less and less believable.
All that said, however, Fincher can still direct a hell of a film, and has the kind of moody realism he's become known for down to a tee. Nothing, in my opinion, was predictable, so if you like knotty plots twists and turns, Gone Girl should keep just about anyone guessing. The acting is great across the board with Rosamund Pike doing a particularly exceptional job. I just couldn't get on board with where the story went so the movie is mostly a good-looking failure for me.

The Saddest Music in the World (Guy Maddin, 2003)

7/10
I've never seen a Guy Maddin movie before but I really wanted to like this one more than I did because I like Maddin's aesthetics. I liked the way this movie was shot. I guess it could be gimmicky but I don't mind aggressively embracing gimmickry in the way Maddin does.
The plot sounded really intriguing but I was ultimately disappointed that the main focus of the movie was on the characters' inter-personal relationships and less on the contest that kicks off the movie. I think the latter would have been much more interesting. I quite liked Maria de Medeiros (who I only ever knew from her role in Pulp Fiction) but I was never sold on Mark McKinney. It seemed like a strange casting choice and his character never really felt believable to me. Nevertheless I still enjoyed the movie well enough and look forward to seeing Maddin's other works.

A Most Wanted Man (Anton Corbijn, 2014)

7/10
My reaction to A Most Wanted Man reminds me of my reaction to Tinker Tailer Soldier Spy, which is that I enjoyed it well enough while it was on screen but it never sparked anything in me beyond that. The movies are similar in that they're both a little knotty and dry (although AMWM is missing the whodunnit aspect in its story) but well-made and very well-acted. Philip Seymour Hoffman is his usual casually great self, making it feel like even more of a shame that this is his last leading role. Willem Dafoe is very good too. Rachel McAdams is okay although her accent is a little wonky at times. As for the director, Anton Corbijn, I hope he finds more to do with himself beyond functional espionage adaptations (his last one was The American) because I feel like he has a lot of talent, and it's being a little wasted in these more by-the-numbers movies.

Sin City: A Dame to Kill For (Frank Miller & Robert Rodriguez, 2014)

4.5/10
Where does the time go? Sequel talk was fired up almost immediately after the first Sin City was a success. It seemed like a no brainer in the dawning time of the summer blockbuster franchise where multiple installments were not just hoped for but expected. Nine years later, we finally have a Sin City 2, and I have to think anyone waiting for it on tenterhooks would have to be disappointed. I really liked the first one (still do) but in watching A Dame to Kill For, it's hard not to feel like all the best material was crammed into the original, and what makes up A Dame to Kill For is the "B" material (or worse).
The problem for me is that the central yarn is a crashing bore. In the original all the stories were interesting so flitting between them was never dull. Here the bulk of the movie centers on Dwight and his dame. Dwight was an average character at best when he was played by Clive Owen in the first one. Josh Brolin sucks whatever little charisma Dwight had out of his portrayal completely, and it doesn't help that he has to deliver an endless stream of deadly serious but mostly corny monologues. Monologuing was in abundance in the first one but it's ratcheted up to a ridiculous degree in this one. No one can do anything without an accompanying voice over telling us exactly what they're doing, in some gritty and hard-boiled fashion.
Mickey Rourke is back as Marv but sounds more mush-mouthed than ever. That combined with his weirdly pudgy, makeup-caked face only made me think of how much better he was in the first one. Same goes for Jessica Alba, who can't cope with the heavier lifting she has to do here and frankly embarrasses herself in scenes that call for her to do much more than look pretty. Eva Green fares a little better in the femme fatale role and Rosario Dawson is what you'd expect.
Powers Boothe is good reprising his role as the villainous Senator Roark, and so is Joseph Gordon-Levitt in a new role. Their scenes together are by far the strength of the movie. Bruce Willis shows up but almost out of obligation more than anything else, as he adds absolutely nothing to the film.
The first Sin City was very over the top with its violence and noirish elements, but it was somehow a lot of fun too. This one looks great visually, but that's about where the fun stops. It's just too bogged down with uninteresting plots, poor acting, and lame monologues to come anywhere close to the good times of the original.

Guardians of the Galaxy (James Gunn, 2014)

7.5/10
There's very little not to like about this movie as popcorn summer fun which I guess explains it's near-universal acclaim. It doesn't re-invent moviemaking but it knows what it's supposed to do and goes out and does it. I thought it relied very heavily on the formula Joss Whedon had a lot of success with in The Avengers, with the gentle, easy-going camaraderie of the ensemble cast. It had a nice "eighties" feel to it (the soundtrack certainly helped) and it generally was enjoyable the whole way through.
My biggest complaint was about the final fight with Ronan. The movie skated by on glib humor but employing that same kind of humor in the big final fight with Ronan (Chris Pratt dancing to distract him) was extremely cringeworthy and only served to further undermine what was a pretty impotent villain to begin with. Even after absorbing the energy from the infinity whatsit, Ronan was still able to accomplish roughly jack all. Which made me wonder just how powerful this stone was in the first place.
Which sort of leads into my other complaint about these movies - the good guys are never in any real peril. I know nobody goes to a superhero movie to watch the superheroes die but you would figure with 4 or 5 or 6 of them teaming up eventually one of them would bite it at some point. Although I guess by their nature superheroes are more or less immortal, but I feel like that point is being acknowledged a bit too much up front. Almost as if the writers aren't even trying to hide that the good guys can't be killed, and so write ridiculous scenes where Chris Pratt dances in front of the big bad because what the hell, we all know he won't actually die anyway so why not have fun with it?
I mean, this Ronan guy is Thanos' right hand man or whatever who absorbed this crazy purple energy thingy and he can't even stomp out a raccoon? Well of course he can't, because then there won't be any raccoon toys to sell. And I'm sure, no doubt, the main cast is already locked into making Guardians of the Galaxy movies until 2038, so the characters are contractually obligated to survive.
And yeah, Groot "dies", but he's already on his way back barely even a scene later, ready to return for GotG2. It struck me that if the original Star Wars trilogy was made today, Obi-Wan would never have been allowed to die, or he would have already been back as a spirit in the very next scene.
Anyway this ranting makes me sound angrier than I really am, because taken at face value it's a fun movie, and I'm obviously overthinking it. It's just a trend I'm noticing in the few superhero movies I do go see these days.

Magic in the Moonlight (Woody Allen, 2014)

7/10
Woody Allen seems to be working at an "every other one is a great one" clip these days, with Midnight in Paris and Blue Jasmine paced by the immediately forgettable To Rome with Love and this newest one, Magic in the Moonlight. It's not as bad as To Rome with Love, but it definitely doesn't hit the highs of the other two. It just feels slight - a little slapdash, a bit of a lark. The plot feels like sitcom fodder, with Colin Firth playing the hardline skeptic to Emma Stone's mystic medium, but the pair have an easygoing chemistry. Firth is always watchable and as good as you'd expect from him and Stone brings her usual girl next door charm to a role that doesn't call for much more.
There are a few laughs, the settings are gorgeous and the music is fun and breezy. For a nice enough 2-hour escape or a good date night flick, you could do a lot worse.

Boyhood (Richard Linklater, 2014)

8.5/10
I saw Boyhood on Thursday but only got around to writing my review now, not out of any specific design but just because I wasn't immediately sure what I wanted to say about it (or how I felt about it). I figured when I knew, I'd write about it. So I was watching TV last night and an ad for Boyhood came on, it started with a picture of Mason's face as a boy all the way up until his to his adult self. And the feeling I got when I saw the ad was extremely unexpected - the jolt of recognition when his picture came up was like seeing a family member on the news, or something like that. Because Boyhood's realism is so effortless and sublime it was nearly impossible to think of Mason as being played by an actor - he was someone you pretty much actually watched grow up over the course of a movie.
As for the movie itself, I was thrilled that there wasn't any overarching storyline or that episodes from the past didn't magically crop up again in the future (except for one minor one that I let slide). The episodic format of the movie may have been necessary due to the sheer weight of trimming down 12 years of on-and-off filming in to a less-than-three hour movie but it felt like life itself more than anything else.
This isn't a movie I would revisit in any particular hurry but it was a wonderful experience to enjoy and certainly one of the most unique filmmaking ventures ever undertaken.

Dead Snow 2: Red vs. Dead (Tommy Wirkola, 2014)

7/10
The follow-up to 2009's Dead Snow, one of the best horror comedies I'd seen in a long time. This one picks up immediately following the events of the first one. Martin, the sole survivor, is fleeing from Colonel Herzog and his Nazi zombie horde. Herzog loses an arm in the chase, and through a series of events, it gets re-attached to Martin (who sawed his own off after being bitten in the original). And, of course, the zombie surgeon finds Martin's arm and attaches it to Herzog. Inextricably linked, Martin must stop Herzog, who has plans to build a zombie army and storm a small Norwegian town in the goal of fulfilling the last mission given to him by Hitler before Herzog's death. Meanwhile Martin assembles his own rag-tag horde, including three geeky members of the (apparently real) Zombie Squad group in the U.S. as well as using the resurrecting powers of Herzog's arm to reanimate a troop of Soviets slaughtered by Herzog to command in the final battle against him.
If you're familiar with Dead Snow, you can probably tell that the above plot summary is quite a bit more bloated than what made up the framework of the first one, which is really the problem with this sequel (and many sequels in general, honestly). The need to do something bigger and better also means a lot of downtime is required for plot exposition and dialogue, meaning the jokes and the kills don't come with quite the same pace that made the first one a lot more fun. That said, there's still a lot in here to entertain, and writer/director Tommy Wirkola still shows plenty of inventiveness with both his humor and his gore. It's just not quite as much fun on the second go-around.

Metalhead (Ragnar Bragason, 2013)

6/10
Metalhead is the story of a woman named Hera who, at 12 years old, witnessed the horrific, accidental death of her older brother on their family farm. She follows in his footsteps when she gets older as a diehard heavy metal fan, using the music as a coping device but still acting out, living as an outsider in an incredibly small Icelandic town with no real outlet for her grief and with almost no one else around to share her musical passion. The movie also focuses on her parents and both their own grief and the role they play in their daughter's life.
This was one of those movies where the premise was more interesting than the actual result. Hera is actually, for the most part, an incredibly irritating character. Her age is never revealed but her acting out comes across as absurdly childish and, in most instances, downright criminal. I couldn't help but feel the actress playing her just looked too old for the part - if it was a teenage girl acting out this way she would be easier to sympathize with, but the girl playing the adult Hera looked to be in her late 20's. You wanted to shake her and tell her to get her shit together instead of taking pity on her.
There's some light humor in the movie, but also some severely cringeworthy moments. Some of it felt like simple wish-fulfillment fantasy as written by a metalhead. The pacing in the film also feels off. It felt like it could have ended at least 5 times before it actually did. I will say though that I did enjoy the (actual) ending very much, and that probably saved it from getting a lower score out of me.

When Animals Dream (Jonas Alexander Arnby, 2014)

6.5/10
A few years ago Let the Right One In came along and kind of revolutionized what everyone expected from a "monster movie", the monsters in that case being vampires. After the success of that movie, there seems to have been a rush to humanize other classic movie monsters in the same vein. We Are What We Are "did for zombies what LTROI did for vampires" and now When Animals Dream purports to do the same for werewolves, although I'm sure I missed a whole bunch of imitators in between.
The thing is, I guess, When Animals Dream doesn't deviate from the formula enough. A pubescent girl is coming to terms with the fact that she's actually a werewolf, and the expected parallels are drawn between this fantasy concept and the realities of girls coming of age (bodily changes, bullying from peers, society and family expectations changing, etc). The mildly interesting caveat is that the villagers (it's always a small village) seem to be aware that werewolves have existed among them before and this leads to the film's main conflict.
I don't have many bad things to say about the movie. It's well made with a good amount of restraint. The special effects are well done and the photography is very nice to look at. And the acting is good across the board. But there just isn't enough new or exciting here. As I was exiting the theatre I immediately overheard two nearby conversations, one that started as "I liked Let the Right One in more but..." and another as "In Let the Right One In, they..." so the comparisons weren't apparent to only me.

Wetlands (David Wnendt, 2013)

7.5/10
Germany's Wetlands belongs in a small but, uh, esteemed category of movies along with Kids and Gummo as the type of movie where you just want to take a billion showers after watching it. Unlike those two movies, Wetlands' protagonist is a teenage girl, obsessed with being an unhygienic as humanly possible owing to a childhood trauma. After one of her more horrifying transgressions lands her in the hospital, she forms a friendship with a male nurse while attempting to engineer a reunion between her parents from her bed. At the same time we learn more about her past through flashbacks, being spared no sickly detail or disgusting bodily function along the way.
The reason why this movie stands out as more than just a throwaway gross-out affair is Carla Juri's performance in the lead, undoubtedly one of the best performances I'll see all year. She gives her body to the role in a way that is very rarely seen in movies (maybe for the better...) but has such a natural charm and vulnerability that it's near impossible not to be won over by her, regardless of what repulsive behavior she's engaging in.
Unlike Kids or Gummo, Wetlands is more of a twisted comedy, and improbably (and owing in large part to Juri) makes you cheer for its protagonist...all the while being grossed out by her. Not a movie I'll forget any time soon, at least.

Summer of Blood (Onur Tukel, 2014)

7/10
Summer of Blood is easy to describe - Woody Allen doing a vampire movie.
Writer/director/producer Onur Tukel stars in the central Woody role and shares a lot of his traits, particularly paranoia, aimlessness, and a fear of commitment. The movie is even set in New York, as if to hammer the point home. "Playing Woody" is a dicey game, but I have to admit, Tukel does a good job. The writing is crisp and funny and not without cringeworthy moments that are closer to what you might get from Larry David, Ricky Gervais or Louis C.K.. The acting is extremely natural (from Tukel and the supporting cast) and the conversations have a slapdash, quasi-improvised feel to them that feels authentic.
What drags the movie down a bit is that Tukel probably doesn't recede into the background as much as he should - he's in virtually every scene (almost always talking a mile a minute) and there's a lot of soapboxing in the movie that feels unwelcome at times. With all the dialogue spouted, his character inevitably grates and it makes a short movie (86 minutes) feel longer than it should. The ending is also a letdown. It felt like Tukel ran out of time or ideas and the movie departed with a lot less steam than it rode in on. Nevertheless if you're looking for a horror comedy that's a little bit more brainy than, say, Piranha 3D, Summer of Blood is a good one to check out.

Frank (Lenny Abrahamson, 2014)

8/10
I am usually averse to what I call "Sundance movies", those quirky little comedy/dramedies with characters just weird enough to be cloyingly likeable instead of interesting or challenging. Frank is very much a "Sundance movie". Its central buzz is behind the fact that it stars Michael Fassbender, who spends the entire movie under a bizarre papier mache head despite being the lead singer of a band.
The movie's main focus is on Jon, a geeky keyboard player who gets recruited into this band of weirdos. Jon is a would-be songwriter and is both in awe of and jealous of Frank's almost nonchalant musical genius. Much of the movie focuses on the band's isolation in an cottage in Dublin, cooped up together to seek musical inspiration to record the album that will (Frank believes) launch them to superstardom. Jon tracks the band's progress via updates on his Twitter, Youtube channel and blog, eventually gaining enough interest to get a small showing at the SXSW festival in America.
The movie has some good laughs, and the music is genuinely cool, although there's definitely a little fun being poked at the creative process of young, hip, indie musicians. The ending packs something of a startling emotional punch. I could see it coming across as a little forced for some, but it really worked for me. The movie slows down as the band heads to America and the story gets a little messy but it recovers nicely in the last 10 minutes or so. I wish, like most of these quirky/cute movies, it was a little more unafraid to take a stand or make a statement instead of just being kind of glib and irreverent at times, but there's still enough charm, humor and genuine heart to make it more likeable than most movies of its ilk.

Snowpiercer (Bong Joon-ho, 2013)

6/10
Snowpiercer is a frustrating mix of interesting ideas and tired, well-trodden ones. The concept of a train hurtling around the world on endless year-long round trips with the last survivors on earth trapped inside is a good one. The direction it takes, wherein the poor huddled masses rise up against their opulent opressors is an extremely boring one. We get the usual cliches - the have-nots are forced to sustain themselves on some gross substance, a child is abused, a limb is sacrificed, everybody's face is dirty...cinematic shorthand to make us cheer for Chris Evans and his team and boo whoever stands in his path to emancipation.
The movie is entertaining as they move through the train. And Bong Joon-ho certainly has a way with impressively cramped (but visually appealing) spaces. I didn't have many complaints with its action-movie middle. But, although I haven't read the source material, it feels like Bong was forced to cram too much into the beginning and the end, resulting in stilted character development. For too much of the movie I just didn't much care about Evans or his freedom fighters and their uprising. Maybe as a mini-series with a bit more background on the events leading up to the train takeover and the people involved I would have been moved to care a little more.
In the end I just found that I wanted to like Snowpiercer more than I did. At its best it was mildly interesting and entertaining, at its worst it was goofy, but mostly it was just kind of there.

Open Windows (Nacho Vigalondo, 2014)

1/10
I was drawn to Open Windows because of its interesting premise - the whole movie takes place on a computer screen, with open webcam windows, videos, chats, etc. showing us the action we need to see to move the plot along. It stars Elijah Wood and Sasha Grey (still desperately seeking some kind of vehicle for her limited acting talents) so how bad could it be?
The initial plotting was intriguing - Wood is a geek obsessed with Grey's actress character. When she stands him up at a contest he won to have dinner with her, a mysterious third party hacks into his computer and grants him access to Grey's phone and effectively turns it into a camera, trying to play on Wood's feelings of betrayal after being stood up for this unknown party's equally mysterious end-game. Even this minimal plotting is rife with ideas - besides the betrayal and want for revenge the movie could have easily dealt with society's increasing voyeuristic tendencies, our ultra-connected worlds, our perpetually-shrinking privacy, the separation of our "real lives" from the internet, etc. Instead, writer/director Nacho Vigalondo dodges all those for bombs, explosions, car chases, ludicrous coincidences, enormous leaps in logic (and technology) and at times painfully old-school ideas about the internet and "hacking" that would have been cringe-worthy in a CSI episode from 2001, let alone in a 2014 movie that should be as tech-savvy as it presents itself.
Maybe I'm not being fair in holding Vigalondo responsible for not making a movie that conformed to my expectations of what his movie should have been about, but the movie he did end up making was so atrociously bad that it only magnifies what a missed opportunity this was. Judging from the numerous guffaws and groans of disbelief in the audience, I wasn't alone in this sentiment.
Also it's probably worth mentioning the theatre's speakers malfunctioned several times during the film, leading to explosive noises at a decibel level unheard of even at most rock concerts and two stoppages during the film to turn the lights on and get things under control. So that put everyone on edge and probably only served to stack the deck further against the movie. But it was a lost cause anyway if you ask me.

Animosity (Brendan Steere, 2013)

6/10
This is an ultra low budget U.S. indie horror with a plot that I can't talk much about because it spoils most of the fun in seeing the movie. The film falls into the usual low budget pitfalls - the acting is spotty, the special effects are weak, and the camera work leaves a lot to be desired. It also, for some reason, has an instantly forgettable, anonymous kind of title that won't do it any favors. But there's a really good, interesting idea at the heart of Animosity. I won't say its failure to execute that idea was 100% owing to its budgetary constraints, because it could have done with some tighter editing or scripting. But it was something different, at least.

The Lego Movie (Phil Lord & Christopher Miller, 2014)

8.5/10
It was, of course, very funny and very clever. Maybe not up there with Pixar's top shelf efforts (it lacked the emotional punch for me) but a notch below which is not a bad place to be at all. Much better than it had any right to be, certainly, in the face of a zillion "they're making a Lego movie?" reactions.

The Immigrant (James Gray, 2013)

5/10
The Immigrant is a movie that hits the ground walking, and breezes by without ever really registering anything in the viewer. Its story is steeped in melodrama, not helped at all by the cinematography (the entire film is shot in a kind of gold/brown hue that I guess is supposed to evoke the 1920's by force) or its syrupy, string-heavy soundtrack that runs almost continuously throughout the film. Writer/director James Gray allegedly based most of the movie on the stories his grandparents (or great-grandparents?) told him of their arrival in New York, but it still feels heavily constructed and artificial.
The movie's biggest downfall to me is the main character Ewa, portrayed by Marion Cotillard. For most of the film she's barely more than a blank slate, and we are rarely given insight into what she really thinks or feels. I guess this was intentional and in concert with the movie's anonymous, non-descript title ("the immigrant") but I don't think it did the story many favors.
Despite boasting two heavyweight actors (Cotillard and Joaquin Phoenix), I couldn't really say the acting was a strength either. Both do their best to breathe some life into characters that don't have a lot of depth, but it just feels like they're overcompensating for the fact that there's not much to work with.
I also feel bad for Cotillard in a way, whose agent seems to be swinging wildly in an attempt to find a post-La Vie en Rose vehicle for her but is coming up with a lot of should-have-been-better duds (Public Enemies, Nine, Rust & Bone, The Immigrant).

The Saragossa Manuscript (Wojciech Has, 1965)

8/10
Wojciech Has directed two notoriously bonkers movies that have been on my list to see for a long time - this one and The Hourglass Sanatorium. A local theatre was showing the former on the weekend so I checked it out. Released in 1965, it's certainly a strange beast. It takes place during the Napoleonic Wars and sees a Polish officer finding the manuscript, and a Spanish officer helping him translate it, only to realize the book is telling the story of the Spanish officer's grandfather. The grandfather's story is the subject of the film, and the tribulations he goes through over the 3 hour running time are too much to get into here, but they are certainly...bizarre. Has (adapting the novel of the same time) often nests a story within a story within a story within a story to the point where it's tough to remember who's relating what and to whom. It doesn't add up to a great deal in the end, and I think Has is more having fun with what most of the tales are centered around - evil spirits and how the affect the lives of men. Indeed, the movie is pretty funny at times, and never takes itself too seriously.
The surrealistic "feel" is similar to some of Alejandro Jodorowsky's movies, although the overall tone is not nearly as silly or scatological. I do wonder if he saw it prior to making his Fando y Lis in 1968, however.

Only Lovers Left Alive (Jim Jarmusch, 2013)

7/10
I liked Jim Jarmusch's last movie, The Limits of Control, quite a bit when I saw it in theatres. I'm not sure if it would hold up on a repeat viewing, though, and Only Lovers Left Alive is the reason for my skepticism. In a lot of ways it's a very similar movie. Slow, stylish, and it's easy to feel like it's more of a showcase for Jarmusch's favorite music than anything else. But luckily Jarmusch's aesthetics line up with what appeals to me, so I enjoyed myself. Swinton and Hiddleston are fine, and the movie glides along with an effortless cool and sexiness. Any plotting involving Mia Wasikowska and John Hurt's characters feels pretty incidental, but they play their parts well too.
I very much enjoyed the urban decay portrayed in the movie in Tangier and in Detroit (but mostly Detroit) although I wish Jarmusch had done more to tie it in more with his characters, or emphasize the connections between the two.

Distant (Nuri Bilge Ceylan, 2002)

8/10
I've only seen one Nuri Bilge Ceylan movie, Once Upon a Time in Anatolia, which I enjoyed very much. This one is very good too, about a man who loses his job and stays with his wealthier relative. The focus of the film is on both men's aimlessness. Yusuf, put out of a job by the economic climate, has an aimlessness that's a little more "real" - he has no education, no skills and no money. Mahmut, his relative, has more money and some skills (he's a photographer) but is equally unmotivated - in the career he hates, with his ex-wife, and with his lover.
Their relationship comes to a "head" (as much as anything can come to a head in this movie) in a particularly brilliant sequence. Mahmut can't find a missing watch. Yusuf claims he hasn't seen it. Mahmut finds the watch, but doesn't tell Yusuf - in fact, he makes it apparent that he's gone through Yusuf's stuff "looking" for it. Mahmut is so emotionless he can't even bring himself to accuse Yusuf to his face of the theft he knows Yusuf didn't commit. So he dishevels Yusuf's bag hoping to draw him into a confrontation. Yusuf instead departs without saying a word to Mahmut, apparently unperturbed.
What the movie shows is two men more or less crushed to nothingness by factors both external and internal. It ends on an ambiguous note but there's no mistaking the sadness that runs through the whole movie and both its main characters.

Blow Out (Brian de Palma, 1981)

7/10
Brian de Palma's riff on Blow Up, wherein his lead (John Travolta) thinks he's captured the sound of a murder (as opposed to the main character in Blow Up who inadvertently photographs one). Stylistically it was very appealing. The first half, which takes place mostly under a neon Philadelphia night, is great. The second half becomes a little less interesting as we learn more about the murder plot at the center of the film. The movie would have benefited from a "less is more" approach - frankly, the more the murder and conspiracy was uncovered, the less interested I was, and the conspiracy itself is not terribly interesting or exciting.
John Lithgow is very good in an ice cold, creepy role. John Travolta is pretty good when he's being cool and aloof, but struggles with any more than that (especially the ending, sheesh). Nancy Allen is borderline unbearable.
I don't think this movie aged particularly well, as it suffers from a lot of the trappings of its time (early 80's). The bombastic, overloaded soundtrack is distracting, and a bit at odds with the importance the film places on minute sounds. But the movie captures the paranoia and neuroses of the time very well, and mostly does it with a lot of style.

The Clock (Christian Marclay, 2010)

10/10
6:00pm-11:00pm
I have been chomping at the bit to see Christian Marclay's The Clock since I first read about it after it won the Silver Lion at Vienna way back in 2011. It finally made its way to Montreal's Musee d'Arts Contemporain for a couple of months and I caught 5 hours of it last night.
If you haven't heard about it, The Clock is a 24-hour long video compilation culled from clips referencing time from thousands of movies, and playing out in real time. So, for example, when it's 7:23pm in real life, The Clock is showing a clip from a movie when it's 7:23pm (or thereabouts). But it's much more than just a collection of clips of clocks smashed together. The clips are edited together in incredibly cleverly ways, often including overlapping or mixed sound, that makes the whole thing feel like a giant, neverending film experience taking placeover the course of a day. Marclay also manipulates the scenes in clever ways - a character in a French movie from the 50's picks a phone and dials a number at 8:11pm, and the call is answered by Fox Mulder at 8:11pm in the 2000's, and so on.
And the longer you watch it, the more references you catch. For example, at 6:30pm, a character might make reference to having to eat dinner in a half hour. At 7:00pm, if you pay attention, you'll likely see a clip from that same movie of the character doing just that. It's this kind of hunting (as well as the fun in recognizing clips and figuring out what movie they're from) that makes it so easy to keep watching. Despite being constantly aware of the passing time, the 5 hours I spent genuinely blew by, until the last half hour when my stomach kept reminding me I hadn't had dinner yet.
Another fascinating thing is to see what common actions happen at a given time across a multitude of movies. When I came in at 6pm, there were a lot of scenes with people coming home from work, or commuting, or sitting down to dinner. At 7-8pm, a lot of scenes of people getting ready to go out or children being put to bed. At 8pm there were a surprising amount of scenes at the theatre. From 9-11pm, lots of stuff taking place in bed (rarely sexual, however), lots of plots being hatched behind closed doors under cover of night. The shift in tone, from the lightness of the evening to the darker themes that permeate the film events that occur at night, is also very noticeable. Another thing The Clock maybe points out unintentionally is just how many plot points in movies revolve around characters being late for something.
I'm planning to head back to The Clock next Saturday to catch it during the day. I would really like to see what clips Marclay came up with for the obscure 2am-5am times, and even though the museum does give it a few full 24-hour showings, I doubt I'll be able to make it to those. Hopefully one day we'll be able to access it on the internet at our leisure, kind of like the 24-hour music video for Pharrell Williams' "Happy".
All that to say, if you have a chance to see The Clock somewhere near you, don't miss the opportunity. It is a completely unique, fascinating and overwhelming experience. Here is a bootleg clip someone made from 10:15pm to 10:35pm if you're interested in a sampling.

10:00am-4:00pm
I went back on Saturday and watched from 10:00am to 4:00pm and enjoyed myself again immensely. The major difference is the wide variety of things that take place during the day, I found it considerably more wide open than the earlier night scenes that I had seen. Lots more outdoors stuff, obviously. And a surprising (but I guess it shouldn't be) amount of train scenes. As expected, lots of classroom and office scenes too.
One thing I enjoyed watching was the progression of characters waking up. Unfortunately I didn't get to see the brunt of them, which I imagine take place between 6am and 8am, but it was still fun to see. Almost everybody waking up after 10am in a movie is either lazy or late (like real life, more or less). Marlon Brando had a good one at 11:30am from a film I didn't recognize where, upon being handed the newspaper, remarks with some bemusement that other people must be awake as well. The latest I remember before I left was Jeff Daniels at 3:30pm.
I'm more curious than ever about the 1am - 5am ish timeslots, so I really hope this gets streamed over the internet or something one day. Or that it comes through Montreal again and I can commit to staying overnight to watch it.

The Grand Budapest Hotel (Wes Anderson, 2014)

8/10
Pretty much as advertised, but I mean that in a good way. If you've seen the trailer, you know well what to expect. In fact I wish I hadn't seen the trailer (or hadn't seen it as many times as I did) because I felt a lot of the movie's funnier parts were already shown. But it was still very enjoyable, lots of fun, light fare. All the cameos from Wes Anderson regulars are fun, the movie is very stylish and always a pleasure to look at, and the plotting is surprisingly clever and intricate. My only complaints are for a slow beginning and an abrupt ending. And I would have enjoyed an even longer middle section, as it felt like the fun was over too fast. But better than overstaying its welcome, I guess. Anyway it was a good time, and every one in our group of 7 enjoyed themselves which is a rarity, so I can't imagine who this wouldn't appeal to.

Nymphomaniac Vol. I & II (Lars von Trier, 2013)

6.5/10
Nymphomaniac is less a coherent film and more a lengthy therapy session by and for its creator, Lars von Trier, as he tries, as he did in Antichrist, to pin down and figure out the fairer sex. In a 4+ hour movie, this goes in a lot of directions. Sometimes the experiences of the central female Joe are funny, sometimes erotic, sometimes hideous, sometimes silly, sometimes mundane, and everything else in between. What's disappointing about Nymphomaniac is that it's essentially what it promises on the tin - when I imagined a long movie by this title from this director starring Charlotte Gainsbourg, it wasn't worlds away from what I ended up getting. Both of von Trier's last two movies, Antichrist and Melancholia, were extremely unique. Nymphomaniac feels considerably less so, to the point of even quoting a scene from Antichrist directly.
In the end I feel like this was more of an "exploration" of female sexuality and addiction than any kind of real definitive statement. You get some glimpses of von Trier's honest opinions (male/female double standards) but it's clear he's also just as happy to be the provocateur (its main character's unsettling sympathy towards pedophiles, a misanthropic but painfully predictable ending). I thought the movie had an interesting, kind of built-in "anti-reflex" to any accusations of misogyny, as to accuse the film and the actions and desires of its female lead of being misogynyst, would, in fact, be misogynyst in itself. If it were a man as the lead instead, no one would accuse it of being misandrist. So why should the reverse be true? So I did enjoy that aspect, and that kind of way it made, I think, an empowering point about women.
I'm modestly curious about the unedited version that's supposed to be released later, but I probably won't rush to see it. If these two pared down parts are messy and scattershot, the long version is probably even more so.

The Iceman (Ariel Vroman, 2012)

6/10
As a fan of Michael Shannon, I wanted to see this movie for a while. It came on TV the other day so I watched it, and it's easy to understand why it slipped under the critical radar. Despite a solid cast and very good performances by just about everybody, the direction and plotting are so by-the-numbers that the movie never elevates itself to anything beyond "movie of the week" status. The story of film's subject, Richard Kuklinski, the family man-slash-contract killer, is such a strange and unique one that it deserves a way more interesting movie than what it was given here.

Now You See Me (Louis Leterrier, 2013)

2/10
I thought this looked fun when I saw the previews, so I recorded it off the movie channel the other day. I was very wrong. In fact, it's kind of shocking just how not fun Now You See Me is, considering its premise and cast. In the course of plotting its con-artist magicians versus its FBI agents, it somehow leaves the human element entirely by the wayside and strands you without a single character on either side to cheer for. The FBI agents (featuring a truly horrible performance by Mark Ruffalo) are stubborn and unlikeable, and its four magicians were probably sketched as anti-heroes on paper, but just come off as smug jerks, to a man. And Morgan Freeman is around to play the wry old man caught in the middle in a shtick you got tired of fifteen years ago.
So with no rooting interest on either side, we have to look to the plotting of the story to find some entertainment, but even that's a dud. The movie doesn't so much deceive the audience with a series of clever illusions to keep them on their toes as much as it outright insults them and jerks them around with one groan inducing twist (or lie) after another. It seems to be desperately struggling to justify its own existence but just becomes progressively more ludicrous and unlikeable.

Philomena (Stephen Frears, 2013)

8/10
I liked this very much too. A gently touching, sad, sometimes funny, sometimes very scary movie with a great performance by Judi Dench. Steve Coogan also brings a welcome bit of levity, often without saying anything. I was surprised to find he wrote the screenplay, which was also well done. It maybe moves a bit too speedily at the beginning when it could have afforded to take its time, but it's smooth sailing after that. The movie is rightly unshowy - director Stephen Frears takes a less is more approach, letting the often-incredible story and the strong lead performances do the legwork. It's a smart choice and pays off greatly. I didn't really know much what to expect going in, or if I'd even like it at all, but it's hard to imagine anyone not being moved by Philomena's story. Recommended.

Her (Spike Jonze, 2013)

9/10
I enjoyed this very much. Joaquin Phoenix was incredible, it was very easy to forget the fact that he spent almost the entire movie acting against himself, so to speak. It was an incredibly tight year for Best Actor but seeing some of the incredible performances left out in the cold (Phoenix, Hanks) makes Bale's nod seem like even more of a bad joke. OK no shots at American Hustle in my next review, I promise. Maybe.
There's not much to say that hasn't already been said. Spike Jonze deserves a truckload of credit for an amazing, believable story set in a future that never feels too "futuristic" or alien, as well as for dealing with a fairly out-there idea with a lot of seriousness, maturity and sensitivity. The movie was also gorgeously photographed, which didn't hurt.
I wouldn't say I was surprised at how much (or many times) this movie touched me emotionally, given what I had read about it, but that didn't make the fact that it did any less impressive.
If I had a minor complaint it would be to say the ending felt a little rushed and even a little out of step with the rest of the film, as if a problem was needed immediately to bring about a resolution with which to end the film...but it still worked well.

The Wolf of Wall Street (Martin Scorsese, 2013)

7.5/10
This is a hard movie to critique, I feel like it very much 'is what it is'. Which was fun, generally speaking. I'd heard some complaints about the length but it never felt long to me.
DiCaprio was good. Best Actor worthy? A nomination, sure, but I don't think he should win the big prize. A lot of scenes were simply played to excess (obviously) that I felt a lot of actors could have done. However, just when I thought DiCaprio wasn't bringing a whole lot that was unique to the role, he gave the "Steve Madden speech" which served as reminder to anyone who forgot just how good he can be when he has to. I also thought the infamous quaaludes scene showed a dimension of physical comedy that I wouldn't have expected from him. Jonah Hill is also very good, also deserving of his nomination.
As for the movie itself, I guess what was slightly frustrating was its refusal to take any kind of moral stance. I guess it's more fun to show Jordan Belfort in all his excesses and let him off the hook by passing as little judgement as possible. I did enjoy the ending, however - the scene of the detective on the subway was suitably understated, and the closing shot of the sea of people waiting to be molded into the next Jordan Belfort is appropriately terrifying. The Wolf of Wall Street is as much (maybe more) a celebration of the culture that creates Jordan Belforts as it is a condemnation of it, but I find this to be a bit like wanting to have your cake and eat it too. I wish Scorsese had maybe tried to say a little bit more with his movie, but I still enjoyed myself regardless.

Inside Llewyn Davis (Joel Coen & Ethan Coen, 2013)

8.5/10
I've seen a good number of movies this year from all over the place, and Inside Llewyn Davis, for me, was one of the most challenging. Or difficult. Or impenetrable. Or maybe it means nothing more than what's on screen and I'm reading more into it than what is actually there. The Coens have a history of inserting weird, magical, semi-symbolic scenes in their movies that seem out of place in worlds that are otherwise starkly rooted in reality (off the top of my head, the dybbuk opening scene and the closing tornado in A Serious Man, the bowling dream sequence in The Big Lebowski, the fiery hotel in Barton Fink, the repeated shots of ceiling fans in Blood Simple). Inside Llewyn Davis felt like one of those scenes, stretched out to a 1h45m running time. The car trip in particular was one of the most disorienting and surreal sequences I've seen in a movie that I thought was supposed to be "normal". Of course, there is a relatively "normal" storyline but much in the same way I'm certain A Serious Man is about a lot more than a Jewish guy in Minnesota, I'm certain Inside Llewyn Davis is about a lot more than a folk singer in New York. Don't ask me to explain what more it's about, I'm just the cat in the car along for the ride.

Nebraska (Alexander Payne, 2013)

9/10
I've been relatively lukewarm on Alexander Payne's movies (at least the last 3 he did, the only ones I've seen) but I felt like The Descendants was a marked step up, and now Nebraska is the best thing he's done by far. His previous movies were all sort of tinging humor with heartbreak but he never nails the mood better than he does here. It's equally hilarious and tragic, thanks in no small part to Bruce Dern, who is absolutely sensational in a terribly moving character. The movie is simple, well-written and quietly devastating. Maybe it lays its cards out a little too plainly and doesn't offer a whole lot in the way of surprises or mystery, but it doesn't really need to either. It's straightforward, honest, resonates emotionally, and contains way fewer cliches than I've used here. Very highly recommended.