the salesman 4/5

very good, interesting relationship drama that i suspect gains added weight when viewed through western eyes for its glimpse into everyday iranian life. viewed in that context, it makes a nice counterpart to 'under the shadow,' which depicted iran in the post-revolution 80s. not to say that either movie focuses explicitly on the effect of the revolution, but that both give interesting glimpses into how 'ordinary,' apparently secular people make their lives work in that world.

.

aside from all of that, i absolutely think this works as a very clever, thoughtful exploration of two people working through the aftermath of a traumatic event. my understanding is that this is generally being seen as a weaker film than farhadi's two previous releases, which makes me all the more interested in seeing more from him, as i thought this film was pretty great.

[Edited 2/20/17 11:49am]

Manchester by the Sea

As with Lonergan's You Can Count on Me, a nicely-observed slice of life.

Gold 7.5 / 10

The Great Wall 5 / 10

[Edited 2/20/17 13:39pm]

Zootopia (2016) - In a city of anthropomorphic animals, a rookie bunny cop and a cynical con artist fox must work together to uncover a conspiracy.




13th (2016) - An in-depth look at the prison system in the United States and how it reveals the nation's history of racial inequality.


I watched these movies consecutively and I'm reviewing them together because I found them to be unexpectedly complementary--most notably the segment in 13th with Bill and Hillary Clinton talking about superpredators. As if the message in Zootopia wasn't already clear enough, 13th practically spells it out for you.

Zootopia: 4/5, 13th: 4.5/5

[Edited 2/21/17 10:48am]

Arrival (2016)

It was one of the smartest, leanest, and well-acted sci-fi films in years, and actually a quality movie.

Until it was nearly ruined by a pretentious, preposterous ending that failed to provide a satisfying finish.

Deepwater Horizon (2016) - A dramatization of the April 2010 disaster, when the offshore drilling rig Deepwater Horizon exploded and created the worst oil spill in U.S. history.

The special effects looked good. Beyond that, this is an average disaster-adventure movie, albeit one based on a real-world event. 2.5/5

stroszek - 1977

bruno, a very simple berliner (borderline mentally handicapped, possibly?), who has nothing in the world and whose only friends (he thinks) are a prostitute & his senior citizen neighbor, escape cruel germany to join the senior's nephew in wisconson. everything ought to turn out alright in wisconsin, i guess, because it's in america and things generally seem to turn out ok for most americans, according to the senior & the prostitute. bruno, simple as he is, seems to have a more fatalistic outlook.

.

bruno really does have a hard time of it, he has a reason to flee his miserable life, and things really don't get better for him. everything falls apart, climaxing in the best robbery scene i think i've ever seen outside of a coen brothers' movie, and what has to be the greatest ever use of a chicken in a film.

.

this is weird, funny, & i think this might be the most perfect movie i've ever watched. 5/5

namepeace said:

Arrival (2016)

It was one of the smartest, leanest, and well-acted sci-fi films in years, and actually a quality movie.

Until it was nearly ruined by a pretentious, preposterous ending that failed to provide a satisfying finish.

Smartest? how so, what is it so smart about it?

214 said:

namepeace said:

Arrival (2016)

It was one of the smartest, leanest, and well-acted sci-fi films in years, and actually a quality movie.

Until it was nearly ruined by a pretentious, preposterous ending that failed to provide a satisfying finish.

Smartest? how so, what is it so smart about it?

MILD SPOILER ALERT:

The premise of the plot was focused on the suspense of discovery, and the process of learning.

The key characters were using their brains and putting their educations to work. There wasn't a lot of gunfire in the movie, maybe a few minutes worth.

The ending kept it from being a great film.

namepeace said:

214 said:

Smartest? how so, what is it so smart about it?

MILD SPOILER ALERT:

The premise of the plot was focused on the suspense of discovery, and the process of learning.

The key characters were using their brains and putting their educations to work. There wasn't a lot of gunfire in the movie, maybe a few minutes worth.

The ending kept it from being a great film.

i actually just finished watching arrival for the 2nd time.

.

it's really more accurate to say 1.75 times - when i went to see it in the theatres, i caught a late screening, & dozed off. i'm not sure how much i missed, but it was enough for me not to rate the film at the time, even though i was really enthusiastic about what i saw.

.

i'm even more enthusiastic now. my only real complaint (besides a character saying 'let's make a baby' - yeesh) is that they possibly overdid the 2001-style pacing at the beginning, but that's a quibble. i actually thought this played really well on a 2nd watch.

.

and the more i've thought about it, the more i really like the end - but i'm kinda coming from a specific mindset, in that i think that this movie ends up being an anti-free will story in a way i actually found really satisfying, an updated slaughter-house five where we get to see the tralfamadorians.

spoilers here, i guess

.

if you think that louise had free will, and chose to do what she did, then i would say she did a really terrible thing and her husband was right to be angry & leave. not everyone would say that, but i would. she wasn't just choosing to go through her own pain. she also chose to make her husband go through that, and her daughter.

.

but if you look at what she did in a deterministic way, then judging her, being angry with her is incoherent, makes no sense, because she had no choice - and i think that's the right way to see it, though i have no idea if that's what the writers would say.

.

regardless, i do think this was a really good, maybe great movie, and, without prattling on about it too much, i do think its success is good news in that it might prompt more smaller, less bombastic movies to get made. i mean, i have room in my life for the marvel movies & all that stuff, but if we had a movie like arrival in big cinemas a few times a year, i think that would be a really good development.

.

blah blah blah, sorry for prattling on. this is probably only interesting to me 4/5.

damosuzuki said:

namepeace said:

MILD SPOILER ALERT:

The premise of the plot was focused on the suspense of discovery, and the process of learning.

The key characters were using their brains and putting their educations to work. There wasn't a lot of gunfire in the movie, maybe a few minutes worth.

The ending kept it from being a great film.

i actually just finished watching arrival for the 2nd time.

.

it's really more accurate to say 1.75 times - when i went to see it in the theatres, i caught a late screening, & dozed off. i'm not sure how much i missed, but it was enough for me not to rate the film at the time, even though i was really enthusiastic about what i saw.

.

i'm even more enthusiastic now. my only real complaint (besides a character saying 'let's make a baby' - yeesh) is that they possibly overdid the 2001-style pacing at the beginning, but that's a quibble. i actually thought this played really well on a 2nd watch.

.

and the more i've thought about it, the more i really like the end - but i'm kinda coming from a specific mindset, in that i think that this movie ends up being an anti-free will story in a way i actually found really satisfying, an updated slaughter-house five where we get to see the tralfamadorians.

spoilers here, i guess

.

if you think that louise had free will, and chose to do what she did, then i would say she did a really terrible thing and her husband was right to be angry & leave. not everyone would say that, but i would. she wasn't just choosing to go through her own pain. she also chose to make her husband go through that, and her daughter.

.

but if you look at what she did in a deterministic way, then judging her, being angry with her is incoherent, makes no sense, because she had no choice - and i think that's the right way to see it, though i have no idea if that's what the writers would say.

.

regardless, i do think this was a really good, maybe great movie, and, without prattling on about it too much, i do think its success is good news in that it might prompt more smaller, less bombastic movies to get made. i mean, i have room in my life for the marvel movies & all that stuff, but if we had a movie like arrival in big cinemas a few times a year, i think that would be a really good development.

.

blah blah blah, sorry for prattling on. this is probably only interesting to me 4/5.

I very much agree with your review. And I made a similar assessment in my post about the movie way back when that it was refreshing to see an alien contact movie where everyone wasn't trying to shoot each other out of the sky. It's funny that it inspires such contempt from some people.

Ingela said:

Star Trek LOVES time travel. We'll be having bombastic time travel science fiction for all time, and then again after that. So dumb non-bombastic time travel is better because it's boring? But again, I gotta say that Arrival is probably the best octopus time travel movie ever. Or at least for the time being.

you keep saying time travel...i don't remember there being any time travel in this movie at all...

the thing i took away from 'arrival' was the over-arching theme of context; how, once you take the time to explore and understand the context of a strange culture, language or what have you, the better understanding you're going to have of how to co-exist with strangers. which, in the end, is all everybody's trying to do. it also demonstrates, even in modern, connected times how far we are from achieving peaceful co-existence.

there are hints of this theme throughout the movie, perhaps obscured by the 'flashback' plot device. i can see, though, if you're coming from the context of bombastic time-travel shoot 'em up murder death kill instant gratification on to the next 3D extravaganza...that some viewers might miss it.

peedub said:

Ingela said:

peedub said:

you keep saying time travel...i don't remember there being any time travel in this movie at all...

the thing i took away from 'arrival' was the over-arching theme of context; how, once you take the time to explore and understand the context of a strange culture, language or what have you, the better understanding you're going to have of how to co-exist with strangers. which, in the end, is all everybody's trying to do. it also demonstrates, even in modern, connected times how far we are from achieving peaceful co-existence.

there are hints of this theme throughout the movie, perhaps obscured by the 'flashback' plot device. i can see, though, if you're coming from the context of bombastic time-travel shoot 'em up murder death kill instant gratification on to the next 3D extravaganza...that some viewers might miss it.

They are time traveling octopus that want to alter the future. It's the same as Terminator or Looper or ... Anyway The deciphering of the meaning of "blue steel" in Zoolander 2 did a better job of explaining how something as complex as language than Arrival. For a someone like me me who follows science AND MOVIES it all came about so shallow for such a seemingly earnest and serious movie. I get it's just a movie, but if the tone wants to take itself so seriously, then at least the logic and story has to fit the tone. And to me it all unraveled and was so empty and stupid. At least Zoolander means to be stupid.

i still don't get why you are under the impression that there was any time travelling going on...there wasn't. they are aliens that do not view time linearly. they are in/from the present. they can see all time. learning their language enables others to do so. there is dialogue in the movie that explicitly infers that understanding the aliens' perspective is the key to understanding what they are trying to communicate. it's not about the complexity of language. it's about perspective.

sexton said:

damosuzuki said:

i actually just finished watching arrival for the 2nd time.

.

it's really more accurate to say 1.75 times - when i went to see it in the theatres, i caught a late screening, & dozed off. i'm not sure how much i missed, but it was enough for me not to rate the film at the time, even though i was really enthusiastic about what i saw.

.

i'm even more enthusiastic now. my only real complaint (besides a character saying 'let's make a baby' - yeesh) is that they possibly overdid the 2001-style pacing at the beginning, but that's a quibble. i actually thought this played really well on a 2nd watch.

.

and the more i've thought about it, the more i really like the end - but i'm kinda coming from a specific mindset, in that i think that this movie ends up being an anti-free will story in a way i actually found really satisfying, an updated slaughter-house five where we get to see the tralfamadorians.

spoilers here, i guess

.

if you think that louise had free will, and chose to do what she did, then i would say she did a really terrible thing and her husband was right to be angry & leave. not everyone would say that, but i would. she wasn't just choosing to go through her own pain. she also chose to make her husband go through that, and her daughter.

.

but if you look at what she did in a deterministic way, then judging her, being angry with her is incoherent, makes no sense, because she had no choice - and i think that's the right way to see it, though i have no idea if that's what the writers would say.

.

regardless, i do think this was a really good, maybe great movie, and, without prattling on about it too much, i do think its success is good news in that it might prompt more smaller, less bombastic movies to get made. i mean, i have room in my life for the marvel movies & all that stuff, but if we had a movie like arrival in big cinemas a few times a year, i think that would be a really good development.

.

blah blah blah, sorry for prattling on. this is probably only interesting to me 4/5.

I very much agree with your review. And I made a similar assessment in my post about the movie way back when that it was refreshing to see an alien contact movie where everyone wasn't trying to shoot each other out of the sky. It's funny that it inspires such contempt from some people.

i imagine most of the noise is the standard variation in reaction you'll see, particularly for slower paced movies & especially for movies that might be perceived as having 'brainy' pretensions. i just recommended hell or high water (i know we both loved that one) to someone, and she texted me the second it finished: 'COMPLETE SNOOZE-FEST.' i generally don't find it interesting to get into the weeds on discussions like that. if you found it dull, then you found it dull. i didn't. we're allowed to be different, & i don't really think there's much more to be said about that.

.

i do think there's an interesting debate to be had around the ending of arrival though, in whether louise did a terrible thing, but i've already said my piece on that business.

.

and i definitely agree that it's a nice development to see a sci-fi movie like this one, where there's no laser death fights or punching/kicking/running/hitting/explosions (there was at least one explosion, but you know what i'm saying). i have no beef with movies like that, and i'll probably be there for the next $100m marvel movie or whatever, but i definitely hope that there will be more arrivals in the mix.

[Edited 2/22/17 7:45am]

peedub said:

Ingela said:

The movie IS about time travel, from OUR perspective. And I get the part about cultural understanding, that should be fundamentally understood by everyone so it came off as childish to me. There is a hive mentality going in with this movie though, you see it here with someone falling asleep mid way but saying they raved about it because it.. That same review can be seen all through the internet now that everyone has their own reviews channel on YouTube, lol. That they liked it because.... "um ..no s'plosion make smart movie" I think a lot of the love for this movie is because people like me raved about Denis V's other movies like Prisoners and wondered out loud why critics didn't get it. How it was a metaphor. So critics wanted to make up for not understanding that movie and getting ahead of the curve and saying they lived this one. When a director becomes a daring amongst some of us they forget it's about the work, not the reputation. Same can be seen with Sing Street, some slackers critic said it fantastic, so the hive forwarded that and I saw it and it was good entertainment, but an episode of Saved By The Bell is as good. It was cheesy and far more preposterous than people care to admit. But it is what it is. We're all critics. [Edited 2/22/17 8:05am]

i guess we'll just have to agree to disagree...i think you kind of make the point of the movie as far as fundamental understanding...everybody's differs. as to the rest, i can't speak to the hive mind mentality regarding this movie. i went in blind. i knew and enjoyed dude's previous work, but my impression was not influenced by anything i hadn't read on the internet about 'arrival'. and i don't know anything about 'sing street' or 'saved by the bell' except that they exist.

Ingela said:

The movie IS about time travel, from OUR perspective. And I get the part about cultural understanding, that should be fundamentally understood by everyone so it came off as childish to me.

There is a hive mentality going in with this movie though, you see it here with someone falling asleep mid way but saying they raved about it because it..

That same review can be seen all through the internet now that everyone has their own reviews channel on YouTube, lol. That they liked it because.... "um ..no s'plosion make smart movie"

I think a lot of the love for this movie is because people like me raved about Denis V's other movies like Prisoners and wondered out loud why critics didn't get it. How it was a metaphor. So critics wanted to make up for not understanding that movie and getting ahead of the curve and saying they lived this one. When a director becomes a daring amongst some of us they forget it's about the work, not the reputation.

Same can be seen with Sing Street, some slackers critic said it fantastic, so the hive forwarded that and I saw it and it was good entertainment, but an episode of Saved By The Bell is as good. It was cheesy and far more preposterous than people care to admit.

But it is what it is. We're all critics. [Edited 2/22/17 8:05am]

I remember Prisoners getting very good reviews. Maybe you mean the other movie with Jake Gyllenhaal, Enemy.

And I think people like these movies because they resonated with them personally, not because they were fooled by some critic with an agenda. Otherwise, the new Ghostbusters would have made a billion dollars at the box office.

sexton said:

Under sandet / Land of Mine (2015) - A young group of German POWs are made the enemy of a nation, where they are now forced to dig up 2 million land-mines with their bare hands.

This sad and untold war story stayed with me long after the movie was over. 4/5

A shame this Arrival thing gained an Oscar Nomination but something as great as The Witch didn't. It's an overrated film with and overrated performance from Amy Adams just the same as Ryan Gosling's perfomance on La La Land.

214 said:

Ingela said:

peedub said:

i still don't get why you are under the impression that there was any time travelling going on...there wasn't. they are aliens that do not view time linearly. they are in/from the present. they can see all time. learning their language enables others to do so. there is dialogue in the movie that explicitly infers that understanding the aliens' perspective is the key to understanding what they are trying to communicate. it's not about the complexity of language. it's about perspective.

The movie IS about time travel, from OUR perspective. And I get the part about cultural understanding, that should be fundamentally understood by everyone so it came off as childish to me. There is a hive mentality going in with this movie though, you see it here with someone falling asleep mid way but saying they raved about it because it.. That same review can be seen all through the internet now that everyone has their own reviews channel on YouTube, lol. That they liked it because.... "um ..no s'plosion make smart movie" I think a lot of the love for this movie is because people like me raved about Denis V's other movies like Prisoners and wondered out loud why critics didn't get it. How it was a metaphor. So critics wanted to make up for not understanding that movie and getting ahead of the curve and saying they lived this one. When a director becomes a daring amongst some of us they forget it's about the work, not the reputation. Same can be seen with Sing Street, some slackers critic said it fantastic, so the hive forwarded that and I saw it and it was good entertainment, but an episode of Saved By The Bell is as good. It was cheesy and far more preposterous than people care to admit. But it is what it is. We're all critics. [Edited 2/22/17 8:05am]

since you took the time to invoke my own comments above, i'll take a moment to address that bit about me falling asleep.

.

as i said, i caught a late showing of arrival. i live a very structured life, asleep at the same time every night, up at the same time every morning. the movie started well past the time i'm usually asleep. on top of that, we went to an indian buffet & gorged ourselves beforehand & ended up running late. so i was stuffed & sleepy. that's why i was asleep. not because i was bored. & i'm fairly sure i just dozed off for a minute or two a few times. when i watched it again, nothing jumped out as something i hadn't seen.

.

if i'd fallen asleep because i was bored, i would have said i was bored & fell asleep, not that i was enthusiastic. and not that i was even more enthusiastic on my 2nd viewing, because i wasn't bored at all. except for some sections in the first half where i thought they overplayed the 2001-style awe, i think this movie was perfectly paced.

.

i don't think it's entirely impossible that opinions get swayed by critical waves. there certainly could be anchoring effects when a few influential critics set a benchmark - daniel kahneman has book chock-full of insight on that topic that you may have read.

.

but i don't think you've really made a case that this is what's happening with arrival, & i don't think there's really any reason to think that is the case. i think it's far more likely that a lot of people actually really like the movie & gave it the ratings they thought it deserved, & if they liked it & saw something of value in it, and unless you've really got a good reason to think otherwise, it's perfectly ok to take them at their word. otherwise, i think you're more likely just showing a touch of confirmation bias.

[Edited 2/22/17 15:41pm]

thekidsgirl said:

? The worst oversight this year, to me, was The Handmaiden

now that i agree with. i also think 'tower' needed a place in the doc category. i've only see the oj doc, and i'm sure all the rest are completely worthy (i'm seeing two of them next week) but i thought tower was just a tremendous, amazingly gripping film and i wish it would have got a little spotlight.

inside (2007) 3.5/5 - french home invasion thriller that came out a little after haute tension - i think those two movies were seen as the peaks of french horror of that period. like haute tension, it's lean & tough & nasty with a few scenes that will make the most jaded horror fan squirm i'd expect.

thekidsgirl said:

While I quite enjoyed "this Arrival thing", and think its worthy of the accolades, I do agree its a shame The Witch received no nominations. Do films like that (dark, not-quite, but semi-horrorish) ever get nominated? The worst oversight this year, to me, was The Handmaiden

Are you sure you didn't like Arrival because a critic told you "um ..no s'plosion make smart movie"?

sexton said:

thekidsgirl said:

While I quite enjoyed "this Arrival thing", and think its worthy of the accolades, I do agree its a shame The Witch received no nominations. Do films like that (dark, not-quite, but semi-horrorish) ever get nominated? The worst oversight this year, to me, was The Handmaiden

Are you sure you didn't like Arrival because a critic told you "um ..no s'plosion make smart movie"?

clearly, the only way anyone could enjoy this stupid bit of boredom is if they were deluded into it by a cabal of critics trying to make amends to denis villenueve. it's the only possible explanation.

damosuzuki said: