This movie may be under your radar -- it hasn't been publicized with the same intensity of A Star is Born, or First Man, or now The Widows -- but it's worth seeing.
If you don't know this, Sisters Brothers is a Western, starring Joaquin Phoenix, John C. Reilly, and Jake Gyllenhall.
Phoenix and Reilly are the titular brothers, named Sisters, Charlie and Eli, who, in good Western tradition, are hired killers for a little-seen mobster called the Commodore. One suspects the name is supposed to be a joke, and Charlie tries to make something of it in the film, but it falls dead in the movie version (it's based on a book).
In the opening scene, I suppose in what we are to think is directorial genius, there is a shootout at night, where are you can see is the flare of gunfire. The brothers come out on the good end (shocked face!) and then go off to the Commodore for their next assignment.
This entails a prolonged road trip to find John Morris (Gyllenhall), who is tracking a guy named Warm (played by Riz Ahmed). A Western with a road trip. Shock.
Morris, Warm, and Eli all are rather contemplative cowboys (tho none seems particularly aware of cows), with Morris's thinking signaled by his keeping a diary, which Gyllenhall voices over at times. And his notes to the brothers to let them know where he has followed Warm are overwritten -- "precipitate" being one word that Charlie scoffs at (it's not clear he can read as Reilly's character reads and keeps all the notes).
Charlie is a drunk and a mean one. In one scene, he stops puking long enough to help Eli kill 5 guys sent after them. Like many Westerns, especially contemporary ones, the body count here is high.
In the end the foursome ends up together in the midst of the California gold rush and it turns out Warm has an idea of how to identify gold easier. You know if you've ever seen a movie set in the California gold fields that this won't end with them all living rich lives in San Francisco with their golden treasure and the whole thing goes sour quickly -- I won't give more away.
This movie smells like Oscar bait, with Reilly, Phoenix (a perennial Oscar contender), and even Gyllenhall given parts that beg for consideration (it's not quite last year's The Paper where it was like Tom Hanks and Meryl Streep paused in the middle and said "you all need to consider this come Oscar time", but it has that smell to it).
Is it worth seeing? Yes, especially if you like the genre. It's not Phoenix's best performance by any stretch, but Reilly is very good as the downtrodden, sentimental older brother, and Gyllenhall and Ahmed are passable. The unusualness of the story -- the contemplation of the characters, the interchanges between the brothers, and the unusual plot twists (it ends in a place you wouldn't predict if you've ever seen a Western) -- makes it worth seeing and thought-provoking, beyond the death and destruction the brothers leave in their wake.
Next week: no real killer openings (Hunter Killer?)...
Monday, October 22, 2018
Monday, October 15, 2018
Fall movie review: First Man
This weekend I saw the latest movie from the Damien Chazelle-Ryan Gosling collaboration, First Man. It's good -- yes, it deserves a Best Picture Nomination (I'll save judgment on whether it should win).
If you don't know, First Man is the story is Neil Armstrong, and it's about the his walk on the moon. Sort of. It takes almost 2 hours to get there.
Gosling (obviously?) plays Armstrong, who we pick up as a rocket pilot in the early 60s. It's not clear that everyone thinks he's a great pilot.
Since this is biographical, there's no need to worry about spoilers: the Armstrongs lose a daughter, Karen, to a brain tumor, before she's 2ish. As Jane Armstrong says later "we never talked about it."
That's kind of the thing about the movie: Gosling's Armstrong isn't exactly winning a warm and fuzzy award. In fact, lukewarm and furry wouldn't do it.
But there's no doubting both Armstrong's inner strength, his mental acuity, and his cool under fire. At one point he tells Houston and his co-pilot "shut up, I am calculating."
When Buzz Aldrin's character says "I am just saying what you were all thinking," Armstrong's one-beat, two-beat, three-beat later rejoinder is "maybe you shouldn't."
As the movie portrays it, and Wikipedia backs it up, in both the Gemini 8 mission and the trip to the moon, Armstrong did things you have to call amazing. If you don't remember (I vaguely do), Gemini 8 went sour when the capsule started spinning out of control. Armstrong, in the movie with his co-pilot passed out, figured out how to make the necessary correction, eventhough he used some of the fuel for course adjustments back into the atmosphere to do so. They aborted the mission from there, but made it home safely.
On the moon landing, Aldrin isn't sure where they should land, as the proposed spot is too rocky, and Armstrong uses every last bit of fuel to land on the other side of the crater -- now forever Tranquillity base.
I heard much stuff about how the movie could not depict the flag planting on the moon -- "you HAVE to show that." I didn't even notice it was missing. I'm sure someone can explain why it's not there (like it's not important to Armstrong's story).
As to Oscar bait, Gosling is excellent as Armstrong. Deserves an Oscar nod. As you can tell, Armstrong isn't exactly a ball of joy -- Gosling keeps it all bottled up all the time.
Given the cleverness and vividness of some of the shots, especially on the moon, Chazelle probably will get some best director nods. I'm okay with that, but there might be better candidates coming along.
Claire Foy as Mrs. Armstrong? She's almost as tightly wound as Gosling, so sure. It would probably be tough for any actor to be so brittle.
Should you see it? Yes. Both the history, Gosling's portrayal of someone who is a real hero (he and co-pilot should be dead in Gemini 8), and the beauty and inventiveness of some of the cinematography make it worth seeing. Is it better than A Star is Born? If you don't like Bradley Cooper. Lady Gaga, or singing in a movie, definitely.
That's 2 for the fall.
Now...what's opening this weekend?
If you don't know, First Man is the story is Neil Armstrong, and it's about the his walk on the moon. Sort of. It takes almost 2 hours to get there.
Gosling (obviously?) plays Armstrong, who we pick up as a rocket pilot in the early 60s. It's not clear that everyone thinks he's a great pilot.
Since this is biographical, there's no need to worry about spoilers: the Armstrongs lose a daughter, Karen, to a brain tumor, before she's 2ish. As Jane Armstrong says later "we never talked about it."
That's kind of the thing about the movie: Gosling's Armstrong isn't exactly winning a warm and fuzzy award. In fact, lukewarm and furry wouldn't do it.
But there's no doubting both Armstrong's inner strength, his mental acuity, and his cool under fire. At one point he tells Houston and his co-pilot "shut up, I am calculating."
When Buzz Aldrin's character says "I am just saying what you were all thinking," Armstrong's one-beat, two-beat, three-beat later rejoinder is "maybe you shouldn't."
As the movie portrays it, and Wikipedia backs it up, in both the Gemini 8 mission and the trip to the moon, Armstrong did things you have to call amazing. If you don't remember (I vaguely do), Gemini 8 went sour when the capsule started spinning out of control. Armstrong, in the movie with his co-pilot passed out, figured out how to make the necessary correction, eventhough he used some of the fuel for course adjustments back into the atmosphere to do so. They aborted the mission from there, but made it home safely.
On the moon landing, Aldrin isn't sure where they should land, as the proposed spot is too rocky, and Armstrong uses every last bit of fuel to land on the other side of the crater -- now forever Tranquillity base.
I heard much stuff about how the movie could not depict the flag planting on the moon -- "you HAVE to show that." I didn't even notice it was missing. I'm sure someone can explain why it's not there (like it's not important to Armstrong's story).
As to Oscar bait, Gosling is excellent as Armstrong. Deserves an Oscar nod. As you can tell, Armstrong isn't exactly a ball of joy -- Gosling keeps it all bottled up all the time.
Given the cleverness and vividness of some of the shots, especially on the moon, Chazelle probably will get some best director nods. I'm okay with that, but there might be better candidates coming along.
Claire Foy as Mrs. Armstrong? She's almost as tightly wound as Gosling, so sure. It would probably be tough for any actor to be so brittle.
Should you see it? Yes. Both the history, Gosling's portrayal of someone who is a real hero (he and co-pilot should be dead in Gemini 8), and the beauty and inventiveness of some of the cinematography make it worth seeing. Is it better than A Star is Born? If you don't like Bradley Cooper. Lady Gaga, or singing in a movie, definitely.
That's 2 for the fall.
Now...what's opening this weekend?
Fall Movie Reviews: A Star is Born
Okay, it's that time of year when the "Oscar bait" (as my daughter calls it) is rolled out by the studios and "grown up" movies are coming out. So, since it seems I will probably be going to the movies regularly in the next few weeks (I've been twice in the last week), I thought I'd put some of my views of the movies down on blog (and share via Twitter -- and fwd to THE Dbrolaw, to annoy him :)).
First up is the Bradley Cooper joint A Star is Born.
I have to start with this admission: I was not thrilled to go see this. I know the story. I'm not in love with Bradley Cooper (ICYMI :)) & even the previews looked...okay, let's say "hokie."
It's a hokie kind of story. Bring kleenexes.
Let's make sure we all know that this is the fourth remake of this story: in the 30s with Janet Gaynor, in the 50s with Julie Garland (there are several allusions to her and that movie in this one), and in the 70s with Barbara Streisand. And Kris Kristofferson, who played, not too far out of type, the alcohol-soaked, nearly over-the-hill male lead.
So, this is old news.
I was pleasantly surprised by both Cooper and Lady Gaga's performances. Cooper is quite good as Jack; he's weather-beaten, vaguely sweaty and dirty, like the not-neat drunk he is in the movie, and he does a good job of getting us into his pain in the movie.
I'm not sure Gaga can act. I'm just saying. But the best parts of the movie, period, are when she's on stage singing, from her opening reveal in the drag bar to her scenes using her big voice in the fake concert scenes. She's enthralling then. A lot less so when she's trying to be...whatever she's trying to be with Jack.
The movie seems long. At 2 hours, 16 minutes, it's not a short comedy. I looked at my watch repeatedly. This is probably because I know the story: it's not going to end well. They meet, he likes her, he gets her career going, she becomes a star (thus the title), he doesn't know how to handle her fame and his deterioration, and...I'll leave it this way on this version: shit happens.
And I'll say this: the songs aren't good. Gaga can perform the hell out of them, but if I listened to the lyrics I was like "that's the dumbest metaphor I've heard in a long time."
So, should you go see it? If you have one movie to see this weekend, no. Unless you HAVE to see Gaga and/or Brad. But if you are a regular movie goer, yes.
As to the Oscar bait question: yes, Gaga and Cooper deserve nominations.
One down. More to come.
First up is the Bradley Cooper joint A Star is Born.
I have to start with this admission: I was not thrilled to go see this. I know the story. I'm not in love with Bradley Cooper (ICYMI :)) & even the previews looked...okay, let's say "hokie."
It's a hokie kind of story. Bring kleenexes.
Let's make sure we all know that this is the fourth remake of this story: in the 30s with Janet Gaynor, in the 50s with Julie Garland (there are several allusions to her and that movie in this one), and in the 70s with Barbara Streisand. And Kris Kristofferson, who played, not too far out of type, the alcohol-soaked, nearly over-the-hill male lead.
So, this is old news.
I was pleasantly surprised by both Cooper and Lady Gaga's performances. Cooper is quite good as Jack; he's weather-beaten, vaguely sweaty and dirty, like the not-neat drunk he is in the movie, and he does a good job of getting us into his pain in the movie.
I'm not sure Gaga can act. I'm just saying. But the best parts of the movie, period, are when she's on stage singing, from her opening reveal in the drag bar to her scenes using her big voice in the fake concert scenes. She's enthralling then. A lot less so when she's trying to be...whatever she's trying to be with Jack.
The movie seems long. At 2 hours, 16 minutes, it's not a short comedy. I looked at my watch repeatedly. This is probably because I know the story: it's not going to end well. They meet, he likes her, he gets her career going, she becomes a star (thus the title), he doesn't know how to handle her fame and his deterioration, and...I'll leave it this way on this version: shit happens.
And I'll say this: the songs aren't good. Gaga can perform the hell out of them, but if I listened to the lyrics I was like "that's the dumbest metaphor I've heard in a long time."
So, should you go see it? If you have one movie to see this weekend, no. Unless you HAVE to see Gaga and/or Brad. But if you are a regular movie goer, yes.
As to the Oscar bait question: yes, Gaga and Cooper deserve nominations.
One down. More to come.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)