Palooza Presents "The 99 Films of 2011"

[wingsfan77]

But you were SO close!

 

[Palooza]

99 Films of 2011

20. Warrior
Joel Edgerton, Tom Hardy, Nick Nolte, Jennifer Morrison, Frank Grillo, Kevin Dunn, Maximilliano Hernandez, Denzel Whitaker​

Director -
Gavin O'Connor
Writer(s) -
Gavin O'Connor, Anthony Tambakis, Cliff Dorfman
Rotten Tomatoes Score - 83%
Metacritic Score - 71/100
Viewed - HQ torrent
In a year full of hype, I caught this movie after hearing some great things from real people and most of you lame-o's. Even through the predictability of the plot and the spoiler-y trailers, I enjoyed this film immensely. It gives the overdone sports movie genre a much needed contemporary twist - the sport we are using as an inspirational tool is Mixed Martial Arts, which is wildly popular on this site and goes hand in hand with 'rasslin. A few cool guys (W2B, Larry) and some losers (Empire, JayDizzle) lead the pack of MMA crew guys and you all know I am not one of these groupies; I stopped watching wrestling when I was 12 like a normal person, but I won't hold it against the cool guys. The moral of the story is that I've never really gone out of my way to watch MMA, but I was still sucked into the world they presented. HOWEVA, I would never have been interested in this movie if it hadn't been for Tom Hardy, who does not disappoint as the damaged, military vet brother. The other brother played by Joel Edgerton is the guy who steals the show. On the surface he's your generic everyman, but he carries the bulk of the emotion in the film. Hardy does a wonderful job hiding his demons, but protruding them enough to know they are what makes him such a skilled competitor. The performances are what carry this movie in between the awesome fight/training scenes. Gavin O'Conner goes above and beyond the mediocre movie making nobody he was prior to this and creates something really special. While I am writing this, I've realized I disliked a good amount of things in this movie (Nick Nolte's inaudible speaking and the predictability mostly), but the overall product that is created overcomes these things so greatly that it still winds up being a fantastic inspirational sports movie. At the end of the day, though, watching one trailer of this movie will ruin any suspense; I mean the god damn poster tells you what the last third of the movie will entail - the two brothers will meet in the final match. If you have ever seen a movie before, you know exactly which is going to win, too. Thankfully, the ride is awesome enough that none of that matters.
Grade - B+

 

[Houston]

Warrior or The Fighter?

 

[Palooza]

99 Films of 2011

19. The Ides of March
Ryan Gosling, George Clooney, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Paul Giamatti, Marisa Tomei, Evan Rachel Wood, Jeffrey Wright, Max Minghella​

Director -
George Clooney
Writer(s) -
George Clooney, Grant Heslov
Rotten Tomatoes Score - 85%
Metacritic Score - 67/100
Viewed - DVD
I can't remember if I said this already, but even Buzzman couldn't ruin Ryan Gosling for the world. This guy is amazing and 2011 was certainly his best year, which will only lead to even bigger and better things. Here, he plays one of the campaign managers during the Democratic Presidential Primary, based somewhat on Howard Dean's 2004 campaign. We follow Gosling as he plays the game - dealing with young interns (Evan Rachel Wood), the other team (Paul Giamatti), journalists (Marisa Tomei), his "boss" (Philip Seymour Hoffman), the candidate himself (George Clooney) and most importantly, his conscience. What follows is a magnificent morally cynical political thriller thanks to George Clooney's writing and vision. Speaking of Clooney, he is smart to make sure that this is Gosling's show and not his, just like he did with David Strathairn in Good Night and Good Luck. We don't sympathize or care about Clooney like we've been trained to do so throughout his career. Sure, we may like the idea of him and what his candidate represents on the surface, but once the dominos start falling, it's up to Gosling to figure out what to do with the pieces, whether it be to pick them up, leave them there or show everyone, including the competition, that they've fallen. Not only is this a smart political thriller with some fine actors doing even finer acting, the core of the film lies in the moral questions it poses throughout and up until its conclusion. What has been laid out here begins as a perfect present with a nice little bow on it, a representation of Clooney's Mike Morris, but once the bow begins to unravel, things take some dark turns, creating messy situation after messy situation. What keeps the view engaged is the interest in the reactions to these messes and mistakes, not exactly the messes themselves. Mike Mills reminds me a lot of Treasure Zajac from Boss and Mayor, not Councilman, Tommy Carcetti - you meet these perfect politicians and you can't help but think that these people are too good to be true and it always winds up that's the case. The film's ending leaves a very pessimistic, yet relatable and realistic taste in your mouth. Also, I love the creepy poster above.
Grade - A-

 

[Palooza]

Warrior or The Fighter?

The Fighter based on Bale's performance and Amy Adams being hot as hell. The Fighter made the dysfunction of that family feel so real it was unbelievable. While Hardy and Edgerton do a really good job, they can't measure up to the acting of Bale and Leo, both worthy of their Oscars.

 

[Palooza]

99 Films of 2011

18. The Descendants
George Clooney, Shailene Woodley, Amara Miller, Nick Kraus, Patricia Hastie, Matthew Lillard, Rob Huebel, Robert Forster, Judy Greer, Beau Bridges, Mary Birdson, Laird Hamilton​

Director -
Alexander Payne
Writer(s) -
Alexander Payne, Nat Faxon, Jim Rash
Rotten Tomatoes Score - 89%
Metacritic Score - 84/100
Viewed - HQ torrent
More Clooney here and again he's not the reason for this movie's quality. The movie is dysfunctional and a bit upsetting at times, add that in with Clooney doing his best Clooney, a phenomenal script by Alexander Payne (Sideways), Nat Faxon (who?) and Jim Rash (Dean Pelton from Community) and an equally impressive directing job by Payne, there is no wonder this was such Oscar bait. This is not as good as Sideways, but it's hard to recapture what Payne, Paul Giamatti and Thomas Haden Church did with that movie. Instead of wine tasting in Napa, we're in Hawai'i where Clooney plays Matt King, a real estate lawyer who happens to be the heir to one of the largest sections of uninhabited land in the state. While preparing to sell the land to the highest bidder (hotels! tourism!), King's wife is in a boating accident where she is placed in a coma. This brings the family (he and his two daughters played by Shailene Woodley and Amara Miller) together in the most dysfunctional way possible. The youngest is a bully and the older one is hot, so she is wild and uncontrollable and was sent away to school as discipline prior to her mother's accident. When she returns home, the family goes on a trek across Hawai'i to confront the man King's wife had been cheating on him with while simultaneously preparing for the land deal. What ensues are a slew of life lessons. On their journey is Woodley's "friend" Sid, played by Nick Kraus. Sid's obnoxious surfer bro speak pissed me off so much until Robert Forster punched him in the face. From there, he evolved into a more humanized retard (not until after an uncomfortable car ride) and he even teaches Clooney a thing or two about human connection and family, which are the basic themes of the film. I won't tell you what happens in the end or why it was both selfish and selfless at the same time, but I will tell you that you cannot really blame King's decision after the experiences he had during the movie's run time. When I found out Shailene Woodley was a part of ABC Family's Confessions of a Pretty Dramatic Teenage High School Liar or whatever, I was actually mad. She is really good in this and she's pretty hot (yeah, and she's hot too), so why would she ever subject herself to shit like that? Oh well, not my problem. The eclectic supporting cast seems out of place at times, but it works. Robert Forester plays the dickhead father-in-law to perfection, even though he looks strange without his signature dark hair; Rob Huebel as the couple's friend serves as some of the more laugh out loud comic relief; I didn't even know Matthew Lillard was still alive, but he plays a small role as the man in question who goes beyond any performance he's ever done. The confrontation between Clooney and Lillard is well acted and tense and is one of the best scenes of the film. Judy Greer is nothing like George Bluth Sr's secretary as she plays Lillard's calm, loving wife and Beau Bridges rounds out the supporting cast as a hippie cousin of King's who serves as something like his right hand man during the family meetings. Alexander Payne should probably go ahead and make more than one movie every 8 years because this is another great examination of human beings and their connections with each other. I will end this with an enthusiastic Congratulations to Greendale Community College's Dean Pelton (Jim Rash) and of course his writing partners on this movie - Alexander Payne and Nat Faxon - for their Oscar win.
Grade - A-

 

[Buzzman]

2012 could be even better for Gosling if his films arrive on time.

 

[Palooza]

99 Films of 2011

17. Tinker Tailor Solider Spy
Gary Oldman, Colin Firth, Tom Hardy, Ciaran Hinds, John Hurt, Toby Jones, Mark Strong, David Dencik, Benedict Cumberbatch, Stephen Graham, Philip Martin Brown​

Director -
Thomas Alfredson
Writer(s) -
Bridget O’Connor, Peter Straughan
Rotten Tomatoes Score - 83%
Metacritic Score - 85/100
Viewed - HQ torrent
On paper, this has the potential to be the best movie of the year. The film comes from strong source material, has an array of talented British actors, an appealing era/piece of history that is perfectly portrayed by the cinematography. The problem, however, is in the execution. Don't get me wrong, this movie is good, but it's pretty boring. Gary Oldman does as best he can to carry the film as a worn out Smiley, but there's no real substance. The filmmakers and actors do as much as they can to keep the film entertaining and keep the viewers in engaged, but the writing and acting only gets us so far in this movie because the plot is both perplexing and complex as well as hard to follow. Once I was done, I sat there looking at the credits thinking "I need to see that again" because I was confused as to how I felt like I missed so much. Upon the second viewing, I was looking for all the things I missed and it made the film more enjoyable, but again took away from the film because I couldn't just sit and watch. I watched it a third time and the fact that I had so much experience with this movie made it much better this time around, but that can take away from the mystery and intrigue of the film. This is a movie where you'll enjoy it the more familiar you are with the source material or the material in general. This is certainly not a movie for the casual movie-goer. If only there was a way to get the knowledge of the multiple viewings to mix with the mystery of the first viewing, this would be automatic top-5. It seems as though this was not suitable material for a film, but maybe a show/miniseries. I cannot deny the quality of acting, by Oldman especially. The interactions between each of the characters and the tension created holds the movie together, but not long enough to keep you from being bored. For that, the look and feel of the film during the Cold War helps fight the boredom, too.
Grade - A-

 

[Palooza]

I'm on my break at work currently, but I wanted to let you guys know 16-10 will be posted after 3pm. Nominations for the Best of the Best will be up before we get to the Top 10 and the winners of the other awards will be posted too.

 

[Palooza]

99 Films of 2011

16. X-Men: First Class
James McAvoy, Michael Fassbender, Jennifer Lawrence, Rose Byrne, Kevin Bacon, January Jones, Zoe Kravitz, Nicholas Hoult, Jason Flemyng, Caleb Landry Jones, Lucas Till, Oliver Platt, Matt Craven, Alex Gonzalez, Edi Gathegi, Corey Johnson, Glenn Morshower, Don Creech, James Remar, Boris the Bullet Dodger​

Director -
Matthew Vaughn
Writer(s) -
Matthew Vaughn, Ashley Miller, Zach Stentz, Jane Goldman, Bryan Singer (story)
Rotten Tomatoes Score - 87%
Metacritic Score - 65/100
Viewed - In theaters
The X-Men are by far my favorite set of superheroes. I really, really like the first two films by Bryan Singer, especially the second. They were the beginning of the silver screen superhero revolution of the 21st century and while I thank them for opening the door for the likes of Nolan's Batman, I also am bitter that it's become so overdone. For every X2 there are at least two Daredevils. Even X-Men: Last Stand and Wolverine are lumped into the category with Daredevil and Ghost Rider because of the standards X-Men set to start off (and because they're horrible). That's why I'm so thankful after a slew of horrible X-Men films, we're back on track.

What seems to be the thing that makes or breaks these films is the vision. Bryan Singer, Christopher Nolan, Joss Whedon - these are really good directors who have created some of the best superhero films since Singer's first X-Men in 2000. The studio's biggest mistake besides not giving up the rights of X-Men to Marvel was hiring the only director who pops into my head when someone asks me what 'celebrities' I'd enjoy watching die - Brett Ratner for the third installment of the franchise. (George Lucas was crossed off the list since he retired from filmmaking TODAY) This film was a disaster thanks solely to Ratner. The pathetic money grubbing continued with the Origins spin off - Wolverine, my favorite X-Men of all time. I don't want to get into how disgustingly disappointing and pathetic that movie was, but just know it was awful and was directed by some guy whose name I can't even remember (just kidding, it was Gavin Hood, who I don't even think has made a movie since). Okay, so we have awesome source material with a plethora of plot options, defined characters and actors in these roles, so what went wrong? Again, it's all in the vision. Bryan Singer - good. Gavin Hood - a nobody. Brett Ratner - a horrible, horrible piece of shit. So what is the point of this rant? The point is that Matthew Vaughn was the single best choice to take over this franchise. He's established himself with Layer Cake, a variation of the superhero genre with Kick-Ass (one of the best movies of 2010 thanks to the slick violence and over the top action, Hit Girl and Vaughn's directing) and is a friend/producer of Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and Snatch director Guy Ritchie. So basically, this guy has all the right stuff to rejuvenate this franchise and he kills it. In a good way.

In X-Men: First Class, we are thrown into the Cold War era where X-Men staples Charles Xavier and Erik Lensherr are young men learning to cope with and exploit their powers - one to woo the ladies, research human mutations and find others like him, and the other to extract revenge. Thanks to Kevin Bacon's former Nazi, Sebastian Shaw and his team of mutant baddies, a select group of good guy mutants come together to help avert nuclear war and this is where the X-Men are born. The action is top notch, even with the amount of establishment of characters that is necessary; Magneto creating most of the badassness, which we'll get to later.

A huge problem with Last Stand was the inclusion of a ton of mutants just for the sake of adding them, but here, Vaughn does a fantastic job of developing each of the characters without making the movie feel forced, jumbled or long. Not only are they all developed well, they all serve a purpose (for the most part). Nobody is really standing around, just a part of the movie for the sake of the fanboys or the studio. The only non-mutant with a significant role is Rose Byrne's MacTaggert, who drops her Scotish accent (that didn't bother me) and is essentially the person who assembles the X-Men together, but once they're all together she's somewhat lost in the shuffle. It's too bad because Rose Byrne is fun to look at. Speaking of fun to look at, we get ourselves a post-Oscar nom, pre-Katniss Jennifer Lawrence who really looks fucking good as the normal version of Raven/Mystique. She kind of freaks me out when she is blue, but I got over it. The world's most famous Negro Jew, Lenny Kravitz's daughter, Zoe is another piece of eye candy with a darkness hovering over her (not a race joke).

I've always said that superhero films are only as good as their villains, but I'd say this may be the exception. Bacon is great in what he is given, but he is not badass or tough enough to portray a villain of the necessary proportions. Bacon does pull off the slimy, conniving side of the villain using the characters on both sides as his pawns in order to gain more power. Cliche, yes but it's such an easy route for the era that you can't blame them, especially since the villain is simply a catalyst.

The moral center of the movie and (for once) it's main focus is James McAvoy's Charles Xavier, donned "Professor X" by Raven. The hair and lack of paralysis throws you off for a moment, but then you realize that this will help McAvoy create the character as his own and the writers end his story in the movie by showing the origins of one of the aforementioned characteristics of Professor X. While watching the film, you are really involved with Professor X, so it's unfortunate that McAvoy and Professor X is hardly ever spoken of in discussion after the film because he is really fucking good. There is really only one thing you can really talk about after this movie is over - Michael Fassbender's portrayal of Erik Lensherr/Magneto. The likable evil we've seen from Ian McKellen's Magneto is completely justified by Fassbender's performance. On top of the performance, Vaughn uses Magneto as the core of the action, which is the smartest way to go about it. Between tossing around an anchor to kill people on a boat, lifting up a submarine, using missiles as toys and the use of a simple coin, Magneto is the reckless badass everyone wants to win. I might also add that the bar scene in Argentina (I think?) is incredible, especially Magneto's use of a knife. This film was supposed to be a companion piece to Wolverine, so it's no wonder Magneto is fleshed out so well. From the concentration camp where we learn of his powers to enacting his revenge on those who exploited him to the final scene on the beach, Erik Lensherr is one of the greatest characters ever created in a comic book adaptation, thanks to this movie and Fassbender. McKellen's Magneto was always sinister, smart and likable and Fassbender makes us understand why. Adding these two portrayals together in one world allows Magneto to become, overall, the best "super" character on film. Fassbender is really something special and it makes me really happy that someone who is going to be one of the best actors of his generation would please us fanboys like he has with his portrayal of Magneto.

I love this movie and the Wolverine cameo - "Go fuck yourself." Like this summer's The Avengers, this was the kind of film fun superhero movies should be.
Grade - A-

 

[Palooza]

99 Films of 2011

15. Moneyball
Brad Pitt, Jonah Hill, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Robin Wright, Chris Pratt, Stephen Bishop, Reed Diamond, Brent Jennings, Jack McGee, Glenn Morshower, Nick Porrazzo, Adrian Bellani​

Director -
Bennett Miller
Writer(s) -
Aaron Sorkin, Steve Zaillian
Rotten Tomatoes Score - 95%
Metacritic Score - 87/100
Viewed - HQ torrent
I'm not going to sit here and pretend I like anything about baseball. I really don't, it bores the shit out of me and I don't care how much of a communist that makes me. The only thing I dislike more than baseball are the Yankees and Sawx and their representation of the enemies of the movie. What do I like though? Brad Pitt, Jonah Hill, Philip Seymour Hoffman and fucking with the system and the worn out conventions that comes along with them. This is so much more than a baseball movie, I'd even go as far as to say that out of everything it can be qualified as, a "sports" or "baseball" movie is the least suitable qualification. Baseball is simply a backdrop - there are only a few actual baseball scenes and there is no "big game" climax. Like I said, this is more of a "fight the power by creating a way to be successful without doing what the power does" movie than anything else. For the sake of admiring quality filmmaking, we will ignore the true story this is based on because comparing the real world to something written by the King of Glorification, Aaron Sorkin, is just unfair and will taint/ruin any viewing experience you can have, especially with the truth behind this story. Speaking of Sorkin, I'm sure he could write a play by play dialogue between me and my balls while I am shaving them and it'd more compelling and witty than any conversation I've ever had; he's that good. Thank goodness for cocaine. Anyway, this film follows the Oakland A's and GM Billy Beane (Brad Pitt) as he tries to keep his job in a system where you must spend big money to win, something the A's do not have at their leisure, all the while keeping the affections of his daughter in tact. Beane's exhausted himself attempting to get rising players to stay or signing new players with the Jewishness that goes down in terms of shelling out cash. Beane figures he needs to do what he can to make things work and his best option is to throw away everything everyone, including he and his scouts, know about winning the game of baseball. To do so, he hires still-fat and Oscar nominated Jonah Hill to analyze stats and players who are cheap and can compensate for the loss of their players. Let the unconventional games begin.

Brad Pitt is amazing as always, playing his role perfectly; he is the center of the movie and I don't think there are many people who can carry a movie better than he. Sorkin and Zaillian's (The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo) slick writing works perfectly with the slickest man on Earth, but the true surprise comes from Jonah Hill. The best kind of comedians are born to move on to serious acting - just ask Bill Murray or Robin Williams. Jonah Hill showcases every ounce of his potential in this. Speaking of which, Parks and Rec's lovable idiot, Chris Pratt also pulls off a dramatic role here. Another great performance by Philip Seymour Hoffman sees him as A's manager, Art Howe, who is pretty much thrown into a village idiot/scapegoat role (again, ignore the real story) and he embraces it with perfection. Besides letting the real story bother you, I only see one other problem with the film, which is a somewhat forced relationship between Beane and his young daughter. Once you get into the groove of things, the scenes with Beane and his daughter just seem like a forced way to add an element to both Beane's character and the film. Beane needs something to motivate him to keep his job, supporting and not disappointing his daughter is that outlet. It's only unnecessary because it isn't fleshed out well enough. Either way, this is a great movie for baseball fans (if you ignore the glorification of the story) and even better for non-baseball fans. Rarely can something that seems so genre specific (a sports movie!!!!) completely flip that on its head and turn it into a David vs. Goliath character study. Too bad they didn't win shit besides a whole mess of games in a row, or else this would have capped off the David vs. Goliath parallel perfectly, but it would have also thrown this movie into a true sports movie, which is not what it is trying to be at all.
Grade - A-

 

[Palooza]

99 Films of 2011

14. The Artist
Jean Dujardin, Berence Bejo, John Goodman, James Cromwell, Penelope Ann Miller, Beth Grant, Joel Murray, Ed Lauter, Bitsie Tulloch, Ken Davitian, Malcolm McDowell, Missi Pyle ​

Director -
Michel Hazanavicius
Writer(s) -
Michel Hazanavicius
Rotten Tomatoes Score - 98%
Metacritic Score - 89/100
Viewed - In theaters
This film is the San Antonio Spurs of 2011 films. It's good, it's really good, but it's so fundamentally perfect and well done that after a while you're kind of sick of how good it is and how much people are talking about it. I mean, god damn it got a 98% on rottentomatoes. This is perfect bait for the "things aren't as good as they used to be" film snobs/Academy voters. This movie will keep those old farts blabbing about the good old days. Whenever a movie discussion is presented you know they'll be going on and on about how come nobody is capable of making movies that reflect the best eras of filmmaking like The Artist did! Unfortunately for those fools, this film is a one-time deal. It's so poignant and captivating because it is a homage to something that died almost 100 years ago and hasn't been executed as perfectly as it was here. It sucks that I have taken these opinions out on the movie, but I do whatever I want here, so too bad.

The film starts with the world's most famous silent film star, George Valentin embracing his stardom which is the main focus of his everyday life. He has a loveless marriage but he's okay with it because of his success. Like with EVERY film that revolves around silent film stars, George is crushed by the new wave of "talkies". The new face of the production company is Peppy Miller (Berenice Bejo), who was a nobody until Valentin discovered her. A quick role reversal and George is going down a path of self-destruction as he struggles to cope with his lost fame. Once George fades out of the spotlight is when the movie really picks up. George's companion throughout the movie is a Jack Russell Terrier, who steals every single scene he is in. He is George's conscience, the comic relief and the best part of the movie. Between the engaging downward spiral of George, Jack and the absolutely adorable Berenice Bejo, there is plenty for people under the age of 90 to enjoy in this film.

Actually making the movie with all conventions of a silent film is really engaging and interesting. I've seen some silent films in my day, but they're not exactly my cup of tea. I'm a firm believer in the use of words to both tell a story and to create a character. This is where the problem with silent films are presented - overacting is necessary in order to convey what you want. Every reaction is overdone, but since every single character is doing it, you get lost in it. I'm not sure if that qualifies you for an Oscar, but since 90% of the Academy voters were able to get their first erection since 'Nam, it makes sense.

What worked best in my opinion was that I didn't recognize any of the main actors, which helped me actually believe everything. As much as I love him, John Goodman kind of ruined it for me. He's so recognizable that I started pretending that it was Goodman's grandfather playing the role. James Cromwell plays Valentin's driver and definitely fits in perfectly with the silent film world. Same as the quick cameo by Malcolm McDowell.

If you like the Spurs brand of basketball or movie history, this movie is for you (even though this isn't even the best movie about film this year).
Grade - A-

 

[Houston]

I thought the record breaker was the big game climax.

 

[Palooza]

I thought the record breaker was the big game climax.

Yeah, exactly.

Remember the Titans - WE'RE GUNNA WIN STATE!
Hoosiers - WE'RE GUNNA WIN STATE!
Rocky - WE'RE GUNNA WIN THE BELT!
Space Jam - WE'RE GUNNA SAVE THE LOONEY TUNES!
Moneyball - WE'RE GUNNA BREAK THE CONSECUTIVE GAMES WON STREAK!

Do you get it? It is a "big game climax" but it's not.

 

[Palooza]

Front page updated.

 

[Houston]

Have to wait another 2 years for the next X-men movie

 

[Palooza]

Have to wait another 2 years for the next X-men movie

Yeah, I'm not pleased the studio pushed shooting back to let Jennifer Lawrence shoot The Hunger Games sequel. As you can see, I loved First Class and cannot wait for the next one

 

[Palooza]

99 Films of 2011

13. The Tree of Life
Brad Pitt, Jessica Chastain, Sean Penn, Hunter McCracken, Laramie Eppler, Tye Sheridan, Joanna Going​

Director -
Terrence Malick
Writer(s) -
Terrence Malick
Rotten Tomatoes Score - 85%
Metacritic Score - 85/100
Viewed - HQ torrent
Out of every single movie I have seen from 2011, this one can be debated endlessly as to its quality. Some people are going to hate it, some people are going to love it, but most people aren't going to get it. I'm not saying I entirely understand it because that's not true, but what I did understand and what I did take from the movie was extremely thought provoking. This is philosophically-friendly Terrence Malick's 5th movie in 40 years and his first since 2005's The New World, his take on the John Smith/Pocahontas legend. This long gap in between movies has earned Malick a mixture of respect and hatred from his peers. Some consider it a ploy to stay out of the spotlight, but I consider it as a way to put every ounce of your being into that one project and if it takes you 10 years, that's how long it's going to take. Malick is a brilliant creative mind and his long absences make you appreciate it that much more once he's back in our mind. You forget about him and then once you see his newest movie, you can comprehend its quality.

In The Tree of Life, Malick examines life through the eyes of a southern family in the 50's. The patriarch of the O'Brein family is played by Brad Pitt, who does a complete 180 from the charismatic character we saw him as in Moneyball. Here he is still charismatic, but only because that's just who Brad Pitt is. This bit of charisma and his good intentions is what keeps Mr. O'Brien from being a villain. He's not a villain or a bad father or anything of that sort. He's strict and demanding, but that does not make him evil. Mr. O'Brien wants his sons to have every opportunity to make something of themselves, but he knows it take a lot of discipline and hard work to become what you want. We see Sean Penn as a grown up version of their oldest son, Jack and on the surface he is successful - he wakes up in a nice house with a woman on his side, he travels around a fancy office, looking at architectural blueprints and plans. Mr. O'Brien's drive for his children is justified when we catch glimpses of his true love - music. He masterfully plays the piano, the organ in church and makes sure the family listens to some classical music during dinner. It's obvious he doesn't want his sons giving up what they love in an effort to pay the bills, much like he. Unfortunately, Mr. O'Brien's motivations aren't as black and white as I make them seem - even though he wants to teach his sons to appreciate everything they have, no matter how little it is, he still projects his failures on to his family, which can be seen most obviously in a confrontational dinner sequence. Here and throughout the film, Jessica Chastain portrays an angelic mother who protects her children from the horrors of the world, including their father. At one point, Mr. O'Brien goes away on business and the feel of the movie completely changes. Things are not tense, they seem fun. The boys and the mother let loose, like kids in a classroom who go wild when the teacher steps out, even for one second, jumping back to their disciplined ways once the authority returns. One of the most powerful scenes of the film is when Mr. O'Brien forces his boys to punch him, a test of both their will and their strength (physically, mentally and emotionally). Jack proves to be the most willing, which makes sense considering the relationship between he and his father is more dysfunctional than anything else.

It's not exactly a story or a movie as it is a poetic examination of childhood and growing up. The children are the ones who the focus of the movie is on, which makes the parents feeling so out of reach depressingly understanding. It's one of the most realistic portrayals of youth I can recall seeing. The child actors are top notch as well, especially Hunter McCracken who plays young Jack. You are sucked into his world, as simple as it may be and you relate and understand all of his actions, even if sometimes they don't make much sense.

The best part of the film is definitely in the directing. Malick uses film as an art form and the world is his canvas. The most ambitious filmmaking comes during the grown up scenes with Sean Penn. When we meet him, he is in bed with a woman and the two wake up. There the camera floats around the house, watching the two as a hidden observer, sneaking around. The voices are distant, muffled whispers. For these scenes I can't help but think that the camera is the vision of Jack's younger brother's soul as he watches over Jack. This world seems familiar aesthetically, but the feel seems completely foreign. Like Lars von Trier's Melancholia, Malick uses his skills as a director to show the audience the power and importance of life, creating a montage of the childhood and growing up of the universe, something that parallels the film's "plot". Literally in certain scenes where the universe is captured with amazing aesthetics. Malick's use of this seems much less pretentious than von Trier, but that's Lars von Trier for you. Malick's movie is visually phenomenal as a whole, but most certainly during this sequence. As much as this is a movie about faith, it in no way shoves any sort of religious message. It's not necessarily about the faith of a god, but the faith of us as human beings looking for something to make us understand why we are here on Earth and why life is so fragile and important.
Grade - A-

 

[Palooza]

99 Films of 2011

12. Tyrannosaur
Peter Mullan, Olivia Coleman, Eddie Marsan, Paul Poppelwell, Ned Dennehy, Samuel Bottomley​

Director -
Paddy Considine
Writer(s) -
Paddy Considine
Rotten Tomatoes Score - 82%
Metacritic Score - 65/100
Viewed - HQ torrent
Paddy Considine is a very unlikely person to make such a dark and unsettling film like this, but he does a wonderful job nonetheless. The major theme I noticed of this film, beyond obvious ethical and morality themes, is the idea that nobody is what they seem and that most things are much, much different than they are portrayed. The clever and horribly titled Tyrannosaur follows alcoholic, angry widower Joseph as he wanders through life where he encounters the overly happy-go-lucky Hannah, a Christian shop worker. As the two grow closer, we realize that the two are not so different from one another, both occupying prisons in their lives. Beyond the disturbing and dark tone of the film, there are some wonderful performances, mostly by the two leads - Peter Mullan and Olivia Coleman. Each of these two actors showcase the damaged characters, with two of the best performances of the year. I wish there was more to say about this movie besides the amazing performances and the disturbing tones of the film, but there really isn't. The film knows what it is and it takes off running with them and it does so wonderfully. There are three disturbing parts of the film - one opens the film where Joseph kills his dog in a fit of rage. The others are two encounters of Hannah and her husband, James(the always brilliant, Eddie Marsan). Hannah sleeps on the couch and James asks her to bed, but she continues sleeping. Shortly after we hear and unzip and the man pisses on her, another moment involves a "sexual encounter" between the two. This is where the facade these characters have created for the rest of the world begin to unravel. In Hannah's case, it is the prison she has allowed herself to occupy with her loveless, sex-deprived marriage. James is literally a crazy person, who is disturbed more than Joseph, but we can't tell that on the outside. Back to each of the character's facades - Joseph is a seemingly disturbed and angry person, but on the inside he is simply a damaged person who acts that way as a defense mechanism; the man has a heart, which we see when he gets closer to Hannah and also when he confronts the neighbor and his dog after the dog attacks the neighbor's girlfriend's son. On the outside, Hannah is a normal happy-go-lucky religious woman, but when we see her with her husband, we understand this is just something she shows for the world so they don't ask questions. James facade is much like Hannah's, but his is much more disturbed on the inside. Every action he makes just proves how fake he is on the outside and how fucked up he is on the inside.

Now we get to the meaning of the title. It has both a literal meaning and a metaphorical meaning. There is a reason why Joseph wears his facade so well - he's become so accustom to that person he has actually become it. It takes his interactions with Hannah for him to break away from being completely consumed by it. Joseph tells the story of his overweight wife, telling Hannah and the audience that his deceased wife was overweight and when she would walk around the house it would shake, causing water in a glass to ripple, just the same as in Jurassic Park, so he began calling her "Tyrannosaur". Metaphorically, the title represents the characters being animals or beasts on the inside with human features on the outside. Their inner-beast is buried deep like the remains of dinosaurs, waiting to be dug up and brought out.

I leave you with another quote from Joseph that sums up the film - "An animal can only take so much punishment and humiliation before it snaps, fights back ... It’s its nature, you know."
Grade - A-

 

[Buzzman]

I need to watch Tyrannosaur and rewatch Tree of Life.