Monthly Archives: December 2014

Michelle Pfeiffer’s Still Got It

Have you noticed on the radio lately that Michelle Pfeiffer has mysteriously reappeared into our collective consciousness?

Vance Joy’s song Riptide makes reference to her – “I swear she’s destined for the screen\ Closest thing to Michelle Pfeiffer that you’ve ever seen.” Which I’m guessing is a hipster compliment.

And then Mark Ronson’s song Uptown Funk (featuring Bruno Marks doing all the hard work) does the same –

This hit
That ice cold
Michelle Pfeiffer
That white gold

So what’s with all this Michelle Pfeiffer worshipping? She hasn’t done anything recently, so I’m assuming there’s a nostalgia factor here, but Michelle’s heyday was arguably the late 80s, maybe early 90s. Bruno Mars was BORN in 1985. Vance Joy? 1987, which means they weren’t even ALIVE when Scarface came out. They would have been in diapers for The Fabulous Baker Boys. They were still pre-pubescent for her Catwoman role in Batman Returns, for christsakes! Even Dangerous Minds is “before their time” and she was already sporting Mom jeans by then. Michelle was born in 1958, which makes her 56, and OLDER THAN MY MOM. And I’m not saying she’s not hot, because, hello.

But the truth is, these random song lyrics are the most relevant she’s been in over a decade. She’s probably not hanging on a lot of dorm walls right now, is all I’m saying.

So, internet, what gives?

Looper

2 Replies

After reviewing Mysterious Skin yesterday, I was inspired to buy and rewatch Looper. I think this movie was high profile enough for me not to bother with my usual summary of the plot so I will just offer a reminder that this is the one where Joseph Gordon-Levitt (the connection to Mysterious Skin in case you were wondering) plays a specialized hitman who must hunt for his future self (Bruce Willis) who has been sent from the future for assassination.

If you haven’t already seen it, I highly recommend it. Director Rian Johnson (Brick) creates a version of the future that is different enough from our present to be interesting but similar enough to be relatable. Because people are sent from the future just to be executed, not to change the past, Looper even avoids most of the logic problems that are usually par for the course with time travel movies. Okay, there are still a few “yeah, but wouldn’t…” moments but maybe that’s even part of the fun. JGL apparently spent a lot of time watching old footage of a younger Willis and, with the help of some talented make-up artists, the two actors do a better job than you might expect of being convincing as the same guy. Oh, and you have Jeff Daniels playing a gangster. So, see it.

But I’m mostly writing this not to the people who haven’t seen it but to those who have. Or at least to those who have either seen it enough times or seen it recently enough to remember what I’m talking about. Please, please, explain that ending to me! When I first saw it back in 2012, I promised myself that if I saw it again, I’m a smart guy- I could figure it out. But I just rewatched it and I still don’t understand how the last five seconds could possibly fit. So, if you have any thoughts, please leave them in the comment section.

Frank

2 Replies

Jon (Domhnall Gleeson) is a slightly dorky guy on a beach, free-associating song lyrics, trying to hit on something that sounds like music. Instead he stumbles upon the scene of a suicide attempt, a raving lunatic being hoisted out of the sea. The hypothermic man is taken away by ambulance, leaving his bandmates scratching their heads around their van – how will they play their show tonight without their keyboardist? But wait! Jon plays keyboards! So he shows up that night to a gig and finds that this group isn’t just some unknown indie band, it’s an ultra-unknown and perhaps unknowable avant-guard indie band that’s lead by Frank (Michael Fassbender), an enigmatic man never seen without his papier-mache head, and Clara (Maggie Gyllenhaal) a super angry woman with bad haircut and a grudge against her theremin.

Back at work the next day, Jon’s life seems even more dull and meaningless than ever. His latest sandwich is the highlight of his twitter feed. So when his phone rings and it’s the band asking him to join them again, he jumps at the chance. Only this time it’s not for a gig, it’s for an indeterminate recording session in a remote cabin in the woods. At first Jon is elated to be part of Frank’s charismatic genius, believing that Frank can summon untapped corners of Jon’s own musical aptitude, but things are not easy with the music or between the band members. Ever the optimist, Jon gamely decides that this experience will substitute for the traumatic childhood he never had, fuelling and giving direction and “theme” to his songwriting.

Or so he thinks.

This movie never does what you expect it to, even after setting up parameters pretty much right away indicating that this is not exactly going to follow a straight and narrow path. It’s quirky and weird but also kind of sombre and introspective. It doesn’t hide behind easy choices, and as a device, the papier-mache head actually seems to unmask people’s true feelings rather than obscure them.

Michael Fassbender gives a surprisingly solid performance from behind his huge head. He plays that aloof, outsider rocker genius thing awfully well (almost as well as Maggie Gyllenhaal does the sour bitch, and that’s saying a lot). But the movie debunks\demystifies the glam-nutbars in a band thing, and Jon is soon learning just what it means to be the only straight one around.

In a World…

Mysterious Skin

4 Replies

In the early 1980s, two 8 year-old boys are molested by their baseball coach. They react to the trauma in very different ways. Neil, who had been abused by his coach repeatedly, grows up identifying with his abuser, carrying around some secret pride that he was coach’s favorite. At the age of 15 (played by Joseph Gordon-Levitt), he starts working as a prostitute. Brian, on the other hand, a quieter and shyer kid than Neil, grows up having no memory of his abuse and, as a teenager (played by Brady Corbet), has spent years fascinated by stories of alien abductions, convinced that he himself had been abducted. Searching for answers, he tries to track down Neil hoping he can explain the gaps in his memory.

Mysterious Skin is not for everyone. Many will be turned off just by the quick synopsis that I offered in the first paragraph. It deals unflinchingly with subject matter (child abuse, prostitution, and rape) that most of us don’t want to think about in such graphic detail.

Many of us can forgive a mediocre action movie or convenient twists and lazy writing as long as they keep us entertained. For most people, though, if we’re going to sit through a movie with subject matter like this, it had better be GREAT. Which this isn’t. Not everything works, Corbet’s performance as Brian rings true but a subplot involving an alliance with 24‘s Chloe, who plays a reclusive 32 year-old with an alien abduction of her own, is particularly unconvincing.

But director Gregg Araki gets most of the details right. This film is refreshingly, even brutally, honest about the traumatic impact of childhood sexual abuse. Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s half of the film is particularly convincing. JGL has made a career of playing tortured young men and he’s at his best here. Neil is charming but unreliable, constantly letting down and pushing away the people that care about him. He seems to have a bit of a death engaging in increasingly risky and unsafe sex. We see a gentler, more compassionate side to him though when he finally reconnects with Brian, leaving us with a glimmer of hope that maybe there’s hope for these two characters after all, quite a feat for a film that is a mostly bleak and punishing experience.

Force Majeure

1 Reply

A Swedish family vacationing at a ski resort in the French Alps are enjoying a nice lunch at a restaurant admiring the beautiful view of the slopes and eating food off each other’s plates. Tomas is a workaholic and spending a little too much time on his phone but overall not a bad family trip so far. Suddenly, a “controlled” avalanche begins to get a little too close for comfort. At first, Tomas reassures his nervous wife Ebba and his panicking son that everything is under control. Then, the avalanche is WAY too close for comfort and Ebba instinctively runs to protect her son and daughter while Tomas instinctively grabs his phone and his gloves, pushes a stranger out of the way and gets the hell out of there. Within seconds, it becomes clear that no one was in any real danger and with some nervous laughter, everyone is enjoying their meals again, with Tomas sheepishly returning to the table as if nothing had happened.

What happens from there is best seen for yourself than read about in some review so I will not give anything away except to say that you should not miss Force Majeure, a strong candidate for this year’s Best Foreign Language Film Oscar. What happens at the restaurant shakes this family to the core and no one knows what to say or what to feel. Some of the best scenes involve other couples listening to Tomas and Ebba’s very different versions of what happened. Their story seems to wreak havoc on anyone who hears it, leaving them wondering what they (or their partner) would do in the same situation.

This is a thought-provoking film that is a must-see even if just for the fun of arguing about it later. I couldn’t help but put myself in the shoes of every character, wondering what I would do in their ski boots (definitely not run).

See Jay’s review of Force Majeure here, and Sean’s over here, and then tell us who’s right!

Rosewater

2 Replies

The Daily Show’s Jon Stewart makes his directorial debut in this drama based on the memoir by Maziar Bahari, an Iranian-Canadian journalist who, after a Daily Show appearance that was misinterpreted (perhaps intentionally) by the Iranian authorities, was imprisoned for four months on suspicion of being an American spy.

This is not at all the kind of film I would have expected from first-time director Stewart and, as an admirer of his show, I am proud of him for making it. Unfortunately, the road to a bad movie is all too often paved with good intentions and it really is too bad that Rosewater isn’t very good.

Bahari, played by Gael Garcia Bernal, is locked up, beaten, and tormented but even when depicting such obvious injustice, Rosewater rarely inspires much outrage or any emotional reaction at all. Not that it doesn’t have its moments. Bernal actually plays the part quite well. In an early scene, Bahari, at first reluctant to rock the boat too much when in Tehran to cover the 2009 elections, reaches a turning point when he makes a decision to continue filming as authorities open fire on a group of angry protesters. For a second, you can see that his instinct is to make a run for it but, with a look on his face that says “okay, I’m a part of this now” and raise his camera to continue to bear witness. It’s a nice moment and there are others like it, where Bahari continues to make decisions to speak the truth that could put him at risk, even though we can tell that he’s scared.

But way too often, the flow is disrupted and the impact is lessened by amateurish flashbacks and scenes of Bahari alone in his cell having imaginary conversations with his father. Worse though are Stewart’s frequent attempts to lighten the mood with some humour, which suggest a lack of confidence as a first-time filmmaker. These scenes feel more like the jokes I make on a first date that I’m afraid is not going well at all than the political satire I would have expected from the host of The Daily Show. Stewart’s heart seems to be in the right place and he clearly has a lot to say so, with a little more confidence and experience, who knows what he can accomplish as a filmmaker?

Force Majeure

2 Replies

Force Majeure is a fascinating movie and a great conversation starter. Basic spoilers will follow but I’ll try to rein myself in as much as possible.

I saw Force Majeure with Jay and Matt yesterday. We talked about it for at least an hour afterward, discussing what we would have done and how we would have reacted (as one of the leads and as their dinner guests), what Tomas could have done differently (once he abandons his family in a moment of panic), and what might have happened after the movie cuts to the credits. Any movie that is this thought-provoking is a worthy watch. Force Majeure definitely excels at drawing the conversation out.

This film also takes great pleasure in making us extremely, extremely uncomfortable. After their disastrous outdoor lunch where disaster (almost) strikes, our interactions with Tomas and his family consist almost entirely of awkward silences, anguished wailing, and/or passive aggressive attacks on each other at group dinners. All these interactions are extremely hard to watch because their relationship has gone so bad so quick (though I liked the inclusion of some hints that it might not have been that good in the first place).

I am told this is Sweden’s candidate for the Academy Awards’ best foreign language film. It’s very worthy of consideration for that award. It makes you think, it makes you feel, and it makes you want to talk about everything you’ve gone through. The inclusion of some scenes was a puzzle to figure out as I was watching, though in discussing many of them with Jay and Matt afterward I was able to understand their relevance more, as each scene tries to show us something about our characters’ feelings or mindsets. That puzzle element, in hindsight, is a neat aspect of the movie, providing insight into these characters’ fragile states and letting us experience for ourselves the devastating consequences of Tomas’ split-second decision. This is not an easy movie to watch but it is one to seek out and experience for yourself. And once you do, come back and let us know what you thought!

Interested in hearing what another asshole thought? Read Jay’s review here and Matt’s over here. Which asshole got it right?

Force Majeure

19 Replies

Sweden’s official submission for best foreign language film at this year’s Oscars is a real doozie.

A big thanks to Ottawa’s Bytowne Cinemas for bringing it here. This film is not an easy one to catch, but worth every effort.

A beautiful blonde family is on a ritzy, picturesque ski vacation in the French Alps. The workaholic father Tomas (Johannes Bah Kuhnke) is taking some much-needed “family time” – that is, until the second day, when an avalanche threatens the family and he saves his own hide, leaving his wife and kids for dead. Luckily, the avalanche was controlled and everyone’s fine – well, everyone’s uninjured. Physically uninjured. But everyone’s hurt.

This film is a fascinating look at what happens to this family now that it’s been confronted with an awful truth. What are these primal instincts? Can we blame them for our actions? Can we count on them? Who can we count on?

After the movie, a small group of Assholes met up at Maxwell’s Bistro on Elgin to debrief, and boy did we need it. The director, Ruben Östlund, is a master at manipulating tension. The fallout unfolds slowly. He uses blank spaces to let the tension mount. It sometimes feels pressurized, unbearable. But every uncomfortable scene is worthy of comment. Together they piece together a larger portrait of a relationship that is being redefined quickly.

What happens when your spouse lets you down so profoundly? What happens when you let yourself down, when you fail to live up to your own values? Can a relationship really be measured by a split-second decision?

The film holds a mirror up to our own relationships, and we ask ourselves what we would have done. And if we’re asking honestly (because of course in our guts we all hope we’d do the right thing) we have to wonder: at our most base self, our most primal self, are we heroes, or are we survivalists?

There are flaws to this movie. The children, though clearly shaken and probably scarred, are hardly dealt with. They intuit that something is wrong with the family unit, and they want to comfort and protect their father from whatever he’s going through. But their own confusion and anger is never given a voice. Focus remains on the couple, and we are constantly reminded of just how intimate our eavesdropping is, although the wife, Ebba, ( Lisa Loven Kongsli) seems to find it easier to voice her disbelief and criticism in public rather than in private.

It’s awkward. Oh man is it awkward. Imagine being at this dinner party. Your friend of many years, it turns out, is a huge coward who saved himself and abandoned his children for dead. You feel sorry for him. Do you comfort him? Comfort her? Make excuses for him? Identify with him? Question your own motives?

This movie is unafraid. It’s not pretty, but we aren’t allowed to look away. It’s not enough just to break the marriage open, now we have to go inside and poke around. It’s terribly invasive. It’s provoking. It’s exactly the kind of movie I adore – one that makes me question everything.

Because whether we collectively condemn or forgive Tomas, our judgments are based on what, exactly? Gender stereotypes? Expectations of filial duty? Idealization of romantic love? Physical bravery? Basic instincts?

This movie is a much better look, psychologically, into the makeup of a marriage than Gone Girl. The characters are more relatable. But that’s also why it’s so much more difficult to sit through. It’s not just a movie. It’s a mirror.

(I hope many of you get the chance to go see it, and I hope you all come back here to chat about it in the comments. If you haven’t seen it, beware – comments may contain spoilers.)

Killer Joe

1 Reply

I’m so shell-shocked from this movie I’m having trouble writing about it.

When Chris, a not so great guy from a not so great family ( Emile Hirsch) has a stash of drugs stolen from him by his mom, he has to come up with cash quick, or he’s dead. He and his father, Ansel (Thomas Hayden Church) hatch a plan to kill the mom and collect on her life insurance policy. And Chris knows just the guy to do the job – Killer Joe, a Dallas detective who happens to be a hit-man on the side. Too bad they can’t afford to pay his retainer…until Joe spots Chris’s sweet little sister Dottie (Juno Temple) and decides that sexual collateral will do just the trick.

This film is trash. Trash trash, not trailer trash. Don’t be fooled by the actual trailer park. These people aren’t just hicks, they’re actual filthy, morally bankrupt people. This fact is established very very quickly – it’s immediately vulgar, over-the-top vulgar, and that’s before the beaver gets flashed in your face. Chris’s stepmom (Gina Gershon) has no boundaries and apparently no pants. Letts, the playwright, is adept with fucked up families (think August: Osage County) but this one takes the cake.

So I was repulsed by this movie, and this from the girl who didn’t blink once while watching Sin City a few weeks ago. My revulsion was knee-jerk and I went straight for the “bad movie” label – bad, bad movie. But I didn’t turn it off. And as I watched more, I realized that the badness is on purpose. It’s the point. You’re not supposed to like these people. This film is showing us a very dirty, seedy class of people. The badness is actually pretty expertly done, which doesn’t mean it’s easy to watch.

Enter Matthew McConaughey, a southern gentleman and a breath of fresh air. His demeanor is calm, his drawl is polite. He injects the movie with a much-need hit of stillness that lets us catch our breath after all the frenetic coarseness. The audience wants to eat him up which is a very effective device because it turns out he’s just as morally reprehensible and probably the most soulless character yet. He just has a more polished facade.

There’s so much tension in this movie that occasionally a giggle will bubble up, guiltily, without relieving even an ounce of the tension. This movie will make your jaw ache. It’s brutal. It’s sadistic. There so much fetishistic sexual cruelty that you won’t know where to look. If you’re comfortable exploring dark, nasty, demented sides of people without every really scratching the surface, then by all means, you won’t do better than this movie. I sort of hesitate to call it exploitation cinema, but isn’t that what it means? To be a voyeur in this condemnable underworld and enjoy watching the bloody violence and perversion vicariously? But Killer Joe has the capacity to really catch people off guard, and not in a good way. (You won’t ever eat fried chicken again.) It’s provocative but doesn’t really attempt to teach us anything. The characters are not remotely redeemable, but neither is the movie. Galling, outrageous, and ultimately superficial. And as polarizing as the movie is, just wait til you get to the end.

(And if by chance you’ve landed on this site just needing to talk about what you’ve seen, then please take the chance to do so in the comments. Assholes Watching Movies is providing a public service: vent, ask questions. Others be forewarned that there may be spoilers.)