Showing posts with label Emma Stone. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Emma Stone. Show all posts

Monday, December 18, 2023

Poor Things - Kubrickian

Yorgos Lanthimos’s films have always been divisive, with films like Dogtooth, The Lobster, and The Killing of a Sacred Deer either completely working for people (like me) or falling completely flat on their deadpan faces for others. Then The Favourite came out and garnered a lot of awards attention (Olivia Colman won Best Actress and the film was nominated in nearly every major category). While The Favourite has its odd moments, it’s positively mainstream for a Lanthimos movie, which is why it disappointed me. I was afraid that Lanthimos had lost his weird edge. Then Poor Things kicked in the door holding a chicken dog, peed on the floor, tried to punch a baby, and let out a noxious burp bubble into the air.


In other words, Poor Things is wildly strange all around. It’s also the funniest, most well-acted, and inventive film of the year. (It’s also my personal favorite, and it won Best Picture from the Indiana Film Journalists Association.) 


Poor Things is hard to summarize, but here goes: Emma Stone plays Bella, a Frankenstein’s Monster-ish creation of scientist Baxter (Willem Dafoe). She begins the movie as an adult with the mind of a baby, but as she matures at a rapid rate, she decides to see the world with one of the best cinematic rapscallions of all time in Duncan Wedderburn (Mark Ruffalo, in a shockingly funny performance). Bella sees the best and worst of the world, and it’s all presented in fantastical, horrible, and hilarious ways. 


I typically do not like writing plot summaries (you can always just Google it or watch a trailer or something), but I liked the challenge of it for this one since I liked it so much. This movie simply works on every level for me in a way that I haven’t felt since Stanley Kubrick’s films (more on that later).


The writing (Tony McNamara, adapting the novel by Alasdair Gray) is the standout element, as the entire film is quotable. It’s funny, but the straightforward, child-like dialogue of Bella also points out many of the ridiculous elements of humanity. And while it’s all quirky and funny, I still cared about most of the characters, though they could be framed as villains in other films (especially Dafoe’s character). 


It takes skill to deliver the funniest lines of the script, especially in Lanthimos’s signature tone. And Emma Stone is perfect. She has to play an adult baby, a prostitute, and a scientist all in one role. Her performance as an adult baby alone is adwards-worthy, the rest is just a bonus. And Mark Ruffalo is an amazing foil to her. It’s funny when he just goes along with Bella’s oddness, but it’s the best when she finally breaks him, causing him wonder, “What the fuck are you talking about?” multiple times throughout. His transformation throughout the film is equally impressive and amusing. 


The writing and acting are so great in this film, it almost seems to be a waste that the music and production design are so unique, as well, because they are nearly an afterthought when they would be the standouts in other, weaker films. The discordant score captures the unsettling mood of each scene. And the creatures (what other film has a chicken dog walking around with no one talking about it?) and set decoration complete the picture by creating a world that is recognizable but also fantastical. 


All of this is enough to make this one of my favorite movies in recent years. But it’s the Kubrickian element that I think will cement this among my all-time favorite films. Lanthimos is no stranger to the Kubrick comparison. Anyone who uses deadpan humor, tracking shots, and slow zooms gets compared to Kubrick at some point. This is why I usually don’t like calling things Kubrickian these days. While Poor Things does have all those Kubrick-like elements, I label it as Kubrickian for what it represents in Lanthimos’s career arc. 


Poor Things isn’t actually similar, story-wise, to anything Kubrick would make. But it is the kind of movie he would make. Kubrick, while toiling around in similar thematic areas with his films, never tried to make the same film twice. And Lanthimos appears to be on that same track. The fact that I didn’t love The Favourite now seems like a good thing. If he kept making movies like The Lobster over and over, it would get tiring immediately. To go from Sacred Deer to The Favourite to Poor Things shows a willingness to go to new, interesting places, much like how Kubrick could go from Barry Lyndon to The Shining to Full Metal Jacket. The style may be similar, but the content shows a desire to keep things interesting. And for Lanthimos, that also means getting very weird sometimes, and that works for me. 


Random Thoughts


I only focused on Stone and Ruffalo, but truly every performance in this is great. Dafoe is amazing, of course, and Ramy Youssef has many great moments reacting to Dafoe’s craziness. 


This is a gloriously demented mashup of Benjamin Button, Jack, and Forrest Gump.


“Fate had brought me a dead body and a live infant. It was obvious.”

“It…was?”


“She grabbed my hairy business!”


“I was chloroforming goats all morning. I may have ingested too much.”


Lanthimos is truly like Kubrick. It’s not just that their films share some superficial similarities, it’s the tone in which they are made. This very much strikes me as the type of film Kubrick would make if he were still alive.


I worry myself in typing this, but Yorgos Lanthimos gets me.


I am so happy to live in a world in which a company is willing to give this lunatic a lot of money to make hilarious shit like this, which is a film that dares to ask, “What if Dr. Frankenstein was good at his job?” 


The segment of her just wanting to eat, drink, and fuck reminded me of when Bender became a human on Futurama.


I never knew I needed to hear Mark Ruffalo say, “What the fuck are you talking about?” in a British accent. 


“Hope is smashable. Realism is not.”


Usually, I think movies don’t justify their length, but I could watch Emma Stone break down situations in a deadpan manner for five hours, at least. My favorite was her working out how it made sense to start working in a Parisian brothel.


Her first customer kind of looks like Will Forte from the plane sketch in I Think You Should Leave.


“Hence, I seek employment at your musty-smelling establishment of good-time fornication.”


“She is no different to the chicken dog.”


“He has cancer, you fucking idiot.”


This is the most exciting character Ruffalo has played in years, maybe ever.

2023 IFJA Awards

 


The Indiana Film Journalists Association has named “Poor Things” the best film of 2023, a strong showing that also included Best Lead Performance for Emma Stone, Mark Ruffalo for Best Supporting Performance, Best Director for Yorgos Lanthimos, Best Adapted Screenplay (Tony McNamara), Original Vision and Best Ensemble Acting. 


Its seven wins is the most ever in the 15 years of the IFJA awards.


“Oppenheimer,” which was named runner-up for Best Film, also was runner-up in four other categories: directing, lead and supporting performance, and ensemble acting. It notched three wins: Cinematography, Editing and Musical Score. 


Eight other films were voted Finalists for Best Film. Along with the winner and runner-up, they represent the IFJA’s selection as the Top 10 movies of the year. 


“The Zone of Interest” was awarded Best Foreign Language Film and “Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse” won Best Animated Film. “Kokomo City” was named Best Documentary.


David Hemingson took the Best Original Screenplay award for “The Holdovers.” Writer/director Celine Song earned the Breakout of the Year Award for her debut film, “Past Lives.”


The Edward Johnson-Ott Hoosier Award, which goes to a film or filmmaker with Indiana ties, went to Sam Mirpoorian, director of the documentary “Greener Pastures.”


IFJA members issued this statement for the Edward Johnson-Ott Hoosier Award:

 

“Sam Mirpoorian has shown that an Indiana-based filmmaker can make major waves across the cinematic landscape. His documentary ‘Greener Pastures’ is a powerful look at the lives of independent farmers shot over several years, traveling alongside them before and during Covid, observing their struggles with depression and substance abuse but always demanding we see their intrinsic dignity as those who nourish us. Mirpoorian has rendered those who were largely invisible indelible in our eyes and hearts.”

 

In addition to the winner, IFJA recognizes a runner-up in each category (with one exception, noted below). Here is the complete list:


Best Picture

Winner: Poor Things

Runner-up: Oppenheimer

 

Other Best Film Finalists: (listed alphabetically)

Are You There God? It’s Me, Margaret.

Barbie

The Holdovers

John Wick: Chapter 4

Killers of the Flower Moon

May December

Past Lives

Robot Dreams

 

Best Animated Film

Winner: Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse

Runner-up: Robot Dreams

 

Best Foreign Language Film

Winner: The Zone of Interest

Runner-up: Godzilla Minus One

 

Best Documentary Film

Winner: Kokomo City

Runner-up: 20 Days in Mariupol

 

Best Original Screenplay

Winner: David Hemingson, The Holdovers

Runner-up: Samy Burch (screenplay/story) and Alex Mechanik (story), May December

 

Best Adapted Screenplay

Winner: Tony McNamara, Poor Things

Runner-up: Greta Gerwig and Noah Baumbach, Barbie

 

Best Director

Winner: Yorgos Lanthimos, Poor Things

Runner-up: Christopher Nolan, Oppenheimer

 

Best Lead Performance

Winner: Emma Stone, Poor Things

Runner-up: Cillian Murphy, Oppenheimer

 

Best Supporting Performance

Winner: Mark Ruffalo, Poor Things

Runner-up: Robert Downey, Jr., Oppenheimer

 

Best Vocal/Motion Capture Performance

Winner: Hailee Steinfeld, Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse

Runner-up: Shameik Moore, Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse

 

Best Ensemble Acting

Winner: Poor Things

Runner-up: Oppenheimer

 

Best Musical Score

Winner: Ludwig Göransson, Oppenheimer

Runner-up: Robbie Robertson, Killers of the Flower Moon

 

Breakout of the Year

Winner: Celine Song, Past Lives

Runner-up: Charles Melton, May December

 

Best Cinematography

Winner: Hoyte van Hoytema, Oppenheimer

Runner-up: Dan Laustsen, John Wick: Chapter 4

 

Best Editing

Winner: Jennifer Lame, Oppenheimer

Runner-up: Thelma Schoonmaker, Killers of the Flower Moon

 

Best Stunt/Movement Choreography

Winner: Jeremy Marinas (fight coordinator), Scott Rogers (stunt coordinator) and Stephen Levy (stunt choreographer), John Wick: Chapter 4

Runner-up: Jennifer White (choreographer) and Lisa Welham (associate choreographer), Barbie

 

Original Vision Award

Winner: Poor Things

Runner-up: Barbie

 

The Edward Johnson-Ott Hoosier Award*

Winner: Director Sam Mirpoorian, Greener Pastures


*As a special honor, no runner-up is named for the Hoosier Award. It is named after founding IFJA member and longtime NUVO Newsweekly critic Edward Johnson-Ott.


About IFJA: The Indiana Film Journalists Association was established in 2009 to celebrate cinema and promote quality film criticism in the Hoosier State. To be eligible for our awards, a film must have had a general release on any platform during the current calendar year, screened to IFJA critics in advance of a following year release date, or play in a major Indiana film festival.

 

http://indianafilmjournalists.com





Wednesday, December 3, 2014

Who Needs Batman When You Can Have "Birdman"?

Birdman
"Hey, I'm in this movie too, Keaton, and I'm pretty damn good."
Movies about actors and the industry can be annoying.  There are usually a lot of in-jokes and most of the characters are egomaniacal and unlikable.  Birdman doesn’t buck the trend of in-jokes or unlikable characters, but it is certainly funny and one of the most entertaining films of the year…although some might still find it a bit annoying.

Birdman is about fading actor Riggan Thomson’s attempt to gain respect by directing and starring in a stage production of Raymond Carver’s “What We Talk About When We Talk About Love” on Broadway.  That sounds awfully pretentious (and it kind of is, which is the point), but it’s less about the play Riggan’s putting on than it is about himself.  Riggan has some ego/fame issues.  After giving up playing a superhero (Birdman) for the big studios, he has now become something of a footnote.  Riggan hopes his play will somehow show the world how great he (still) is. 

Birdman is much more complicated than that, though.  First off, Riggan has superpowers.  Or at least he thinks he does.  The first time we see Riggan, he is levitating in his dressing room.  The film has multiple sequences of magical realism that may or not actually be happening (there’s a stronger case for them not actually happening, however).  Regardless, Riggan’s “powers” just show how egotistical he is.  As if that’s not enough, he also hears the voice of Birdman, who is constantly deriding this artistic move and urges Riggan to go back to the blockbuster scene.  As you can imagine, this allows for plenty of thoughts about the state of Hollywood, acting, fame, etc.  It’s all very existential and interesting on multiple levels.

For instance, when you read the name Michael Keaton most people will automatically think of Batman.  Keaton famously decided not to play Batman for a third time and has been less relevant ever since.  His casting adds another layer to consider.  (For the record, Keaton claims he has less in common with this character than any other he has portrayed.)  The meta casting does not stop there.  Edward Norton plays a famously difficult actor who is combative throughout (Norton has been accused of being difficult many times).  Oh, and Norton also once played the Incredible Hulk.  Emma Stone, who plays Riggan’s troubled daughter, was in The Amazing Spiderman.  And there are a few references to other actors involved with superhero movies as well.  This is perhaps Birdman’s most relevant theme: the superhero film’s destruction of actual acting.  Now more than ever, Hollywood is obsessed with superheroes.  Both Marvel and DC have movies planned out for the rest of the decade.  Birdman is very much an anti-superhero movie.  Sure, there are plenty of movies that are not superhero movies, but this one is making a point by defiantly not being a superhero movie.  Birdman isn’t likely to take away from the audience of those other films, but it proves a film can be more entertaining and certainly more interesting with a good script, great performances, and some inventive camerawork. 

Speaking of camerawork, Birdman is getting a bit of attention for being cut to appear as if it is one long take.  This is not a gimmick, even though it adds a respectable layer of difficulty to the process.  The camerawork actually fits into the free-flowing nature of the film.  This is not just about Riggan.  The camera wanders throughout the theatre stopping in on an assortment of characters.  It helped create the feeling of chaos that surrounds the production of the play Riggan is staging.  The percussion heavy score adds to that chaos, too, making Birdman one of the most frenetic films of the year.  It’s fun, though, rather than exhausting.

The film is about so many things it’s hard to pinpoint what the overall experience is about really.  It might sound pretentious, but Birdman is simply about life: love, art, ego, comedy, fame, etc.  It’s all there, and there are plenty of messages to be gleaned from the film, but one moment summed it up best for me.  During one of the more chaotic times for Riggan, he comes across a man yelling Macbeth’s famous soliloquy about life being “a tale told by an idiot, full of sound and fury, signifying nothing.”  Birdman is certainly full of “sound and fury,” and maybe it’s even about nothing.  But Macbeth was pretty crazy when he said that, so what does he know?  I, for one, found that to be a key scene.  Everything is too complicated to be boiled down to some singular point or lesson.  I could go on and on about different issues presented by the film, but I’ll just point out one that is very relevant for this review.

At one point, Riggan verbally assaults a theater critic.  He rants at the critic, telling her all she is doing is labeling things.  She’s not really saying anything.  She’s not really doing anything.  Is that a fair assessment of criticism (a criticism of criticism, if you will)?  I think so.  I’ve always held that my reviews are simply opinions.  I cast judgment, sure, but I write in the first person because I know my views are not definitive.  Who am I to tell you if something is good or bad?  All I can do is give my personal opinion of it.  This is dangerous territory for writer/director Alejandro Iñárritu, however, because no matter how good your argument is, it still comes across as a bit petty when you write a rant aimed at critics.  But then again, isn’t every review a rant (good or bad) aimed at the filmmakers?  Hmm…okay, it’s cool with me, Iñárritu, especially if you keep making awesome movies like this.  Give those critics hell!

This film took me by surprise because I was expecting an acting display first and a film second.  Keaton has been the focus of all press and previews for the film, and rightfully so, to the point that it seems like it’s a one-trick pony.  Keaton is certainly amazing.  He is funny, sad, intense, and utterly believable in this role.  Most importantly, he makes what should be a hated character likable.  I should not have wanted things to work out for him, but I did.  I credit Keaton for that.  He is absolutely entertaining and is on par with the rest of the filmmaking.  The rest of the cast is up to task as well.  They’re all great, but Emma Stone stands out mainly for one great scene she has with Keaton.  But it’s Edward Norton who nearly steals the show.  He may be playing a perceived version of himself, but it’s so good.  I loved the scenes in which he is “acting” as much as his “real” moments.  This film reminded me how great of an actor he can be (not that he’s been bad; it just seems like great roles like this have been few).  I foresee at least one Oscar for this cast, but I hope I see two. 

Birdman obviously worked for me.  It made me laugh consistently but also think about life, love, the film industry, fame, viral fame, ego, criticism, etc.  The film juggles so many ideas while also being visually impressive.  It is easily one of the year’s best films.

Birdman receives a:

Thursday, July 12, 2012

"The Amazing Spider-Man"

Directed by Marc Webb, written by James Vanderbilt, Alvin Sargent, and Steve Kloves, starring Andrew Garfield, Emma Stone, and Rhys Ifans - Rated PG-13


The pointlessness of this film (much like the pointlessness of Bruce Banner's dad as a villain in Hulk) is just too much for me.



When I first heard about the reboot of Spider-Man, I reacted the same way many fans did: I wondered what the point was.  After all, it had only been ten years since the superhero franchise had started and it had been a mere five years since the last entry in that trilogy.  Why on earth would they need to tell this origin story again?  As the hype built and footage was released, I started to lighten up.  After all, the Batman franchise had rebooted eight years after the last entry.  Maybe this Spider-Man (with the vastly different title, The Amazing Spider-Man) would try to reinvent the hero and tell new stories in a different style.  As it turns out, my initial fears were legitimate.  The Amazing Spider-Man is extremely similar to the Tobey Maguire-Sam Raimi film in terms of plot and action.  It truly felt like a less fun remake rather than a daring reimagining. 

Is it really fair to judge a movie based on whatever form of a “re-“ it is?  I suppose not, but how can you ignore how pointless it all is?  Sure, people were upset with the third Spider-Man film, but did they need to start over and tell the exact same origin story?  I’ll try to judge this film on its own merits as much as possible, but this film kind of has to be judged in comparison to the original. 

Origin stories in general are a little boring, especially when you already know what’s going to happen.  Look at the popular consensus of the latest Batman, X-Men, and Spider-Man films.  The first films are well-received because they are necessary.  Even though most people know the backgrounds of these decades-old heroes, we accept that they must be introduced.  The second film in all of these franchises has been regarded as the best because we can just enjoy the character and not have to deal with that first hour of the character figuring things out.  The point of all this is that Spider-Man didn’t need to be introduced again.  It hasn’t been that long so people could probably handle the idea of Peter Parker already being Spider-Man. 

The Amazing Spider-Man hints at telling a new story only to devolve into identical territory.  We get glimpses of Peter Parker’s parents, but it’s a missed opportunity.  Instead of delving into the mystery of his parents, we see Peter in high school…again, taking pictures…again, getting bullied…again, and…well, everything you saw ten years ago…again.  Why?

The Amazing Spider-Man would also have you believe that this is a different, darker Peter Parker.  Nothing against Andrew Garfield; he makes for a fine Spider-Man, but the character isn’t written differently.  Sure, the tone of this film is a bit darker, but it’s not a major shift.  Peter still has moments of depression, anger, and happiness.  If anything, I thought Peter was a bit quicker to get over death in this version, which is odd. 

Okay, so the story and the tone are not different enough, then what about the action?  Once again, the small changes simply don’t warrant the existence of this film.  Sam Raimi did a fine job of filming Spidey as he swung throughout New York City.  Director Marc Webb dabbled with some first person point of view sequences for this film.  But even though an early trailer contained a full first person sequence, the final film only used bits and pieces.  Perhaps that was because the early footage was awful and looked like a subpar videogame rather than a big budget film. 

All of the above complaining is not to say that this is terrible movie, though.  Just a pointless one.  The acting is fine, though no one really stands out.  The film has some intense sequences and a few laughs, including the best Stan Lee cameo yet.  Honestly, if this film had been released back in 2002, I probably would have really liked it.  But compared to the film that did come out in ’02, it is definitely the lesser effort. 

This film pales in comparison to the original for many reasons.  First, the villain.  It’s all well and good to bring out the Lizard in the first film, especially since he was only hinted at in the previous films, but there’s a reason he was never truly introduced: he looks goofy…and he’s downright ridiculous when he talks.  The Lizard might work in the comic books, but he’s just too cartoonish for film. 

Next, the romance.  I kind of bought the chemistry between Peter and Gwen Stacy (Emma Stone), but it is paper thin.  They basically get together in this film because they are both awkward around each other and just have a “feeling.”  That seemed lazy to me while the Peter and Mary Jane relationship in the original had a bit more meat to it.
 
Finally, the tone.  This film wants to be the darker, more realistic of the two franchises, but it just ends up being messy.  Peter goes from funny to depressed to vengeful to righteous in about ten minutes.  At least the original knew what it wanted to be and it was all the more fun because of it.

You may read this and completely disagree with me.  Maybe I am wrong and people really wanted a new Spider-Man.  If that’s the case, enjoy it while I just put in my Maguire-Raimi Spider-Man DVD.  I think quite a few of you will agree with me, though.  I would tell you to avoid this obvious studio cash grab, but it doesn’t matter.  The film has already made plenty of money (including some from me).  Maybe you can find solace in the fact that you’re not alone in disliking this film.  Or better yet, you actually did skip it and I’ve just confirmed your fear that this movie would be pointless.  I hope that’s the case, then at least I can feel some satisfaction from having sat through this unfortunate movie.
Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)

Just to ease up a bit, this movie isn't bad, it's just so unnecessary.  I was glad to see that they didn't attempt to bring a new Jameson, since J. K. Simmons was so great in that role.

I also liked that they went with the web pellets rather than making it a weird bodily secretion.

And finally, this movie does look better, but only because it's ten years later, not because the filmmakers were more skilled.