Showing posts with label Mark Ruffalo. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Mark Ruffalo. 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





Thursday, June 6, 2013

Didn't Get Around to Watching "Now You See Me"? No Big Deal. Watch "The Prestige" Again Instead.

Directed by Louis Leterrier, written by Ed Solomon, and Boaz Yakin & Edward Ricourt, starring Mark Ruffalo, Jesse Eisenberg, Woody Harrelson, Isla Fisher, Dave Franco, Morgan Freeman, and Michael Caine - Rated PG-13


Pretty much completely indifferent on this one.
 
 
 
 
Movies about magic are not exactly a subgenre just yet, but it’s getting close.  Previous films in recent memory like The Prestige and The Illusionist were all about a mystery that the audience had to look for.  In the case of The Prestige you have Michael Caine flat out talking to you about looking closely.  I suppose it’s fitting that Caine also appears in Now You See Me, the latest mystery magician film in which the audience is dared to look closely and figure it out (once again, the audience is directly addressed).  I consider “The Prestige” to be one of the finest and most engaging films of the past decade (I was not a fan of The Illusionist), so Now You See Me has some big shoes to fill.  In an unfair comparison to The Prestige, Now You See Me does not hold up very well.  But as a piece of forgetful entertainment, it gets the job done.
 
First off, it’s unfair to compare the two magician movies because Now You See Me has a much more light-hearted tone than that film.  This isn’t a film that is truly about magic.  In other words, you don’t get to see a lot of tricks painstakingly planned out and explained.  There is a little of that, but for the most part the audience is left completely in the dark and we’re told how it all worked after the fact.  I suppose that’s fine and all, but the film seemed to be cheating at times.  The viewer doesn’t really have the chance to think the film through because the evidence is limited.  We’re reduced to simply guessing who is behind it all.  It’s still interesting enough to stay involved and want to know the answer, but it’s not as satisfying as it could have been.
 
Part of the problem of the film is that it seems unsure of who the main characters are.  I know that this is part of the point what with misdirection and all, but the film suffers for it.  The basic plot involves four street magicians played by Jesse Eisenberg, Isla Fisher, Dave Franco, and Woody Harrelson.  We’re introduced to them individually, and it seems like they are the protagonists (the preview would lead you to believe this as well).  But once they are brought together, we leave them, for the most part.  Once they are brought together and named the Four Horsemen (is Isla Fisher a man?), the film becomes a detective story told from Mark Ruffalo’s perspective as he (and the audience) tries to figure out who’s behind it all. 
 
The detective gets involved because the magicians turn criminal when they rob a bank as part of their big Las Vegas show, promising that it’s just the beginning.  It’s really the beginning of this movie becoming less interesting.  Ruffalo’s detective is so cliché and boring that you just want to see what the magicians are up to, but we rarely get to see things from their perspective.  This is a problem because it’s not as if the movie never follows these characters…it started with these characters!  So the rules of the film allow the camera to be with these guys as they plan their act and whatnot, but it chooses not to show us because the filmmakers probably couldn’t think of anything interesting for them to do. 
 
I think the film would have been better if we just got to know the tricks and illusions as the magicians came up with them.  The tricks are not so amazing that the mystery is worth it anyway.  Instead of this turning into a cops and robbers story, it would’ve been an interesting film about magicians figuring out how to perform cool tricks, and we would still have to figure out who the benefactor is.  It’s a win-win.  Such a missed opportunity…
 
Despite that major gripe, the movie’s worth a watch when it comes out on HBO or something.  It’s filmed adequately and the performances are sufficient.  It’s a slightly fun magician movie.  It wants to be a mindbender, but the focus and the mystery were lacking.  I think I’ll go watch The Prestige for the twentieth time now…
Random Thoughts (SPOILERS)
 
I wasn't kidding at the end there.  I am actually watching The Prestige again as I post this.  And speaking of that film, it's not that I wanted Now You See Me to be just like that film.  That would be pointless.  If anything, the fact that this film tried to mimic a "twist" like The Prestige had is what limits it.  So it's actually too much like The Prestige.
 
As for the "twist" ending, it is only effective in that it makes Ruffalo's character make a bit more sense.  He's really only playing at being a cop.  Although he probably had to be a real cop for the misdirection to truly work.  What dedication...  The movie isn't worth watching again to check for all the tell-tale signs, but looking back it makes the film seem that much more deceitful.  There were a few moments when Ruffalo was the only guy in the scene yet he kept up the act.  I get that it shows total devotion to the illusion, but I just don't buy it. 
 
Kind of harsh on Morgan Freeman, by the way, isn't he?  So Freeman exposes his father as a weak magician, which goads Ruffalo's father to perform a trick that proves without a doubt that he's a weak magician.  (Or at least an unlucky magician that picks a safe that is too crappy for a trick?  I wasn't quite clear on the safe problem, I was ready for the movie to be over at that point.)  Why is this Freeman's fault?  I get that without Freeman's action, Ruffalo's dad wouldn't have tried it, but it's not like Freeman challenged him to do it.  This line of thinking would lead someone to blaming a car company a for fatal car wreck even if the driver was at fault.  Let's hope no other bad things happen to Ruffalo's loved ones...who knows how far he'll expand the blame.