A Most Violent Year

JC Chandor, 2014

IMDB

2/5

Chandors follow-up to 2013’s great / under-rated All is Lost is a New York Crime drama starring Oscar Isaac and Jessica Chastain. The two of them are enough to get any cinephile on board. Isaac stars as Abel Morales, a successful business owner that runs a lucrative fuel-oil delivery business but has fallen victim to a lot hijackings of his vehicles. While the pressure builds for him to make changes to reduce the risk of his delivery-men in the field, he is focusing all of his energy into pooling together the funds to close on a neighboring property that would allow him to expand his operation.

The film could be considered a mild character study in the sense that you find yourself trying to get a read on Abel throughout the film. His actions are perplexing at times. He is very ego-driven, not so consumed with the money so much because he has enough of that. He seems to be another character completely focused on power, making that step to the next level. He is not very willing to let anything get in the way, even if it involves putting his employees and family at risk. His stubbornness becomes very frustrating in the story. You can feel the pressure mounting through the story while he stands back in his brown trench-coat staring at the walls thinking.

For a film to be called “A Most Violent Year” and have it be based on the most crime-filled year in the Big Apple, you would actually expect the film to be more violent. A more fitting name for the film would probably be a “A Most Non-Violent Movie”. Not that you NEED violence to fuel a film, but the rather unhurried rhythm of the film never really picks up and maintains that pace throughout the entire 125 minute running time. There isn’t a lot of chemistry between Isaac and Chastain. At times the script even feels quite weak. To the film’s credit it tries to explore some different avenues in the New York crime category by focusing on an entrepreneur rather than a group of gangsters, but it is ultimately too fruitless. Unfortunately Chandor’s followup to the great All is Lost is A Most Unmemorable film.

Finding Nemo

Andrew Stanton & Lee Unkrich, 2003


3/5

Set in the Great Barrier Reef, overprotective single-father Clownfish Marlin gets separated from his only son Nemo who gets caught by a fish collector who places him in a dentist's aquarium. Realizing that his son is in Sydney, he desperately attempts to rescue him and be reunited with the help of some newly acquired friends.

You know that when watching a Pixar film that there's something in it for everyone. The simplistic story structure and memorable characters are going to impress the young viewers, and there's still something engaging for the older ones. There's always clever twists, some kind of moral dilemma. The characters are going to provide some reflection of humanity. There's always going to be a consistency, and a standard of quality to Pixars films. And there's always going to be beautiful visual elements. Colorful coral reefs create a vibrant landscape, with a lot of activity. The characters themselves, while exaggerations of real life creatures, are given distinctive personalities like the surfer-turtle, or the recovering fish addict sharks. It's something you will obviously see in any animated feature, but Pixar does it flawlessly. And in the end, this is a film without any noticeable flaws.

With Nemo, you can sit back and hear Albert Brooks be Albert Brooks. That's never a bad thing. You're going to sit back and hear other familiar voices, like Ellen Degeneres, or Willem Dafoe - all well-placed. And while it may not make as much of an emotional impact as some of the other Pixar movies, it still carries weight and it's probably the most nice-looking of all of them. But the emotional impact is obviously a subjective thing. Perhaps a father would be more affected by this film losing a son, more than he would watching Woody get taken away from Andy in Toy Story. Everything ties together well in the end and Nemo is certainly one of the better Pixar films made.

This is 40

Judd Apatow, 2012


2/5

A.K.A. This is 40 Minutes Too Long

          This sort-of sequel to Knocked Up focuses on the life of Pete (Paul Rudd) and Debbie (Leslie Mann). It is a fly-on-the-wall observation of a married couple reaching their mid-point in their lives. Watching the exhaustive process of raising two girls (with one in her pubescent phase), managing careers, and keeping the passion alive is enough to intimidate any young couple in their early years of marriage.
         While I LOVED Knocked Up, this film had some really endearing features but I believe it fell victim to Apatow's typical treatment of letting a film run too long. If this film ran 90 minutes instead of 134, I feel it would have succeeded. Some of the jokes and pop-culture references feel too forced, as if Seth MacFarlane were one of the punch-up writers. 40 also has that Big-Hollywood liberal plastic family feel to it. I would think that married couples in their mid-40's living in Oklahoma will have a tough time relating to the trials and tribulations of a family living in the perfect house and driving the $70,000 BMW and Land-Rover. I found myself laughing late into the film, but really only holding on to the scattered comedic moments and while having trouble adapting to the dramatic elements. Unfortunately because of all of the quick-cuts and choppy-edits, you never really get a chance to maintain footing. That's disappointing, because along the way there is some really great acting by Leslie Mann, Albert Brooks and John Lithgow.
          Apatow clearly has a lot to say, and this may be his most personal film. While I do think there is plenty of fat that could have been trimmed, I appreciate this film in the sense that Judd gave you some access to his own life, more than in his earlier films. He's the guy with the cupcake problem, the guy who sits on the toilet phantom-pooping with his iPad, and the guy who is trying to keep the love alive. Maybe we just didn't need it all at once.