jjustinjaeger

Dear Angry Birds,

Thank you for the fantastic movie. Me love the movie so much I buy all you're games and toys because your birds are angry and funny.

The animation in the movie was superb. Everything looked like the game but more real and better. My favorite bird is the red bird because he's the main one, but I also like Yellow and Fatso.

All the characters were funny and good development. I laughed at all the jokes and so did my dad sometimes. Please make more, it was sooooooooooo good. I almost had a heart attack watching my favorite characters come to life on the big screen. So big and come to life! Great movie.

From Bird

Rarely am I enlightened by a film in the way I was by this one. Not that I was lectured or taught something, but that I had a visceral response to what I had experienced on screen that I wouldn't be able to explain but to ask you to recall a song or a book or a show that invited you to pour your soul into it and in return reminded you of what it was like to have one. I was reminded that films can do this.

I don't expect everyone to like it to the degree that I did because I can only base my strong inclination towards this movie on the connection I personally made with it which was emotional rather than intellectual, although the film is rich and lingering in its intellect as well, and of course; I recognize what makes this film profound, which I'll try to explain.

This is a talky film from director James Ponsoldt, who I'd now have to rank as one of my favorite contemporary directors after this and another I've seen and loved, The Spectacular Now. This director isn't one you'd normally find on a list ranking among the greatest working today because he's not about style and doesn't appeal to the ego as much as other contemporaries such as Wes Anderson and David Fincher do (in addition to many others, not to single them out). No, Ponsoldt is subtle and reserves his ego. He is unimposing on the lives of his characters and candid about what his films are trying to do and say, not hiding beneath film rhetoric or allegory or the impression of a representational work. And what's great about this is how his films point out that you don't need intricate sets or perfectly symmetrical shots to create beauty. This film has some of the most beautiful shots I've seen (the shot of them walking in the snow, the shot of the normally- withdrawn Wallace dancing), all the more so because of their subtlety, giving the feeling that the beauty was discovered and not created by the director.

But the beauty is often created by the actors. Ponsoldt trusts his actors and puts his efforts towards making the characters come alive before our eyes. I was under the fantastic impression that I was witnessing a completely real human soul with Segel's performance. He felt so real, so three dimensional. I understand him, even though I am not him. This is more magical to me than sweeping camera movements or extravagant art direction.

I didn't realize when watching the film that the dialogue is all based on, if not directly taken from, the tapes journalist (and protagonist) David Lipsky (Eisenberg) recorded of his interviewee, universally acclaimed novelist David Foster Wallace (Segel). The dialogue is rich with insight into the character's thought processes and their observations on life (but mostly those of Wallace). I was riveted at every moment the two were talking, feeling as though being revealed before me were the truths of life. The thrill of being a fly on the wall. And it's not just the words containing the wisdom of the thoughtful and complicated Wallace, but the delivery via the actors and the way in which the many hours of tape are edited to allow Wallace's ideas and observations to resonate. Even beyond Wallace's ideas, the film cuts to the core and observes Wallace as a human being, not different for his brilliance but the same for his humanness.

The film is about so many things it would be overwhelming to attempt list all of them. Its ideas, however many, are all-encompassing of what it means to exist, which is, beyond the desire for fame and ego-boosts, to want to be understood. The film observes how the inner-worlds of all people are so uniquely complicated and pays tribute to that wonder. I'll be relating my experiences to this film in time to come.

While it can be a tense and involving watch, Phoenix is, beneath the craft, a short film expanded into ninety-plus minutes. That is, at thirty minutes we'd have the effect as we have at ninety.

The film first establishes its premise, which is intriguing and deep: a woman, coming out of a Nazi concentration camp, has a face transplant due to injury. She is unrecognizable to her husband, but similar enough that, when the two reunite, he asks her to imitate his old wife (actually the protagonist) in order to inherit her property. Her motivation in not telling him who she really is is not always clear, but is justified enough by her apparent want to be identified without having to explain herself. The allegorical connection to history this plot establishes the viewer can fairly easily deduce.

What follows is, save for the provocative last scene, repetition and insistence on drawling out this plot without deepening it or taking it to new heights. So, for example, there is a sequence of events where she attempts to prove her identity to her husband by first imitating her signature and then wearing her old shoes, which fit perfectly. Each of these events, which at the film's slow pace stretch about five minutes each, say the same thing. Each deems the other unnecessary since both are to the same effect. This goes on and on, where the viewer is invested solely for the moment when he may finally recognize her.

Repetitive also are the glances and gazes between the the protagonist and her husband. The acting in combination with the editing leads to brilliant minimal drama at times, but when we're seeing the same silent facial acting towards the end of the film that we also saw in the beginning attempting to create the same effect, well, it makes you question the film's integrity.

I think the film's integrity is this: It plays it safe. It establishes an interesting metaphor, and doesn't roll with it as much as it could have. It shrinks the surrounding historical events into the evocative faces of its two leads. Artful sure, but compelling only for a while. And the bottom line is that it didn't move me. The film wanted to be devastating but I wasn't devastated. The film wanted to be subtly heart-wrenching but my heart wasn't wrenched. I felt at the end, "Alright, that was it. There it was." In other words I didn't feel much besides the mild and consistent tension throughout. There's only so much you can accomplish in a film with these parameters. This review is not primarily negative because the film was bad but because the critic consensus is overwhelmingly positive. An excellent short film, but only a good film.

This film is full of life. It's cool when a film lets its characters be people, and lets its setting exist as it is. Knowing the low budget nature of the film (shot on an iphone) you'd figure they didn't have sets built or anything or the sort, but only in seeing the film do you realize how this becomes an important element to the story. Tangerine takes place in a poor community that represents all kinds of races and gender identities. The film asks us, do we really only need our resources to make a compelling film? Aren't everyday people the most intriguing of all? And of course it answers those in the affirmative.

The characters are very believable and never do the filmmakers cast judgement upon their attitudes or actions. There are some messed up people in here for sure, but we're not being told of their issues and of their backgrounds, they are simply allowed to exist. They're likable and condemnable at once. They also earn our empathy, just by being the way they are. The actors all do an excellent job achieving this balancing act.

Same credit goes to the writers. I commend the writing because I understood everything the characters were doing and why. It gave each character very simple goals so that we could become so easily wrapped up in their lives. The way the characters behave with those goals is where it all becomes interesting. These basic terms allow the substance of the film to unfold without feeling forced. And not substance in the form of a statement or message, but substance that is the richness of the characters' daily lives themselves, the richness found in the often unexplored areas of the world we live in.

I wouldn't expect everyone to love the film because we're not conditioned to watch movies like this. Firstly, there's the style, which blurs the line between intentionality and unintentionally. This impression of unintentionally is indeed an intentional choice, but it can be hard to get past that idea. Then there's the lack of cookie-cutting for these characters' lives. They are unexplained for the most part. The film is indifferent to explanations. And finally, there's no clear message or statement.

However, I do think you'll like it. The plot lines, while wayward, are entertaining. The film has an energy that you've likely never seen before and that will likely grip you. It's also funny. And I think people are attracted to realism.

It's rare to see a film so intrigued by its own characters and setting. Seek it out.

I like films like this one. They have purpose, relevance, and seek to connect us with lives we have not lived but can empathize with.

It's easy to see these characters as punks until it becomes difficult to. Writer/director Céline Sciamma makes no effort to judge the actions of the characters and thereby gracefully detaches her ego from the story. This makes for a film watching experience that is more absorption than hard analysis and intellectualization of this protagonist's life. This does not make it any less a provocative work, but allows for understanding we would not get otherwise, as with a camera less subtle.

Yes, it's a coming of age film, but without the climactic moment when the character comes- of-age (whatever that means). Instead the film is about comings and goings of identity and security, and why a person would seek these things.

It's socially relevant in the way it poses the character's environment and socioeconomic influences as factors to her motivations. We get a true sense of her circumstance. It explores low income, predominantly black areas of society untouched by most films. The attention it gives to people of this circumstance and the understanding it promotes is certainly a means to social change if only these sorts of films could reach more people.

Much attention is payed to bodies, skin, and faces, which the lighting often compliments. This is the source of the film's power rather than extraneous camera movement. The fascination here is intriguing as it's not out of lust but… well maybe it's just about the fascination. We are sensitive towards our physiques and appearances, and the camera shares this, only the bodies it shows are not just the characters' bodies but the actors' bodies. Bodies are a source for both power and insecurity to the characters. I don't feel the need to analyze this, only to comment, so I won't say any more.

While Girlhood won't be in everyone's movie watching range, it's definitely worth seeking out if you're inclined.

Life has no meaning, so fool yourself. This seems to be the protagonist and filmmaker's philosophy, and as a result you don't get much concrete meaning out of the film. While we don't gain insight to any of life's big questions posed endlessly throughout, this isn't the filmmaker Jim Akin's intention. I can only speculate that his intent was to come to terms with his own childhood in creating a portrait that was honest to him, and avoiding answers felt right.

However, I don't want to downplay this work by labeling it existentialism and leaving it at that. It certainly fits into that category, but there are delicate characters here with genuine philosophical needs. The protagonist's relationship with her father is intriguing as it shows the lack of security and comfort in her state of mind, having the constant influence of an irresponsible, nihilistic, but loving parent.

There is very little narrative to this film, and instead it just flows. It feels like a bunch of deeply personal and brief thoughts from a journal. They have little ties to one another and are very in the moment. I would say, however, that it's strange to hear the characters deliver these lines, as it doesn't feel natural, and monologues will come up out of no where that don't feel entirely motivated with the context. The things that the film wants to be "about" are merely ideas stated repeatedly but not investigated. For example, the film is about death because the protagonist contemplates death, but not because the film explores it through story or experience.

The film is visually interesting. As another reviewer said, there isn't one uninteresting frame. This adds to the poetic allure of the film as a whole and often to the individual scenes and how we're supposed to read them. I feel like the actual beach where the film is located would be unrecognizable from the film, as it's given a very distinct look and feel due to the cinematography. Conversations were nicely staged and often featured characters not making eye contact. My only complaint is that the visual style felt a bit too a la carte and employed all kinds of camera movements and shot types where it might have benefited from a more narrow palate.

Personally, I didn't get that much from the film. Certain people will, I think, who are secular and self-absorbed (not necessarily a bad thing). I used to be both those things but am not anymore, so this film was familiar but contrived for me personally.

To watch actors dryly deliver page after page of plot that no one comprehends or is interested in while they imitate the acting style of old Hollywood noir films and stoner comedies is not why I go to the movies. Paul Thomas Anderson is a great filmmaker when he uses his own voice, and thankfully this film is the only exception to that.

Unless you're a superhuman, you won't have the memory (or attention span) to understand the plot. It's as if it's deliberately convoluted, like Anderson doesn't want us to know what's going on, or at least doesn't want us to care. Yet this is not the case because of the scenes that dwell on nothing else but dialogue whose only purpose is to read plot to us and maybe put us to sleep.

There isn't any character beyond caricature. I don't relate to this Doc character beyond the his relationship with his ex-girlfriend which is the only thing that one can possibly invest emotion into, albeit this is not an emotionally driven story. The characters are supposed to be funny but I just found them bizarre.

That being said, there is something about the overall tone and production design of the film that sticks. The meandering nature of the era is there and while we've seen many similar films about the 70s this film is just different. It's ambitious in the way that it's so plain but also strange, only many will have a hard time deciphering between art and bullshit. It's bullshit to me because there wasn't anything for me to take from the film. It was more "this is kind of weird" but to no end.

I would not recommend this film to anyone unless you are a cinephile, in which case you just have to see it because it's Paul Thomas Anderson. I feel bad for anyone who naively walks into this film looking for something to enjoy and laugh at. Parts got laughs but they were widely dispersed in a film that just felt like it wouldn't end. Being the fan of Anderson's that I am I feel like this film was a waste of time. Even if you end up liking it (which I personally would not understand) you'll see what I mean.

Let's begin with the editing. The film was generically paced throughout. The editing served no greater purpose than to show what was going on and make it look like an action movie. At points during battle scenes the sequences of shots became meaningless and not progressive as we are just fed a usual diet of "cut to guy shooting, cut to people getting shot, cut to other guys, cut to some other people getting shot," rarely with interjecting character and emotion. Additionally, some scenes were just unnecessary, like the training scene at the beginning, at which point I was like, "why are we seeing this? Oh yeah, because every war movie just has to have the drill sergeant and training montage." Lame. The film is over two hours and there is little ebb and flow in story. We're at home, then combat, then no combat, then some more combat, etc.

Now the cinematography. Like the editing, it couldn't have been more standard. At points it even failed to light the characters' faces properly. The images were often flat and uninteresting. The cinematographer could have chosen to do something interesting with the sandstorm scene and maybe had the characters silhouetted, but no. It looked like a brownish filter was put over the lens so all we get is a murky frame. Very standard.

Now the writing. It's based off of a very nationalistic memoir, so don't expect it to dig into any moral or political issues of war. Honestly it does justice to the troops that we should be honoring and the protagonist in particular. But the protagonist is also pretty shallow. He has a one-track mind, that a soldier's duty is to kill, and he abides by this and nothing really challenges his ideas. The end. The protagonist also holds very masculine ideals of himself that it seems most males in America are socialized to hold. It doesn't question this. It embraces it. Especially in the scene where the father and son are going for some good old American hunting. The development of the character lies in his PTSD which would be interesting if it were dug into more, but the development of that remains surface level. I would complain that the housewife with the baby is a cliché if it weren't based off of a true story. The housewife actually has an emotionally compelling story but we don't see her out of the house and she remains loyal. And then the movie kind of just ends. The story never really felt like it climaxes, although I wasn't waiting for more. It's dedicated to its message of honoring those who fight for our country.

Your turn, Clint Eastwood. You get credit for the mediocre work of the cinematography and editing as well. You get credit for the unwavering patriotism evoked in the film and the bias towards the story. When we look at a film such as The Hurt Locker and Zero Dark Thirty, we get riveting action, deep character study, and objectivity in examining political issues. Those films are infinitely more perceptive than Sniper.

Now the acting wasn't bad. Bradley Cooper and Sienna Miller were both good. They did well with what they were given.

And lastly I just want to mention THE F***ING BABY. There is a scene between husband, wife, and baby and the baby is clearly a f***ing doll. It was laughably fake. Cooper holds the child in a medium shot where the doll's limbs are dangling, not clinging like babies do, and it looked really unnatural. People in the theater laughed out loud, including me. And the scene was supposed to be very serious.