- LIFE is not a bad movie, but it’s a B-movie. #LIFEmovie #rental
- So yeah, if you liked the trailer that’s what the movie is. No more, no less.
- There IS a long, lovely single-take intro that’s maybe the best zero-g scene ever in a space movie
- There’s also a major action scene toward the end that just doesn’t work very well, IMO
- But there’s tension/suspense, gross-outs & scares. Things zip along in a 10-little-Indians way that can’t help but remind you of ALIEN.
- The ending (SPOILER!) reminded me of the ’70s when big studio pictures more often than not went “tails” at the end instead of “heads”
I’ve kept an annual list of films, TV and books every year since 2014. This year I’m going to add a ranked list of my favorite films of 2016 as well. My list is better than all the other “top 10” lists, because… mine goes to eleven.
1. Hell Or High Water
2. Manchester By The Sea
5. American Honey
6. Certain Women
8. Toni Erdmann
9. Don’t Think Twice
The above ranking obviously doesn’t include pictures I haven’t seen yet, and that’s a list of its own that includes THE HANDMAIDEN, SILENCE, SING STREET, PATERSON, HIDDEN FIGURES, FENCES, and JACKIE. I’m working on it.
Below is a complete list of everything I saw in 2016. As always, the list only reflects things seen for the very first time. If I came across JAWS or GROUNDHOG DAY or YOU’VE GOT MAIL already in progress on TV and sat there like a zombie through ’til the end, well, that’s not considered worthy of note. What is worthy of note: ZOOLANDER 2 is so very, very bad it makes you feel stupid for having liked the first one. THE LOBSTER is the other movie I regret having made the effort to go see in the theater. I’ll give it points for originality, I guess. Then I’ll take those points back for being a miserable, cruel, misbegotten thing.
Linked titles will take you to either my review or more information on a particular film.
MOVIES ON THE BIG SCREEN
My Name Is Doris
Don’t Think Twice
Eat That Question: Frank Zappa in His Own Words
Star Trek Beyond
Absolutely Fabulous: The Movie
Pete’s Dragon (2016)
Hell Or High Water
20th Century Women
MOVIES ON THE SMALL SCREEN
What We Do In The Shadows
Amira & Sam
Captain America: The First Avenger
Shaun The Sheep Movie
The Libeled Lady
Captain America: The Winter Soldier
Jeanne Dielman, 23 Commerce Quay, 1080 Brussels
Lassie Come Home
The Shop Around The Corner
Swiss Army Man
The Mindy Project
Odd Mom Out
Mike Birbiglia: My Girlfriend’s Boyfriend
The Good Place
Game of Thrones
BOOKS and OTHER READING
Devotion – Dani Shapiro
60 or so screenplays for the Austin Film Festival competition
I’ve long favored films that feature smart, articulate characters battering each other with words. I like screwball comedies. I like Judd Apatow. I adore BROADCAST NEWS and I’m a sucker for an Aaron Sorkin walk-and-talk.
It’s not hard to understand the hegemony of dialogue-driven, plot-heavy films. Movies begin with screenplays, and screenplays come from writers. But to proceed from the written word can push a visual medium towards acting like literature. Or radio theater.
These days, I’m finding myself more exhilarated by films that act like something else. Movies that move less, and linger more. Where characters may follow smaller dramatic arcs, but they are more finely observed. Films like Barry Jenkins’ MOONLIGHT, Andrea Arnold’s FISH TANK (or last year’s AMERICAN HONEY), and Kelly Reichardt’s CERTAIN WOMEN.
I will admit to some see-sawing in my seat during CERTAIN WOMEN. The film teetered on the line for me at times, probably crossing it during Michelle Williams’ arid little segment. But then Kristen Stewart and Lily Gladstone came along and more than redeemed things. Their silent horseback ride may be the most sublime thing that happened at the movies last year.
AMERICAN HONEY is probably an hour too long, and it doesn’t have an ending. But I kind of loved it. Even if at some points I felt like I was trapped in that van with those kids. Road trips require patience, and a taste for staring out the window just watching things go by. Your mileage no doubt may vary. But really, any film unspools as a collaboration between the filmmaker and you, the viewer. The less that happens onscreen, the more time there is to ponder what does. The question is, how much work do you want to do? How active a collaborator do you want to be?
In the past year I’ve also been catching up with the work of the late Chantal Akerman. After JEANNE DIELMAN (3 hrs 45!) and JE TU IL ELLE, I’m thinking Akerman may have gone too far toward rarefaction. With her long, static takes and prolonged silences, her narratives advance in such tiny increments they sometimes feel like a dare. I watched both films in a state of amazement, commingled with boredom and antagonism.
Enduring a three-minute shot of woman’s back as she scrubbed a bathtub, I wondered if I’d be a hopeless philistine if I called bullshit and turned the damned thing off (I didn’t, and made it all the way to the meager, if startling, climax of JEANNE DIELMAN). Akerman’s films are like homeopathy, there’s so little there. And like homeopathy, if you feel like they are working, it’s probably all in your mind.
This post contains spoilers for ARRIVAL.
ARRIVAL is one of those rare birds, a sci-fi movie for grownups. It’s aesthetically and conceptually elegant and at the same time very moving, and if you haven’t already, you should see it before you learn too much. Not that there is a huge and sudden reveal: there is no SIXTH SENSE moment. At least, there wasn’t for me: it was more a gradual, growing awareness of the story’s main premise and all its implications.
The protagonist of ARRIVAL is linguist Dr. Louise Banks (Amy Adams), recruited to communicate with alien visitors who have appeared in our skies. As the story begins, language is seen by all the characters in the film as a means to an end. Slowly and simultaneously, you and the characters on screen come to realize language itself the point.
Central to the film is the notion that language shapes perception. As Louise learns to parse the aliens’ looping pictographs she also acquires their ability to perceive time in a non-linear way. Exploring this concept, ARRIVAL does that amazing thing science fiction can sometimes do: it re-situates you, offering a unique vantage point from which to consider the conscribed parameters of your human experience. After seeing it, your own inability to perceive events before they happen may feel to you a sorry limitation, like a kind of blindness.
Screenwriter Eric Heisserer employs non-linear story structure to represent Louise’s expanding perception. As directed by Denis Villeneuve, it’s a fairly daring tactic that tosses the audience without warning or cues into key scenes in Louise’s future. A sequence in which Louise and a high-ranking Chinese general collaborate to avert global catastrophe is breathtaking, cross-cutting between Louise’s present and future while defying notions of cause and effect.
But the film is not just a think piece: in ARRIVAL, the intellectual and the emotional are unified, inseparable. For Louise’s newly expanded perceptions also allow her to foresee a great personal tragedy. Ultimately she embraces the choices that will lead to that tragedy, fully aware of the terrible cost. I found myself turning her decision over and over in my mind for days afterward. That says everything about the strength of the film.
My Twitter review of IT FOLLOWS is coming. For you. In a straight line. Relentlessly. And it will never stop. OK, that’s a lie. It’s actually just 6 tweets long. So it’ll all be over soon. Not super-spoilery, but if you don’t want to know anything about IT FOLLOWS… don’t read any further. Duh.
#ItFollows is low-budget horror, faithful to the genre. A cast of unknown teens vs a supernatural killer. Sex & slaughter.
2. Sex/violence was always linked in slasher flicks. But (spoiler?) IT FOLLOWS cleverly makes the link explicit, causal: do it, you die
3. IT FOLLOWS is scored w/buzzy analog synths ala John Carpenter. Old cars, nondescript clothes evoke a timeless is-it-now-or-80s? vibe
4. After the theatrical run they really should release IT FOLLOWS on VHS.
5. IT FOLLOWS is self-aware horror. But unlike, say, CABIN IN THE WOODS, it doesn’t feel superior to its genre. It’s not snarky. It’s sincere.
6. -and goofy, and illogical, but all-in. COMMITTED. And yeah, well-made enough to be pretty scary at times. And ultimately kind of adorable.
- Early cross cutting introduces Somali pirates as they are recruited. They and Hanks are the only characters who matter in this.
- 1st half: pirates taking the ship. Truly suspenseful and keeps Hanks character central.
- 2nd half he’s hostage. Nameless characters conducting generic military operations take center stage. “Acquire your target!” “Roger” etc.
- Greengrass’ BOURNE™ shaky-cam overdone & maddeningly consistent whether covering a pirate attack or a couple driving to airport.
- You may have heard Hanks is good in it. He is, but the bit people are talking about, while kinda breathtaking, is too little too late
- Ultimately CAPTAIN PHILLIPS little more than a well-done recounting of events, w/no added layers of meaning to take away. Non-essential.
I’m @giantspecks on Twitter.
As a filmmaker in the preliminary planning stages of my first crowdfunding campaign, I’ve been doing some basic research trying to determine the best platform to use.
As most indie filmmakers probably know, the two biggest crowdfunding sites are Kickstarter and Indiegogo. There are others out there: sites like Pozible, Peerbackers, RocketHub, and an interesting upstart called Seed&Spark that will not only help you raise money but also distribute your film too (read an article about them here). There’s also USAprojects, a wild-card contender I have to seriously consider (more on that later). But you’ve got to start somewhere. Here’s what I’ve learned so far.
Indiegogo and Kickstarter, compared
The biggest difference between the two biggies is that Kickstarter users must use the “All-or-nothing” funding model. If a project campaign doesn’t hit its goal, it fails, and no money changes hands. On Indiegogo, however users can set a goal and choose between the all-or-nothing option or a “Flexible Funding” campaign, where any amount raised they are allowed to keep (but Indiegogo keeps a larger cut in this case).
The all-or-nothing campaign structure is generally recognized as the better model, for a couple of reasons. Having a make-or-break goal adds a sense of urgency that helps encourage donations. It also helps reassure donors that their money won’t be wasted on a project that is poorly executed or never completed because it only raised a fraction of the needed funds.
(Note that 501 (c)(3) non-profit projects get a 25% discount on fees at Indiegogo.)
Maybe the most important distinction between the two: KS is a bigger brand. It is, as one blogger put it, the Coca-Cola of crowdfunding. They have name recognition. They have more projects, more members signed up, and more web traffic. Here’s a comparison for the last 12 months:
Total size notwithstanding, it appears from the numbers I was able to compile that IndieGogo actually sees a higher rate of successful film/video campaigns (see below). Not in total numbers, of course, but in the percentage that succeed:
What I’ve not been able to obtain so far is the average goal amount for successful all-or-nothing Indiegogo film projects. But it’s commonly said around the internet that IndieGogo projects raise less money. So for projects with smaller budgets at least, it appears IndieGogo has the edge. Larger-budget projects might benefit from the higher visibility of a Kickstarter campaign.
And then came USA Projects
USAprojects is another crowdfunding platform, however, it will probably not be relevant to all filmmakers. It’s a curated site, tied to philanthropic arts organizations. Participation is by invitation, and because I was fortunate enough to receive an Artist Award from the Arts Council of Sonoma County in 2009, I’ve invited to participate. They offer a bunch of advantages: donations are tax-deductible, they actively consult with you in planning and promoting your project, and they even kick in matching funds. And fully 75% of projects there succeed! The downside is that they are not well-known, and that they take a much larger fee: up to 19%. I am still weighing my options!