Why I Don't Like Top 10 Lists

It’s the end of the year. And with the end of the year comes the need to reflect upon everything that has happened over the last 300-odd days (reflection pieces always seem to appear before the year actually ends). It seems like everyone has or will have a “Top 10 Movies of 2014” List. Having reviewed films for the Trojan Tribune all year, it would make sense for me to have one of these lists. I will not. I really don’t like these sorts of lists, for a variety of reasons.

The idea of using a year as the measurement system is so arbitrary. It becomes even more confusing when taking into account that many movies have more than one release date. Large studio films are able to put their movie in thousands of theatres at once, but that’s not the case for many films. Foreign-language films are often made in one year, but don’t get released in the U.S. until a later year. Other films might not get a studio to release them past large cities, if at all. And what about festival films? A movie could be in several film festivals in one year, but then not get released to the general public until a following year.

Just because a movie doesn’t have a large studio backing, doesn’t mean that it’s not a great film. Studios can choose not to buy or distribute movies to a large audience for a variety of reasons other than quality. In 2011, The FP premiered at SXSW, a large film festival in Austin, Texas. It didn’t get distributed until 2012, and the largest release it saw was 28 American theatres. It’s a crazy, unmarketable film that doesn’t appeal to a large audience, but it’s also one of my personal favorites. There’s always gonna be another hidden gem.

At the end of the day, there’s just too many movies. It’s hard to keep track of the number of films made because not every film that gets made that gets into a film festival. And not every film that gets into a festival gets released. Plus, with the increasing omnipotence of the internet, many films are able to be made and released without the studio system. That said, generally around 500-1000 movies get released in the United States alone. Around the world, it’s ten times that number. There is literally not enough time to watch all of the movies made in a given year. High profile critics are able to see a lot of films, but very often they miss some of the smaller ones because they are reviewing films with significance to a large number of people.

The whole “Top Ten of the Movies That I’ve Seen” excuse is also pretty ridiculous. I’ve seen 50 movies that were ‘released this year’. If I made a top ten list, I’d be telling people about the top 20% of movies that I’ve seen. And there are so many movies that I want to see that I haven’t had the opportunity to yet. How many foreign language films have I seen this year? None. Documentaries? One. I’m always a fan of recommending movies, but calling something the best of a year is incredibly short-sighted.

"Into the Woods" Review

Adapted from the classic Stephen Sondheim musical of the same name, Into the Woods translates the story of several intertwined fairy tales from the stage to the big screen. The film follows modified plots of “Cinderella”, “Jack and the Giant Beanstalk”, “Little Red Riding Hood”, and “Rapunzel”, while tying them all together with a story of a Baker and his wife trying to have a child, and the Witch who placed a curse on them. Directed by Rob Marshall, no stranger to movie-musicals with Chicago (2002) and Nine (2009), this film is a competent retelling of the source material, and makes the musical much more attainable to general audiences.

A big problem that many movie-musicals have had in the past few decades is that they’re shot like mediocre action films. Often times the camera is too close to the action and the cuts happen much too frequently, preventing the audience from seeing that nothing very significant has been choreographed. However, Rob Marshall is a high profile Broadway director and choreographer, and understands that by keeping the camera at a distance, we can see the whole scene as it unfolds. The result is that all of the musical numbers are remarkably well staged, with the film cutting only briefly to emphasize a moment.

Being such a popular and ensemble-heavy show, there has been a lot of dream casting and hype-building rumors for each of the different parts. That said, before seeing the movie, it would be easy to argue that the studio went the safe route regarding casting. With a cast of primarily film - rather than theatre - actors, a lot of the casting decisions seem to have been made with the goal of simply selling the movie. While having bankable stars appear in the film likely persuaded the studios to put more money in the project, there’s no denying the talent of the actors in this movie though. Of all of the performers, Meryl Streep is the one who's been getting much of the awards hype for this film, but I wouldn’t say that she necessarily gives the best performance in it. Don’t get me wrong, I think she does a fine job, but she merely serves her purpose rather than steal the show. However, Emily Blunt and Anna Kendrick are both fantastic as the Baker’s Wife and Cinderella, respectively. James Corden is absolutely heartbreaking as the Baker, and Daniel Huttlestone continues to hold onto his monopoly of little boys in musicals (after he was Gavroche in 2012’s Les Miserables) as Jack. Lilia Crawford does a great job as Little Red Riding Hood, her screen debut (though she was recently the title role in Annie on Broadway). Christine Baranski and Tracey Ullman both have great cameos in the film, and Johnny Depp does a decent job in his jazzy and uncomfortable 5 minutes of screen-time.

The film’s primary fault is just that it’s a movie instead of a stage production. What makes Into the Woods a weaker film from a movie-musical like Chicago is that Chicago utilizes the filmmaking medium to tell the story in a way that can’t happen on the stage. While the movie version of Into the Woods is able to create more elaborate sets and interesting cinematography, it’s very much just a simple recreation of the stage musical. While this isn’t an awful crime, it just makes the film a slightly inferior viewing option than seeing it live. Why is it inferior? Because seeing the musical live is an active experience, while watching the movie is more passive.

Another advantage that the stage musical has on the film is that there’s an intermission when the production is on stage, but having an intermission in a film is absolutely unheard of nowadays. Why having an intermission is extremely preferable with this story is because there’s essentially two movies going on here. The second half of the film is much darker than the first half, and having a clear division between the tonal shift allows for a much more smooth transition. Similarly, the second half of the film seems much more rushed than the first half. Numerous characters get absentmindedly cut out of the story, and a lot of the complexity that the second act of the musical has is lost. However, for a movie that is marketed towards kids, I could understand why the studios chose to cut some of the more violent and meta moments.

With all of that said though, Into the Woods is still a fantastic musical, and this relatively faithful adaptation makes for a decent movie. The strongest thing I can say is that this film makes the musical much more accessible to a much wider audience. It’s much easier to see a movie than see a Broadway production, so for that I can’t help but commend the movie. It’s very much worth the price of admission, and I’d highly recommend it if you haven’t seen the musical before. 7/10.

"Wild" Review

Wild, the new film directed by Jean-Marc Vallée, would make a fantastic double billing with last year’s All is Lost. For those of you who need a quick reminder, All is Lost was a J.C. Chandlor movie about a man who finds himself lost at sea after colliding with a shipping container. Starring Robert Redford. And only Robert Redford. It’s nearly 100 minutes of Redford working silently to try to survive. While Wild doesn’t share this unique characteristic, both films rely heavily on the performance of their star, as well as the main character working to survive in nature, despite hostile circumstances. However, Wild differentiates from All is Lost in the fact that it doesn’t shy away from utilizing dialogue and flashbacks in order to give more insight into the character. In this movie, Reese Witherspoon plays Cheryl, an ex-heroin addict who attempts to hike the Pacific Coast Trail as a way of getting over her recent divorce and her mother’s death.

Like Jean-Marc Vallée’s last film, Dallas Buyers Club, a big plus for the movie is the quality of the performances. Here, replacing Jared Leto and Matthew McConaughey, we have Laura Dern and Reese Witherspoon. And while neither actor has the “I lost 40 pounds to play this part” aspect playing for them, they are both incredibly strong. Witherspoon carries the film on her back. While not quite a legendary performance, she is great in the film and helps the movie to be as solid as it is. After close to 2 hours of near-constant screentime, there’s a well-developed character that, as an audience member, you really care about. Dern, appearing only in flashbacks, is sincere and wonderful as a mother trying to raise her kids while seeking self-fulfillment after leaving her abusive husband. She adds a level of heart that’s incredibly necessary for a film like this.

I wouldn’t say that this movie is anything you need to rush out and see, but it’s well worth the price of admission. There are a couple strange lines of dialogue and convenient plot points, but the film is paced well and rarely drops your attention. On a personal level, it just wasn’t anything that spoke to me. It’s well put-together, but doesn’t quite contain the secret touch to have me highly recommend the film. Don’t get me wrong, I liked the movie a lot. But after seeing it, there wasn’t an intense desire to see it again or go get the book that it’s based off of. I’m glad I saw it though. 7/10.

"The Imitation Game" Review

Starring Benedict Cumberbatch, The Imitation Game is a biopic about the life of Alan Turing. During World War II, the German army was using an unbreakable code - the Enigma code - to send all of their messages. Alan Turing was the English mathematician who helped Britain break this code. Now, given that awards season is coming up and this movie is a major contender, I’d like to give this film a special prize: Most ‘Weinstein Company’ movie of the year. The Weinstein Company is a major independent film studio, and although they only distributed the film, The Imitation Game has all of the markings of one of their movies. It’s manipulative and formulaic, but has a certain indie touch that allows the film to be sold as ‘Oscar’ bait.

The film opens with a “Based on a True Story” title card, which almost seems to lessen the credibility of the movie after so many ‘true story’ horror films. The movie is based off of historical events; I’m not sure why it needs to be clarified that these things actually happened. Given that the film is a biopic, you come to expect there to be a certain level of creative license used in retelling the facts, and The Imitation Game is no exception. Large events are very clearly distorted to create a more emotional response from the audience. Again, slightly changing how things happened is not unique to this biopic, but here it’s done in such a way where as an audience member you can’t help but question it.

The plot of the movie follows Turing through three critical periods of his life. Although the majority of the film takes place with Turing attempting to crack the Enigma code, there are flashbacks to him as a schoolboy, and the story is narrated while he talks to a police detective. This style of jumping between time periods allows for the film’s pace to seem relatively fast by telling multiple stories at once. It also allows for each plotline to jump ahead in time and not seem disjointed. However, the cracking of the Enigma code is by far the most interesting aspect of the movie, and while the other storylines are happening, I found myself waiting for the film to get back to the main plot. The school sequences give some insight to Turing as a character, but are often overly sentimental. And the police detective scenes are nearly entirely unnecessary.

In a conversation with the police detective, Turing introduces the concept of ‘The Imitation Game’, a game where a person has a conversation and determines if his partner is a human or a machine. It’s an interesting idea to mention in the film, because Turing is portrayed as a sort of human computer by Cumberbatch. Cumberbatch pulls out a great performance, playing Turing as a man who sees life extremely analytically. The ensemble tries its best to match Cumberbatch, and while each individual actor does a pretty good job, all of their roles are written as caricatures.

On the whole, The Imitation Game is a very decent movie. It’s competently put together and entertaining the entire way through. I was never bored watching the movie, but I was never taken to a place of extreme emotional investment. At the end of the day, the film lacks a certain original voice behind it. There’s no distinctive style to the film; any fill-in-the-blanks director could have made it. Ironically, the movie seems to be the result of some sort of Hollywood awards bait movie-making machine. Nonetheless, I still enjoyed it. 7/10.

Sony and The Interview

The Interview will now no longer be released by Sony. Amidst terrorist threats, its Christmas day opening has been cancelled and Sony claims that they have no further plans to release it on DVD or VOD. This is incredibly disappointing. Not only does it set an awful precedent for how we handle these threats, but it’s a complete suppression of our freedom of speech.

Let’s back up a little bit. The Interview is the most recent Evan Goldberg/Seth Rogen film about two journalists (James Franco & Seth Rogen) who are recruited by the CIA to go to Pyongyang and assassinate King Jong-Un. Late last month, Sony’s internal database was hacked and various emails, salaries, and scripts were leaked to the internet. The group that did this call themselves the ‘Guardians of Peace’, a group that is speculated to potentially be a group of North Korean cyberterrorists. A few weeks after this leak, which will cost Sony millions in damages, the ‘Guradians of Peace’ threatened moviegoers, “Soon all the world will see what an awful movie Sony Pictures Entertainment has made. The world will be full of fear. Remember the 11th of September 2001. We recommend you to keep yourself distant from the places at that time. (If your house is nearby, you’d better leave.)” After this threat, Sony released movie theatres from their contracts, allowing individual theatre chains to show the film only if they would like to. Many major movie theatres backed out, and Sony later pulled the film from its theatrical release.

Some people are defending Sony’s decision in not releasing the film because it’s better safe than sorry. However, it should be noted that these threats don’t mean anything. There’s no evidence that “Guardians of Peace” will be able to do anything. Cyber-hacking and launching a full scale act of war are two entirely different things. Sony’s decision shows that as Americans, we will immediately back down on what we believe in if there is any empty threat of violence present.

It should be noted that in 1940, Charlie Chaplin made a film called The Great Dictator. In it, Chaplin plays Hynkel - Dictator of Tomania, as well as a Jewish barber who gets mistaken as him. Chaplin stylised his signature mustache to make it more Hitler-like, and makes fun of Hitler throughout the whole film. It was nominated for 5 Oscars, including Best Picture. To those who say that that film is any different because it doesn’t mention Hitler by name, let me remind you that in 2004, Matt Stone and Trey Parker released an animated film titled Team America: World Police. In this film, Kim Jong Il is the villain.

It’s not just this movie that’s being impacted though. Steve Carell's thriller, Pyongyang, about a man who grows paranoid after working in Pyongyang for a year has been scrapped. If interested, the graphic novel that the movie would have been based off of is available for purchase online. It may be your only opportunity to hear this story in a long time.

It’s not that The Interview would have been a great movie. It likely would have been pretty mediocre. That’s not the point. The point is that we self-censored art. The Interview might not have been an important movie before this incident, but now it’s incredibly important. We can’t let others intimidate us into censorship, and we definitely can’t stop making risky movies.

"Whiplash" Review

I waited for this movie for almost a year. I first heard about Whiplash in January, where it won the Grand Jury Prize at Sundance film festival. All I knew about it was that it starred Miles Teller and J.K. Simmons, and that people were going crazy about it. Since 2013's The Spectacular Now, I've been a big fan of Miles Teller. Despite the varying quality of his films, I always think he’s remarkably charismatic, in an evil sort of way. Since Sundance, it's been a waiting game to see this film. However, even with all of the hype and waiting, I'm glad to say that this movie was completely worth it.

Miles Teller plays Andrew Neyman, a drum player at the fictional Shaffer music conservatory. After practicing his drums one night, he is noticed by Terence Fletcher (J.K. Simmons), the conductor of the Studio band, the highest level jazz band at the conservatory. Andrew is unexpectedly moved up to the Studio band, where he is terrorized by Fletcher for the remainder of the film.

Fletcher is a band director who believes that the best way to motivate his students is by harassing and abusing them. He says that he does this to push people past what is expected of them, and that someone who is a true 'great' would never give up no matter what is said or done to them. And nobody could play this character with as much intensity and ferocity as J.K. Simmons. He is truly in a league of his own with this performance. With a weaker actor, this part would have seemed cartoonish, but part of what makes Fletcher so intimidating is the realism that is interjected into the performance. Simmons lights up the screen with every frame he's on, and thankfully he's on screen for a good chunk of the film. I hope I don't sound too hyperbolic when I say that this performance is not only one of the best of J.K. Simmons' career, but one of the best that I've ever seen. 

However, while Simmons' performance is absolutely phenomenal, his is not the only one carrying this movie forward. Miles Teller is absolutely heartbreaking as an awkward young man who is generally antagonistic towards most everyone he comes across. Miles Teller gives soul to an incredibly flawed character, and while he's at times unrelatable, he's absolutely real. But the most astounding part of Miles Teller's performance is that he's actually playing the drums on screen. In many movies involving music, most of the performance is shot through a variety of close-ups that allow for someone who can actually play the instrument to play the instrument. In Whiplash, whenever the drums are played, it is shot wide in a way that allows for both Miles Teller and the drumset to be seen. And while the actual audio track is dubbed, it's obvious to see that he knows exactly what he's doing. Miles Teller is said to have taken drum lessons 3 times a week for 4 hours at a time, but he must have been practicing constantly in his free time, because the drum parts he has to play aren't easy.

It's hard to end a film well. Often times the 3rd act of a film is the weakest part, because it's always difficult to bring closure to a lengthy story. But Damien Chazelle, the writer/director of the movie, holds firm control of the film throughout and ends it in the most satisfying way possible. The third act of the film is one of the best third acts that I’ve seen in a long time. And I didn’t breathe or move through the entirety of the insanely intense final sequence.

Since seeing this film, I haven’t been able to get my mind off of it. This is a movie that I want to watch over and over again. Every moment of it is uncomfortable cringe-worthy joy. This movie is why I love cinema. 10/10. 

"Exodus: Gods and Kings" Review

Ridley Scott has made some great films. Between Alien, Blade Runner, and Gladiator (and that’s just scratching the surface), he has definitely made an impact on the history of cinema. Like many brilliant filmmakers, he has also made his share of mediocre films. This is one of such films. The most emotionally charged moment of the movie was the beginning of the end credits in which Ridley Scott dedicated the film to his late brother, Tony. Exodus: Gods and Kings is a retelling of the famous bible story of Moses.

This film has faced a lot of criticism due to the fact that many of the actors playing prominent roles within Ancient Egypt are not middle-eastern. While it’s true that the races that were present then are not the same as the races that are present now, it’s incredibly disappointing to see a film so blatantly whitewashed. However, it’s understandable why it had to be done. To mount a 140 million dollar film, the investors need some sort of assurance that they will make their money back, and it’s much easier to sell a film when there are big-name stars.

To play Moses, the film chooses Christian Bale, who is naturally very charismatic but doesn’t seem to be trying too hard. Joel Edgerton goes all out to play Ramses however, and really carries the film through many of the lull periods. There’s also a lot of very big name actors that have small, weird cameos that don’t hugely contribute to the plot. John Turturro plays a Pharoah of Egypt, Aaron Paul and Ben Kingsley play followers of Moses, and Sigourney Weaver plays Ramses’ mother. When described like this, the film sounds like a comedy, but it takes itself pretty seriously.

As a film, Exodus: Gods and Kings is aggressively mediocre. That said, there are moments of inspiration here and there: The decision to make God a child was an fascinating choice. The child actor they got to play him was very good as well. And the plague sequences were all pretty interesting. However, these moments of inspiration appear within a film that is pretty bland.

While many of the fight scenes in the beginning of the film are reasonably well put together, the last act of the film is really poorly edited. In a sequence with Ramses’ army chasing Moses and the Jews, there is no continuity in where people are located in relation to one another. Any relevant drama is completely lost because all of the events that occur seem so random. The film also ends in a very strange place. The film in general would have been stronger if it weren’t cut off where it was cut off. However, the film was in no danger of being a masterpiece, so, as an audience member, I appreciated it ending early. 5/10.

"The Babadook" Review

Directed by Jennifer Kent, The Babadook is an Australian horror film about a single mother, Amelia, and her annoying son, Samuel. After Amelia reads a mysterious childrens book called “The Babadook” to her son, a physical formation of this monster appears to haunt her and her son. At first sight, it would be easy to confuse The Babadook with any other generic paranormal horror flick, but it’s significantly better than a lot of other horror films that have come out recently.

For one thing, The Babadook is legitimately scary. Rather than relying on jump scares and random acts of silence, The Babadook presents legitimate consequences to the events that are happening, which makes the film extremely frightening. The characters are created incredibly realistically, so you can relate with the characters and experience their pain, rather than just watch passively. Kent also creates a strong sense of tension and anxiety that makes you feel as if there is no time for the characters to rest.

Essie Davis turns in a fantastic performance as Amelia. Dealing with the loss of her husband and having to both work and take care of her son, the character is exhausted, and Davis communicates this stunningly. When pressure is increased for Amelia, there is a sense of desperation that Davis is able to encapsulate wonderfully. Noah Wiseman plays Samuel, the trouble-making son. Watching Samuel is incredibly unnerving, and Wiseman does his job of being awful magically.

With many horror films, the villain is generally the one that is getting the character study. However, with The Babadook, the spiritual entity is not the focus. It’s used as a way for the filmmakers to analyze the main characters, which is something that is very rarely done well in horror films. But in this movie it’s done in a way that adds extra layers to the film.

That said, at times it does become obvious that this is Kent’s first movie. There is the occasional sound error or weird cut that shows some of her insecurities behind the camera. However, The Babadook is a film to be proud of. I feel that Kent has a lot of potential, and I can’t wait to see more films that she creates. 8/10.