#MWi2016: the neon demon

[krokodile]

movies watched in 2017:

the neon demon - a rewatch, and i loved being able to not have to try and figure out the story and just enjoy the movie with all its glorious beauty.  it’s throwback horror done flawlessly, while still being totally unique and impressively creative. 

roman - i love angela bettis as an actress, but less so as a director.  still, i don’t think this is meant to be the next great american classic (...wait, is lucky mckee actually canadian?)  i think it’s more of an experiment, and a successful one.  it held my interest and kept me guessing, and that’s enough.  editing could’ve cleaned up some things with picture and sound but maybe the roughness was intentional.

into the forest - such garbage.  emotionally manipulative dreck.  and make sure you shoehorn your anti-abortion message in there somewhere.  i always thought evan rachel wood would grow up to be a great actress, but whatever potential she had I’ve never seen fulfilled. 

arrival - remember how they remade the day the earth stood still a while back and it was utterly moronic?  THIS IS THE MOVIE THEY SHOULD HAVE MADE.  the sheer beauty of amy adams interacting with the creatures left tears in my eyes many times, and despite being equally heavy with the message, it left plenty of time and space for interesting, well-drawn characters.  throw in some fucking impressive storytelling and amy adams being her usual luminous self and there’s just nothing to not love in here.

the girl on the train - disappointing.  maybe my hopes were too high after seeing how great the gone girl adaptation was, but this story just didn’t work as well in a visual medium.  emily blunt tried her hardest, but this was the weakest performance i’ve seen from her to date.  

the 9th life of louis drax - i hated every single character so much, i couldn’t get invested in the story.  and even if i had, the resolution was glaringly obvious from the first voiceover.  oliver platt was the only tolerable performance. 

get out - i was expecting to like this movie, but i wasn’t prepared for HOW MUCH i liked it.  the 99% on rotten tomatoes made me expect a “message” film, and the more critics love those the more boring i tend to find them, but i was still pretty optimistic.  holy shit though, best movie i’ve seen in a LONG time.  people have already talked about what’s so great about it, far more eloquently than i could, but it’s pretty close to perfect.  and the performances are going to go down as some of the most immediately remembered and recognized in the horror genre.  a lot of the film’s success comes from daniel kaluuya’s utterly brilliant performance - he’s the easiest horror protagonist to love and root for since sharni vinson in you’re next. 

we’re the millers - not really my taste in comedy, but i got a few laughs out of it.

nocturnal animals - i hate that i didn’t like this movie, because i so wanted to.  and the frustrating thing is, i can pinpoint exactly what went wrong for me.  the screenplay is fantastic; it looks gorgeous (i love how the “book” segments actually LOOK just ever so slightly fake); amy adams knocks it out of the park and the supporting cast is terrific.  my problem is jake gyllenhaal.  and i don’t think he’s a bad actor; i like him just fine.  but he was a terrible fit for this role.  (and tbh i didn’t need the flashbacks to his and amy adams’s relationship.  the movie would’ve worked just as well without them and they derailed the narrative quite a bit.)  all his screaming and crying and raging just seemed incredibly calculated, and i don’t think it was intentional.  he was just out of his depth here.  i’m also not sure why the opening sequence went as long as it did.  and no i’m not whining that i had to look at naked obese ladies.  but it just felt like someone trying to be david lynch and came off very pretentious student film.  i also think it could’ve been half the length and still accomplished what it set out to do.  but really i can let go of everything but jake gyllenhaal’s performance. 

i know there’s been some controversy about the violence against women portrayed in this film, but i’ve noticed that people by and large have no problem with extreme violence against women being portrayed as long as there’s no nudity; the fact that we saw their bodies nude (and that tableau was absolutely beautiful, by the way; that got the most genuine emotional reaction from me out of the entire film.  so softly devastating; especially since isla fisher and ellie bamber had used their few minutes onscreen to get me to completely fall in love with them) is what people find horrific and unacceptable.  the sexual violence, nearly all of which took place offscreen, was not used for shock value or as a cheap device to give a picture “depth” or “tragedy.”  i can only assume i’m not the only audience member whose guts just ripped in half in sorrow seeing mother and child laid out like that.  i actually think it was one of the best done moments in the film.  i understand not wanting to see that, but to call it unnecessary or exploitative seems to me like the point has been greatly missed.  (it also involves totally not understanding the film’s structure and jake gyllenhaal’s character but i won’t go into that.)

i am not a serial killer - pretty good little movie.  i usually hate it when things go supernatural, but this was one of the rare occasions where the movie was no worse for it.  mostly some parts lagged for me; otherwise no complaints.

psycho - a partial rewatch since jenna was watching it.  still a terrific movie.  and it was fun picking out all the little things bates motel has referenced over the years.