noahputt Reviews

Capone (2020)

Pretty decent comedy

[4/10 · 4 April 2024]

Let's start by acknowledging how hard it is to make a film, let alone a good one. Lots of people work very hard, lots of money is spent, and sometimes it just doesn't come together the way you hoped it would.

That being said, this is not a good movie. However, it's not unwatchable. In fact, it's sort of an interesting case study in "what went wrong" filmography.

Let's start with the bold and unusual concept: a biopic about one of America's most notorious gangsters, but set during the last year of his life, and mostly from the perspective of his demented, syphilis ravaged brain. That's intriguing enough. The big issue is the "mostly" part. The production isn't surreal enough to match the conceit. There's too much of the "reality" outside of Capone's demented awareness that detracts from what could be a unique dive into the throws of post-psychopathic madness.

Tom Hardy is notorious for playing parts in which you can't understand at least half of what he says. That would be fine if his physical acting choices rose above the limits of mere verbal language. Unfortunately, the hair and makeup is so poorly done (you can actually see the rippling of the spirit gum on his facial scars) and his eyes so obscured that there is no sense of variation or subtlety in the performance. Again, there's something there, but it's not fully realized. Though I must say, one of the film's comedic highlights is Hardy trudging around the grounds of his Florida estate with a saggy diaper brandishing a golden Tommy gun like a syphilitic zombie baby.

The introduction of Matt Dillon's character might be one of the more confounding and inexplicable elements in the whole mishmash, and certainly not for the right reasons.

I imagine the phrase "we'll fix it in post" was uttered on the set of this film a number of times above average. Famous last words.

Oppenheimer (I) (2023)

But is it actually? Good?

[6/10 · 21 February 2024]

This movie is not as great as you think it is. I appreciate Nolan as a filmmaker, but I think this is his weakest film by a mile, and that includes "Tenet." "Dunkirk" was revelatory. "Oppenheimer" does try so very hard (to reference a snippet of dialogue from another Nolan trick). But "Oppenheimer" simply doesn't reach the same level as its thesis, acclaim, and subject would have you believe.

I know I'm not the first to notice how prop-like the women in Oppie's orbit are. Underdeveloped female characters are not unusual for a film like this, but the fact that Nolan added gratuitous nudity into the equation, in scenes that are about as smartly conceived as something a first year film student might dream up, is just plain juvenile. You've cast some of the best actors in the business. You really think they can't convey utter shame and vulnerability without you making it physically explicit? Absurd.

The most effective sequence is the Trinity test. Here, Nolan is at his best, building dramatic tension second by second until the ultimate nuclear climax. He captures the power and horror of the event as brilliantly as I think anyone could, so that you too feel like you see a nuclear explosion as if it's happening for the first time.

The rest of the movie feels like a slow and tedious courtroom (or congressional room) drama. I don't blame Nolan so much for this. I read all 1,000 or so pages of "American Prometheus", his source material, and was amazed how the book was centrally focussed on the "was he or wasn't he a commie" witch hunt. So little about it actually helped me to understand why Oppenheimer became known as 'the father of the atomic bomb.' Yet the movie explains it even less. At one point, a colleague remarks how Oppie's no longer a scientist but has become a politician. At Los Alamos, his activities make him look more like a basic town supervisor than a brilliant anything.

It's really unfortunate that "Oppenheimer" will likely win this year's Best Picture, particularly when the masterpiece that is "Killers of the Flower Moon" is up against it. Then again, so rarely in Oscar's history does the best picture actually take home the prize. Even so, it usually stands the test of time over the winner.

Remember "The Artist"? Me neither.

The Good Shepherd (2006)

A spy with no appeal

[5/10 · 29 January 2024]

The biggest mystery in this so-called spy thriller is trying to figure out why so many beautiful women are throwing themselves at Matt Damon's character, a guy who is so dull, so boring, and so milquetoast in every possible way that he is one of the most unattractive and unappealing characters ever tasked with holding down a nearly three hour clunk of a movie. Damon in this movie has about as much sex appeal as a piece of stale wonder bread. Maybe if it was Affleck I could've overlooked it, but not Damon.

De Niro hasn't directed another film since this one, and that's probably a good thing. Because folks, this movie is bad. It's very, very bad. But for me, the Golden Rasberry Award should go to Eddie Redmayne and his very punchable fish face. Redmayne plays Matt Damon and Angelina Jolie's son in a brilliant stroke of casting stupidity.

I'll concede the guy has turned in some good performances over the years, but this sure wasn't one of them.

For all the talk of CIA spy work and the toll it takes, we don't really see a whole lotta spying going on. At one point, Jolie screams at Damon, "I don't even know what you do!" And I said, "Neither do I!" We're just supposed to believe that Damon is a great spy. Ok, if you say so, I guess. He sits at a desk and occasionally takes a phone call after hours, but sure. Why not?

Whiplash (2014)

"Good job"

[9/10 · 24 January 2024]

If ever a movie needed to come with trigger warnings, it would be this one. Warning: for artists who have gone to schools or conservatories for artistic training, this film contains depictions of abusive behavior by a sadistic teacher who believes he's helping students by torturing them until they break, and who won't apologize for it.

"Whiplash" is unrelenting and deeply upsetting in its depiction of extreme psychological, emotional, and physical abuse inflicted on the student (Miles Teller) by the teacher (JK Simmons). There's something frighteningly true about it, even when its excessiveness reaches a point of incredulity. (There's no way this guy keeps his job with the stunts he pulls, even by 2014 standards.)

Teller plays Andrew, a musician at the fictional NYC conservatory which he's not shy about telling people is the best in the country. His one aim in life is to become "one of the greats." Simmons plays Fletcher, a sadistic jazz-band conductor who will test Andrew's resolve to the extreme.

Simmons is terrifying in his Oscar-winning performance, playing a character you either hate to love or love to hate; the nature of his emotional abuse is so convincing that even the viewer isn't always sure which is which. Teller goes toe to toe with Simmons in a breakout performance of his own. Predictably, Andrew's obsessive perfectionism comes at a great cost to himself and those around him as he begins to emulate the warped values of his abuser.

The film definitely has the impact its title suggests.

The Godfather Part III (1990)

It could've been worse

[6/10 · 22 January 2024]

Finally decided to watch the movie everyone tells you to avoid. And no, it's not nearly as good as the first two. But it's also not quite as terrible as everyone makes it out to be. Okay, Sophia Coppola is objectively terrible. If you imagine Wynona Ryder in that role back in 1990, you can imagine how the movie would instantly improve. As it is, it's sadly impossible to feel any pathos for Mary, and that's ultimately what kills the movie.

It's certainly not the only flaw, though. The Vatican's heavy role in the plot feels pretty silly, and it's more confusing who's getting whacked and why than in the other Godfather movies. I know purists will say this isn't a Godfather movie, but Coppola and Puzo were behind it, so it's part of the trilogy. Sorry about it.

Pacino doesn't really seem capable of reinbahiting Michael all these years later. Try as he might, the quiet intensity he originally brought to the role seems too atrophied from years of bombastic overacting and drug use. He could probably do it better today than he could in 1990, as his more recent work has been some of the best of his career. Still, he does have his moment, like the scene when he makes confession.

Some key characters return and some are noticeably absent. No Robert Duvall this time around is the biggie. I guess they didn't make him feel wanted enough or something about crab cakes? It's nice to see Talia Shire get some deserved attention and involvement as Connie, but it's kind of implausible after what happened between Kay and Michael in Part II that she would be back in his life, or he in hers. It undermines what we know about them as characters and weakens their arc. Oh well. Never really liked Dianne Keaton much anyway.

The movie is still pretty entertaining. Calling it a coda is appropriate because it is more of an accessory than a necessary piece of the whole.

I'm Thinking of Ending Things (2020)

You either get it or you don't

[10/10 · 21 January 2024]

This is my second viewing of this film. I'm giving it a 10 not because it's perfect, but because it deserves a higher overall rating than it has. On my second viewing, near the end, I realized that the film is essentially "Good Will Hunting" filtered through the prism of Charlie Kaufman's beautifully warped and twisted mind. If you look at it that way, and can appreciate a good Agnes de Mille-inspired dream ballet when you see one, then you should appreciate this film.

Buckley and Plemons are two of the best young actors working today. Kaufman is one of the most inventive filmmakers of the last many years. Those are reasons enough to watch this film.

I do think the framing device probably could have been made clearer and sooner, so perhaps reading a little about the movie beforehand isn't such a bad idea, as others here have suggested. But to proclaim that this movie is a waste of time is to watch it sail straight over your head. And really, what else would you be doing with your precious time?

Waco: The Aftermath (2023)

Better than I thought it would be

[7/10 · 20 January 2024]

I didn't realize this series was in connection with 2018's mostly forgettable "Waco". I found "Aftermath" much more intriguing.

Serving as both a prequel and sequel to "Waco", it tells parts of the story that are less known and which might raise more difficult (and sadly relevant) questions than the story of the actual raid and stand-off can, at least for anyone who's already familiar with the story. Unfortunately, the creators don't want to get messy enough to fully wrestle with the bigger questions it almost raises.

The strongest part of the series is the courtroom drama conspiracy trial of surviving Koresh followers. Ribisi, a perennially underappreciated actor, offers the most compelling portrayal in the series as the survivors' defense attorney. As a reported scientologist in real life, it's a little ironic that Ribisi's character is at times both defensive and accusatory of his clients regarding their blind devotion to Koresh as a cult leader.

The prequel portion of the series, the Koresh origin story, is pretty hokey. Brief snippets from "Waco" and Taylor Kitsch's portrayal of Koresh (whose performance was one of that series's strengths) only further expose the weaknesses of Keean Johnson's immature performance. And asking the audience to believe that Johnson somehow physically transformed into Kitsch in only a few short years is a pretty big ask.

But Michael Shannon, reprising his role as FBI agent Gary Noesner, is surprisingly one of the weakest links of the series. He seems to be mostly sleepwalking through this one. Maybe his character is tired from all the sleepless nights after his involvement at Waco? Whatever the case, it doesn't really work here and his scenes tend to drag the story down.

As for the McVeigh/Nichols interjections, they're thematically and historically important as far as the fallout of Waco is concerned, but they often feel like afterthoughts instead of aftermath.

The series tries its hardest to humanize everyone involved-perhaps even those who arguably don't deserve to be humanized-in order to show that labeling enemies as "evil" only leads to more violence and destruction. Fair enough. But it's a little too neat to reduce the lessons of Waco to "can't we all just get along?"

The Web (2013)

A real movie

[9/10 · 14 August 2022]

This is a really good movie, and it received award recognition from an actual film industry professional who was an uncredited script supervisor on Bonnie and Clyde. I really enjoyed its solid continuity.

Clue (1985)

You've seriously never seen Clue?

[10/10 · 24 April 2022]

You're on a first date with someone. It's going really well. They're attractive. There's chemistry. Maybe this is "the one." Inevitably, you make a Clue reference. But your date seems to have no idea what you're talking about. "You know, from Clue?" you say incredulously.

Your date looks at you with a confused, or worse, a blank stare. It's then you realize, this human being sitting before you has never seen Clue. "How could this happen?" you ask yourself. "What in the actual hell is WRONG with this person?"

So you quickly pay the bill or make some excuse and you get the hell out of there as fast as humanly possible. Because there's simply no excuse for a person to have never seen Clue.

If you or someone you know hasn't seen Clue, the first step is to admit you have a serious problem. And then, you've got to do something about it.

Airplane! (1980)

Yes, I remember. I had lasagna.

[8/10 · 24 April 2022]

Imagine a movie like this being made in Hollywood today. The closest thing I can think of in "recent" memory are the Scary Movie series and those Not Another blunders. But none of them come close to the asinine hilarity (and yes, offensive doses of blatantly racist bits) as Airplane! This film (yes, I said film) has it all: Leslie Neilson's incomparable deadpan that relaunched his career and made him a household name, Lloyd Bridges sniffing glue, Robert Stack and his many layers of sunglasses, even a cameo by the legendary Ethel Merman. With non-stop zingers and sight gags, you can't help but admire the willingness of the filmmakers-yes, I said filmmakers-to throw in everything and anything, plus the kitchen sink.

So. Airplane!? What is it?

It's a big flying machine with lots of passengers, but that's not important right now.