Jessica Chastain

A Most Violent Year (R)

9 Stars

For the most violent year in New York City’s history, there’s fairly little violence depicted visually.

For viewers paying close attention to the radio broadcasts, it’s a different story. Wink.

Oxymoronic also considering it’s an independent film and a period piece.

Elaborately set during the winter of 1981; it doesn’t feel very ‘independent.’

It stands at $4.6M in the box office, according to Box Office Mojo and Rotten Tomatoes; a tragedy considering it’s $20M production budget.

This may be a reflection of late distribution, finally releasing wide in theaters on January 30.

Which is intrinsically tied to its complete lack of Oscar nominations.

A gosh-darn-shame, considering the filmmaker’s credentials.

As the scholars say, J. C. Chandor is an ‘auteur.’

Which Google defines as, “A filmmaker whose personal influence and artistic control over a movie are so great that the filmmaker is regarded as the author of the movie.”

A less frilly description is writer/director.

J. C.’s crafted three flicks thus far, including 2011’s Margin Call and 2013’s All Is Lost.

Both were critically well-received, and particularly the former contains my stamp of approval.

In a way, he’s comparable to Woody Allen; relying less on elaborate cinematic sequences or stylistic editing, and focusing heavily on story and strong acting.

‘Great movies for adults’ is another way to say it.

A Most Violent Year’s no different.

The cast is phenomenal.

Oscar Isaac (of Inside Llewyn Davis fame) is fantastic in the leading role.

Albert Brooks is excellent, but did you expect anything less?

No; of course not. The man’s a master of his craft.

Another master, Jessica Chastain, delivers a remarkable performance.

The word ‘snub’ is overly bandied about.

But if Laura Dern’s five minutes of Wild screen time total up to a Best Supporting Actress nomination, one can easily argue Chastain deserves it more.

All in all, A Most Violent Year hasn’t received the credit it deserves.

It’s written well, full of strong performances and compelling throughout.

Catch it in theaters while you still have the chance!

The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby: Them (R)

10 Stars

It’s not a story about a Beatles fan stumbling down a well.

I highly recommend The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby.

It’s completely character driven but beautifully written.

Many parts are wonderful, where to start?

Look for it in your local arthouse theaters…I can’t believe I just used that phrase. Yuck, what’s happening to me?

Anyway, hopefully it’s playing somewhere near you, because it only got limited release.

I hiked all the way to the Landmark Renaissance Theater, which doesn’t have ‘Regal’ or ‘AMC’ anywhere in the title.

So purchasing the ticket online does nothing; waiting in queue is still required to print the stub.

It’s a first world problem, I know, but a problem nonetheless. The more avoidable issue stems from the fellow coughing several seats down, forcing me to reposition nine rows up. But I won’t get into that.

The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby is broken into three films: Him, Her and Them. All three films follow the same time period, but are told from the differing perspectives of Connor Ludlow (James McAvoy) and Eleanor Rigby (Jessica Chastain), a young married couple living in New York.

The version currently in theaters, Them, depicts the plot from both characters’ perspectives.

Him and Her will be released in arthouse theaters on October 10, 2014, so I’ll be schlepping back to the Landmark.

The pacing is smart, the stakes are high, the tension’s constantly palpable and the character development is elegant.

Romance isn’t my favorite genre, but I can’t imagine it being done any better.

Ultimately it’s a tale of moral ambiguity,

James McAvoy is just fantastic.

This fellow, along with his role in X-Men: Days of Future Past from earlier this summer, is turning into quite the prolific movie star.

Keep up the good work, James!

My favorite leading lady, Jessica Chastain, is lights-out. She looks good with short hair.

Her character is incredibly likable and sympathetic. Props to Rebecca Edmonston who did the costumes. All of Chastain’s outfits are fantastic.

Viola Davis kills it in this movie.

She’s great in Prisoners and Ender’s Game but this is probably her best role yet.

I cried several times throughout. This movie is incredibly touching.

Don’t let me oversell it, but TDOER is easily one of the best films released in 2014.

This may be the right candidate for ‘Best Date Movie’ ever. Or perhaps it’s the worst date movie ever. Depends upon your perspective.

See what I did there?

Just about as ‘meta’ as you can get in a film review.

The Tree of Life (R)

5 Stars

I hate melancholy.

Floating in existential whispery sadness doesn’t warm the cockles.

I can’t believe The Tree of Life was nominated for best picture. Sure there’s good stuff in there, but it’s been a long time since I wanted a movie to end so badly.

Let me start out strong with my best argument.

The hushed tone head-hopping voiceover. It’s artistic, and perhaps it works well with this particular plot.

But I doubt it.

Terrence Malick used the exact same effect in his film The Thin Red Line from 1998. Thirteen years later, it’s still just as distracting and uninformative.

I watched Thin Red Line with my Dad a week ago. He seemed to enjoy it more, because I didn’t love it.

In fact, I found TTRL dull, preachy and heartless. More ‘technically’ good, rather than ‘unquestionably’ good. Throw enough dollars into the visual layout, build a bunch of tension and you’ve got a thumbs-up.

Folks toss around the word, ‘boring’ too much. ‘Boring’ is mostly for whiners. It should only be used to describe something that’s extremely dull.

The Tree of Life is boring.

It’s not better than The Thin Red Line, despite a similar visual format.

What is with the gospel music? Was the plot not dull enough?

The cast is excellent. Brad Pitt, Jessica Chastain and Sean Penn are all very good.

With all the stylish editing, the movie’s very difficult to follow.

Half of The Tree of Life is nature imagery, and features footage from cosmic to microscopic, from water molecules to supernovae. I’m open to a more whimsical form of storytelling, but eventually it gets tiresome.

I disliked this movie because I think Terrence is saying a lot less than he lets on.

As a period piece and a study of a family living in Waco, Texas in 1956, I’m fine with it. But do we need all of this existential stuff, the intergalactic imagery or the vague timeframe?

It seems the puzzle pieces don’t fit together in any coherent fashion.

There are a couple things I’m confused about.

When the velociraptor removes its foot from the wounded dinosaur’s head, is that supposed to be the moment in Earth’s history when humans began evolving? That our greatest redeeming quality is the capacity for compassion?

Well, if so, then great! What’s it teach us about Brad Pitt’s family in 1956?

I’m not convinced the dinosaurs belong in the movie.

The Oedipus complex is also something I never connect with. Perhaps Terrence is trying to show how it manifests itself even in recent history.

I don’t know, and I guess I just don’t care.

The Tree of Life has a few good moments, however.

Young men will appreciate much of the father-son interactions between Brad Pitt and Hunter McCracken.

Whenever Jessica Chastain’s on-screen is generally enjoyable.

At one point, she’s bouncing and twirling in zero gravity beside the tree and it’s enchanting.

If Terry cut out some babbling brooks and tossed in a bit more of Jessica dancing on air, The Tree of Life may have been great.