Sicario Review

It seems only appropriate that the day before Halloween I check out what is arguable the best horror movie of the year. Except the film - Denis Villeneuve's Sicario, doesn't exactly bill itself as such. But yet that is what this crime thriller about FBI Agent Kate Macer being thrust into the ambiguous battle of the Mexican Drug War turns out to very much be.

As I side note: hello, I'm back. I believe its been...wow, over a year. This blog clearly did not turn into whatever it was that I hoped it would be. But to be honest, if you were anxiously sitting around waiting for the next post since last May, you probably should acquaint yourself with the rest of the internet. I hear there's some pretty good stuff there, and fairly up to date last I checked. Will this start to become a regular thing again? Who knows. I'm not getting paid, so I might just say "fuck it" and leave it at this.

This film cements Villeneuve as cinema's premier purveyor of darkness, who - with Blunt as our guide and Cinematographer Roger Deakins as our well-trained eyes, take our hand and lead us deeper and deeper into the film's black heart. Like our lead - sometimes we volunteer, sometimes we have to be dragged. But yet we end up there nonetheless, witnessing things that we probably shouldn't. It's only right that, after spending its first hour in the scorching daylight of the southwest, the film climaxes under the cover of night - so much so that Deakins turns on the night-vision. This is one of many similarities that, fleetingly, remind one of Zero Dark Thirty. But Sicario is a different beast. While both deal with the complexities and ambiguities of modern "warfare," this film doesn't attempt to address the "why" of the the war, but more the "how," in a purely objective form - we see both sides of the fight and then have to make up our own minds as to a) whether what's being done is right; and b) whether its worth it in the first place. In the few lines of exposition given to Matt Graver (Josh Brolin), he tells Kate not a broad scope of ideals and goals in the War, but rather a small labyrinth of battles - many on a personal level - that theoretically lead to not peace, not even the "order" he suggests, but a perhaps a brief moment of accomplishment before the next battle. It is a stalemate and they keep trying to move the pawns forward as best they can without considering the grander scheme. It is through this tunnel-vision that we are to view the film.

As Kate, Blunt stands out in one of the best performances of the year, and - if we are gonna talk about such things - is my opinion is the one to beat in the Best Actress race for this year. Her portrayal of a hardened idealist slowly being worn down by the situation around her - not to mention the repeated incidents of danger she finds herself in, is at times extraordinary. But it's the fact that she volunteers and continues to throughout this terrifying trip into the heart of darkness that makes her stand out. She captures both the complexities of the character's thoughts, as well as the audience's, being neither fully composed, nor fully broken and emotional. When, in the middle of a terrifically staged nail-biter of a set-piece taking place at the US-Mexico border crossing she utters quite appropriately "what the fuck is going on?" she voices exactly the audience's thoughts (or at least mine). Like Kate, we are given very little information to set up the film's key moments, having to wait for later to get them (vaguely) explained. A mix of Ellen Ripley and Clarice Starling, but with a darker frame of mind that suits her role within the 21st century's at once-militarized and highly-secretive form of law enforcement. She is trying to do whats right and solve what she believes to be "the case", while also simply fighting for survival within what is otherwise a battle of men-against-men.

The cast is also highlighted by a terrific turn by Benicio del Toro as Alejandro, Matt's partner who Kate slowly realizes is not exactly on their team. But is at the same time. You'll see what I mean. His performance reminded me a lot of Javier Bardem in No Country For Old Men, except if he was working with the authorities. A man of few words, he moves through the film like a ghost with no rules but his own.

If Sicario lacks anything, its a sense of humour. We are given only brief snippets of light shining through the floorboards that we seem to be trapped under for the film's duration. Most of these come in the form of the banter between Kate and her FBI partner Reggie (Daniel Kaluuya). But it doesn't last. The two play off each other as brilliantly perplexed, horrified, yet committed and driven to finish the job as they slowly realize that they are merely pawns in a grand game played by their mysterious superiors. It should come as hardly a surprise that, after a series of expertly constructed action sequences involving (spoilers) a lot of gun shots and people dying, perhaps the film's most suspenseful and anxious moment comes down to Blunt signing (or not signing) a piece of paper.

As usual Villeneuve and Deakins deliver in all the best ways, giving one the exact shot that you want at the perfect moment - except for the multiple times where they do better than you can imagine. The score by Johann Johannsson accentuates the atmosphere with low rumbles and stings of terror in one of the more creative uses of orchestra for film music I've heard in a while. Along with a strong script by freshman screenwriter Taylor Sheridan, which makes up for its lack of memorable or extraordinary dialogue by simply giving a blueprint for which the film to build on for the visual and nonverbal moments, they bring together the oft-brilliant cast to create a work that, for me, is the high water mark for 2015 thus far. We still have a ways to go, but it will hard to find a film that more than this will shake you to your core and make you want to take a long silent walk afterwards to let it all sink in. Sicario gets under your skin and stays there, worming its way into your brain.

On that note, Happy Halloween.

The 10 Most Anticipated Movies of Summer/Fall 2014 (according to me)

Thought I had to make a click-bait article sometime, so here it is: the movies I am most looking forward to that are coming out this year! (the fact that I'm doing this at the beginning of May is sort of a happy accident, as there were no movies from the last few months I was really hyped about).

(note: this does not necessarily I expect ALL of these films to be good. These are just the films that, for better or worse, have the most buzz).

Godzilla (May 16)

For most blockbusters, there is a fine line of subtlety that the filmmakers have to decide whether to cross or not. Godzilla is not one of those films. All impressive features aside - and there are many, including a talented cast headlined by Bryan Cranston and Ken Watanabe; Monsters director Gareth Edwards; far better SFX than in 1998 - it is still a movie about freakin Godzilla. Certain movies just have to go balls-out. Even without Michael Bay, you couldn't make a Transformers movie with reall strong character development. So here's hoping Edwards and the Legendary Pictures team behind him (not exactly known for light and fun adaptions) devote enough screen time to the big fella, while still making the human parts of the movie tolerable. Do I have high expectations for Godzilla? Yes, but I'm still expecting, at the very most, only a very good Godzilla movie.

A Million Ways to Die in the West (May 30)

Not really much to say about this except is you would have told me 5 years ago that Seth MacFarline was directing a comedy western I would have been a little un-enthused. But TED really did surprise me as being a good, funny movie, so if this one goes south (west?), than we can't blame MacFarline for rookie mistakes this time. It looks like its gonna lampoon a bunch of western film tropes, which is nice. Any way, I'll probably pay to see it and if its 1/4 as good as Blazing Saddles (the last real western-comedy, if you don't count Cowboys and Aliens), then consider me satisfied.

22 Jump Street (June 13)

As a University student  you tend to develop a false sense of superiority to certain groups and things - townies, the worlds leaders, etc. But one of those things that I damm well KNOW I know better than is Hollywood screenwriters' and their perception of "college". Movies have long portrayed college as a hedonistic party zone where there are parties everyday, everyone loves the football team, and pies for fucking abound. This is of course (mostly) false, so I was a little bummed when I fist saw the trailer for 22 Jump Street keeping the college status quo. That moment was fleeting, however, and soon I remember how great the first one was of sending up high-school portrayals in movies, as well as being possibly the funniest (intentional) comedy film since The Other Guys. While it looks to be doing the same-thing-in-a-different-place setup that ruined Hangover II, I have faith that, at the very least, it will still be a funny, escapist summer comedy. Or a Turd. God, I hope not.


The Rover (June 13)

For those of you who thought that this list would be dedicated to only big-budget, event-type, well-duh-they're-highly-anticipated-dipshit movies, you're only gonna be 8/10 correct. The Rover, written and directed by David Michod, seems to relish keeping its plot a relative mystery, especially by theatrical-trailer standards. What I can tell is that that its seems beautifully shot, very well acted by Guy Pierce and (surprise) Robert Pattinson, and that its set in a near future wasteland in Australia's outback. Now I don't wanna say that that kinda sounds like Mad Max but... goddamn, this looks like something you have to see just to relieve your mind of the tense mystery surrounding it. 

Guardians of The Galaxy (August 1)

(Note - don't be fooled. Jimmy Kimmel is not in GOTG)

Yup. I scanned the internet as best as I could and, from what I can tell, there are no movies worth this top 10 being released in July. I'm sure there are movies, you will probably see them, and I don't care. I don't even know if I'm going to even see Guardians of the Galaxy. It just seems...interesting? Is that the right word? (Fans please weigh-in in the least offensive way possible in the comments). Look, we all know that during this Superhero-Movie Renaissance of the early 21st Century, Marvel definitely has a lighter, more cartoonish, more "joke" filled track record than the pit of darkness over at DC/Warner Bros. And, shit, it works! But even for Marvel, GOTG looks to take it one step further and almost looks like an action comedy. Its as if they finally realized, whilst developing their GOTG movie, that the concept was just too damm ridiculous, even by superhero standards. Will it actually be funny? Will it also deliver as a good action-adventure popcorn muncher? Will someone tell me who the tree-guy is? I hope to have these answered come August. 

Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles (August 8)

So, I guess its official? 12 year old boys are officially running the movie studios. All you New World Order theorists have been looking in the wrong places all these years - this is where its taking place. And they're starting young. How else do you explain so many superhero movies, FOUR Transformers pics and everything else big and flashy and blow-up-ingly? (again, they're 12). Anyway, there's a TMNT movie coming out and of course you will see it and of course I will see it because if our childhoods have to be destroyed, we'll all feel a little more closure if we get to watch them die. 

The Giver (August 15)

Holy shit!Holy shit! Holy shit!Holy shit! Holy shit! Holy shit!
Sorry for that bit of a freakout there, but I am EXTREMELY stoked about this movie. Like the Ninja Turtles, this was likely an important piece of pop culture in your childhood, though this was far less likely to teach you about choosing pizza over drugs and more likely to teach you about the horrors of living in a eugenic dystopia. When first reading it in grade 8, I didn't want to admit I liked it so much because book readin' is for pussys in the schoolyard I came from. I've managed to re-read it a few times since and I still think its great. As a filmmaker, I'm actually a little bit hurt by the fact that the movie even got made, because one of my dreams was always to make an adaption. So, fingers crossed that Hollywood keeps its current model and decides to reboot this in 15 years time. In the meanwhile, I can't wait to see how they try (while maybe secretly wishing they fail a bit) to bring this book to the big screen. I'll definitely have another rant post about The Giver before then.

Sin City: A Dame to Kill For (August 22)

I'm starting to get tired, just as the trailers are starting to get more into teaser territory, so these next few are gonna be short and sweet.
Just Thank God that they brought back both Rodriguez AND Frank Miller to do this one, as their distinct style is what made the first Sin City so good. This time they're back with an even bigger cast and, from the trailer, it looks pretty damn stunning, visually. Definitely gonna be one to watch for. Side note: ever notice how most of Frank Miller's movie adaptions stay really, really faithful, while all the movies of Allan Moore comics seem to try their best to stray from the material and make Moore even more hateful towards the film industry? Just a thought...

Gone Girl (October 3)

Ok, so we're officially into the autumn movie season, where things start to drift into awards-consideration territory. Gone Girl, the latest from David Fincher and an adaption of Gillian Flynn's novel of the same name, seems well...very Finchery. Details are few at this point but with a great story - after Ben Affleck's character's wife goes missing, he starts to be accused of her murder - and a director like Fincher behind it, it will definitely have filmies like myself lining up to see it. 

Interstellar (November 7)

Christopher Nolan. Makes a movie about wormhole travel. With Matthew McConaughy. This is the definition of "Highly Anticipated". What gets me excited is the fact that its being released in the fall, rather than the summer - when Nolan usually reigns. So something tells me that this has a little something that puts it over the top, that can make it play among award-season heavyweights. And the trailer! Dear God, the Trailer! Look - I know Nolan films tend to have really good trailers and you could argue that Man of Steel, while not a great film, had one of the best teaser trailers of all time. But at least with Man of Steel you knew, in the end it was about Superman. What does Interstallar's teaser give us?
Goosebumps, mostly. That, and from where I'm sitting, easily the feeling that this is 2014's most anticipated film.

Agree? Disagree? Have general misplaced anger issues? Leave a comment!

Steven Spielberg to film adaption of 'The BFG'

According to this, its seems the master of enchantment himself Steven Spielberg will be adapting Roald Dahl's 1982 children's book The BFG for the big screen, with filming expecting to begin in 2015.

I remember watching the animated version when I was a kid and really liking it, as well as the book itself - then again, Rotten Tomatoes has this nasty habit of confirming that most of my favourite non-Pixar movies from childhood were, in fact, garbage. I mean, there was a streak of a couple of years where I thought the live-action Thunderbirds was one of the greatest movies ever. If you click that link, you'll see that its actually on par, ratings wise, with Ice Cube's latest movie Ride Along (though if they would have cast Thunderbirds with the guys from NWA, I would watch the shit out of that). 

But I do have really high hopes for the BFG movie, because even Spielberg's least memorable films have a great track record. And with similar 'childlike-wonder-meets-otherwise-terrifying-monster' movies like E.T. and Jurassic Park under his belt, he's probably the best man for the job - though a part of me secretly wants to see the Michael Bay version of this, where the main character, Sophie, is a barely-legal stripper dragged into an increasingly-violent adventure by an 80-foot tall William Fichtner. 

Casting speculations are a mystery to me (which means I failed at least one part of being a film blogger) but methinks Tom Hanks should (read: probably will) be involved somehow. It would also be cool to see Daniel Day Lewis get cast as the titular giant, just to see him be mentally tortured trying to method-act being ridiculously tall .

"No, seriously. I'm a fucking giant. Now sit down and let me eat you alive."

Hopefully this rumour is true (the original source for the article is from Dahl's Website), but then again the BBC also reported the straight-up lie that all North Koreans have to get a Kim Jong-Un haircut, so I guess that means you can trust exactly 0% of news outlets these days.

Greetings from the internet (or, how I learned to continuously worry about the name of this blog)

Hi hypothetical reader! I'm saying you're hypothetical right now because there is no way of knowing if you - exactly you - is going to be reading this blog at the time I think you're reading it. Because, from a philosophical perspective, how is it even possible to guarantee even the existence of this blog without seeing and reading it? Furthermore, can items on the internet even be considered "real" or "tangible", as one is not able to physically hold it in your hand; nor does it take up any physical space in the world as we know it. For the purposes of this blog, however, I'm gonna consider you real.

Welcome to the internet

So if you haven't already guessed, this is about movies.

I've been wanting to do a film blog for about a year, ever since I found out that that's what a lot of my fellow film students are doing and figuring I might as well leave some sort of "internet footprint" (I'm coining that phrase) beyond a narcissistic, look-at-me-I'm-so-funny, please-love-me Facebook profile.

The main problem for me was coming up with the perfect blog name. That didn't work so I settled on Talking Pictures, a name I came up with while desperately, hungover, looking for food in a neighbourhood I had been in for barely 12 hours. My previous night was spent at a friends place who had recently graduated and moved to Toronto, getting intoxicated and binge-watching the fantastic Rick and Morty for the first time, so my brain was a little out of whack. It managed to shit out the name Talking Pictures, which I admit has a nice ring to it, but I instantly realized how it might cause some confusion.

You try sleeping well after watching this on drugs

The most obvious point of confusion is that the reader might mistake it for being a blog about pictures, aka photography. But its not - most of the blogs will at least try to be about movies. The name, obviously, comes from the term that people used to refer to new sound films that emerged in the late 20s. After time, all movies became sound so they were just called "movies" (which is itself an old-timey slang for moving pictures). I guess I could have called it "Talking Talking Pictures", but that sounds like a Dr. Seuss film blog. Worse, if my blog had been about screenshots from films, I would have to call it "Talking Pictures of Talking Pictures". Meta.

Any other alternative names didn't seem to work either. If I would have called it "Moving Pictures", people might assume it was about guys moving pictures from, say one museum to another, or a tribute to that RUSH album (which itself has a cover that is a pun on moving pictures, with guys moving pictures). Those are both niche markets.

Pictured: Meta

More problems arose with trying to come up with a URL name. Since "talkingpictures.blogsopt" was taken, I decided to try and personify it, calling it "joecraibstalkingpictures.blogspot". Literate readers will notice that, because the brain is a twisted psychopath, that doesn't read as "Joe Craibs Talking Pictures" but more like "Joe Craib Stalking Pictures", which doesn't have the family-friendly appeal I was going for. Worse, if you're brain does that thing where it decides to fuck around and add extra letters to stuff you read, it could come out as "Joe Craib's Stalking Pictures" - which is inherently a lot worse than "Joe Craib Stalking Pictures". Stalking pictures is how most of social media works these days, so basically everyone does it. But it they're MY stalking pictures, then that's a whole other can of worms ("can of worms" being street slang for "prison").

Colloquialisms are a cruel mistress.  

Nevertheless, I feel [hope(pray)] that people will soon figure out that "pictures" means "movies". Also, the Oscar category for best film is called "Best Picture", and they've never awarded that to a Monet (though it would have been far better than Argo), so that's helpful.

Overall, I hope to see some of you along this journey down the information superhighway. Of course, I can't actually see you (it isn't one of those talking pictures sites), nor even sense your presence. Furthermore, I'm not actually sure in which direction one can travel on the internet. Is there even a sense of direction? Is the web bound by the laws of physics? Or time? How does time even work, anyway? Maybe I should save those ideas for my metaphysics blog.

So, in the words of Matthew McConaughey's Rustin Cohle on HBO's True Detective, maybe "time is a flat circle". Or, in the words of unsuspecting viewers watching that for the first time: "what the fuck was that?".