Initial Review by Bryan

I discovered In Bruges from some random blog about underrated movies from the last decade. There was a comparison to Pulp Fiction, and I figured it was worth a shot.

My notes are a scattered nightmare on this one - kind of like my love of Colin Farrell. Nothing about the way his character (Ray) talks or walks struck a believable cord with me. I thought his performance was lackluster. I can't think of a single movie he's done where I think, "That was a job well done Mr. Farrell." Maybe it's his general lack of emotion, especially in this role. Meanwhile, I'm developing a man-crush on  Brendan Gleeson. He nails the resolve and attitude of the elder hitman, Ken. How fun that Ralph Fiennes of Harry Potter Voldemort fame plays a character named Harry. Whoever wrote "In Bruges" must not be a Harry Potter fan, or there is deeper meaning that you all will sort out. I'm not sure if Chloe or Jimmy as supporting actors helped or hurt the movie - and that may be the point of their characters. I guess I'd rather have more time been spent making Ray more emotional or just listening to Ken.

On to my notes. That fileted skin painting was possibly the most disturbing part of the movie. That looked like it had to hurt. Ray and Ken have a brief discussion of the existence of God that I thought was superb - I wish it had gone on longer or been carried throughout as a theme in the movie.

A couple of laughs and strong points in the movie - shooting the thief with a blank in the eye was well done, not sure I've seen that in a movie. The hit/miss ratio of gunshots and survivability seemed right on as well. The old "you're an inanimate f*6%ng object" line got a chuckle as well as some line about "c#^t kids." The suicide in the park scene had awfully convenient timing, but I thought it was a great path for the movie.

The soundtrack was nonexistent for me until the Irish folk music played while Ken is climbing the tower - then the music made me excited and sad to see what would happen. I thought Ken get up there and pull off some miraculous gun shot to save the day (as foreshadowed earlier) or miss and everything would go to hell, but nope - he jumped. The sound of Ken hitting the ground was nauseating to say the least.

I'm not sure if I liked the movie as much as my review or I was just happy to have a Tumble Inn IPA and watch a movie after a long week at work. I'm stuck around B-/B.

Anyone else keep saying "In Bru-jess" despite hearing "Brouge" repeatedly?

Initial review by Bryan

Initial Review by Phil

“Harry Potter and the Goblet of Fire” is definitely an odd movie for this group, as we tend to lean toward things that are a bit more obscure.  I imagine that a lot of people are going to blast through this review with just a few sentences, as I think most of us have formed our opinions on this franchise long ago.  However, even though Ashli probably picked this one b/c it was the only one streaming, she picked the right one to have a conversation about.  It’s easier to talk about where these movies fit in with regard to the series as opposed to stand-alone (more on that in a bit), and Goblet of Fire’s place as the transition from children’s story to the more mature young adult themes gives it a special place in the series.

Just for starters, even if you don’t like the HP franchise, you can’t help but respect it.  Very few movie franchises are consistently of a high quality.  Just look at some superhero franchises.  Spiderman 3 is just bad.  X-Men: The Last Stand is an abomination.  Blade Trinity…. Anyway, that could hit a soft spot for some here.  Numerous franchises ebb and flow in quality, even when all the same people are involved.   (Godfather?  Matrix?)  Somehow, HP has gone through multiple directors and screenwriters, yet in eight movies, the lowest RT score is a 79% (Order of the Phoenix).  Say what you want about this franchise, but that is damn impressive.  Near the end of its run, I was never nervous that I was going to waste my time going to an HP movie at midnight (not by my choice), b/c they were all good.

Goblet of Fire stands out as an important step in this franchise as it is the first one to not end in a necessarily happy way.  In fact, for a “kids movie,” the ending is bleak as shit.  Harry has successfully thwarted Voldemort in the first two entries of the series, but this meeting sees him barely escape with his life while also getting his friend Cedric killed.  I might be wrong, but Cedric might be the first “good guy” killed in the HP universe.  This was a pivotal moment for the franchise, proving that, sometimes, the good guys don’t win, they just live to fight another day.  This would be a pretty run-of-the-mill series if we just followed the same formula from Sorcerer’s Stone and Chamber of Secrets, but Goblet of Fire changes all that and launches us into the real story of the franchise.

Beyond that, Goblet of Fire is similar to other entries of the series in that it touches on more base emotional issues that would speak to a teenage audience.  It’s a theme that is constantly touched on in the series: even though we’re dealing with a group of gifted wizard teenagers, they’re still typical kids.  We have the subplot of Ron’s jealousy of Harry getting selected for the tournament and the awkward Ron/Hermione relationship beginning to take form.  Ron gets the most “human” material this time around, which probably isn’t good as Rupert Grint is the weakest actor of the three main protagonists.  The relationship stuff works pretty well, but the jealousy subplot feels a little forced given the overarching story and who Harry is in this world.  Speaking of Harry, this is probably his weakest movie in the series.  Daniel Radcliffe is not given a whole lot interesting to do this time around, giving the bulk of the spotlight in the down scenes to Ron & Hermione.  There are other nice moments that are relatable to some, such as the level of embarrassment Ron has for his Yule Ball getup (I avoided anything like this in my youth; also, I still really hate the Yule Ball scene).

HP movies always have good setpieces, but Goblet of Fire’s are some of the weaker entrants into the series.  The first Tournament trial with the dragons is a great opener, but the scale of the remaining two leave something to be desired.  Likewise, the final showdown between Harry and Voldemort is one of the weaker final battles, but the exchange between Ralph Fiennes and Daniel Radcliffe is well-done as usual.  This is the first movie in the series with Fiennes, and is big introduction to the series is both impressive and “terrifying” for a movie in this genre.  Fiennes gets off some good lines and plays the intimidating all-powerful lord of darkness well.

All the HP movies are good, but Goblet of Fire is one of the more special entries.  It ushered in a new tone and era for the series, a world where not everyone who should live happily ever after necessarily did.  It definitely has its weaknesses in relation to the other movies, but it’s understandable why it’s considered in the upper echelon of HP movies.

+ Brings Harry Potter out of the “happily ever after” era into a more adult and interesting series

+ Ralph Fiennes is great in his Voldemort debut

+ Solid acting in the downtime captures typical teenage angst

- Ron heavy

- Setpieces leave something to be desired in the context of the series as a whole

Grade: B+

Initial Review by Shane

I really have the hardest time reviewing comedies, especially parodies. Usually they’re light on plot and sprinkled with some pretty flat acting or poor acting from the bit parts. Parodies, in particular, can revolve from smart to completely juvenile. Not that I have an issue with juvenile, but it’s never going to score high with me unless I watched it while a teenager or drunk in college. (For example, Grandma’s Boy is awful, but had I watched it for the first time when it came out, I would say it’s a B+.)

But, I’m also a big big fan of anti-comedy. A lot of people see it as dumb, but I’ve always felt like it’s usually a bit smarter. I feel like when done right, it’s making fun of the audience. The joke is on us. I love that. A prime example is Tim and Eric’s Awesome Show. Lots of people justifiably call it dumb. I get that, though I disagree. But even those who find it dumb must feel like they’re missing something because Tim and Eric attract a lot of legitimate talent. Why are those people on there? Chef Goldblum, am I right?

So I read an article about Steve Martin and his anti-comedy beginnings and saw Dead Men Don’t Wear Plaid mentioned as an example. Martin interacting with old movie clips? I saw one clip (where Martin lambasts Humphrey Bogart for how stupid the no tie look looks) and my curiosity was piqued.

But even with a great gimmick and some amazing dead-pan, one-liners, DMDWP still falls short of being a very good or great comedy. It simply couldn’t avoid what I mentioned above: the plot just isn’t great. Really, it was even kind of confusing, though that is partially as a result of the same gimmick that gives the movie its better moments.

Usually I’ll go through and critique some acting performances first. Hard to do that here considering we’re watching spliced footage from other movies. So really it comes down to how well Martin is able to bounce off of actors who aren’t there. Kind of like Transformers movies and the other CGI heavy garbage we see every summer. Or working with Vin Diesel I imagine. Martin obviously has good timing and presentation and that’s not a surprise to anyone. If it’s Val Kilmer here, I’m not sure I last more than 15 minutes.

So let’s talk about the gimmick? Does it work? I think so. There are some great jokes and lines that you think are throwaway lines that pay off half a movie later. The cleaning lady thing was purely absurd until it paid off in that old clip. The running gag on the tie was great. I really enjoyed the interactions with the dad, the guy in jail and the drunk on the barstool (You could be the Hunchback of Notre Dame.) Of course, this gimmick also makes having a coherent plot a lot tougher. There were so many characters in and out and by necessity, what they were talking about was never going to seamlessly fit into the plot. It may have been the beer, though I doubt I was the only one who found it somewhat muddled. They built a consistent world that was part ridiculous while still making sense, but they just couldn’t quite make it work all the way.

There were plenty of other parts that I laughed about as well. The joke about the “big tits” made me laugh the hardest. RIP Terre Haute. The too much jewelry in the soup line was played so straight that it ended up being so bad it was good. But hands down my favorite was the Java stuff. I just laughed the entire time. Even better were the java references down the road.

In the end, the plot confusion really caps this. A near perfect comedy caps at a B+ for me. Anything over a B+ on a comedy has to be something special. This is merely good and I would watch again.

B-

Substitute Review by Jon

Nightcrawler defies traditional movie vocab. It's very much a character study of Jake Gyllenhaal's Louis Bloom, but calling him a protagonist is far too kind. He's not an anti-hero either, as he's lacking in any truly redemptive qualities. This is the villain in the protagonist chair, something I'm not sure what to call. Dan Gilroy's debut film is a dark ride, daring the viewer to find the bottom of what Bloom is capable of.

Bloom is first depicted as a hustler, stealing scrap metal and fighting a security guard for his watch. He is hungry for a regular job, but his intense need to please is creepy and he speaks in corporate, motivational slogans. Potential bosses turn him away, justifiably. While driving down an LA expressway, he pulls over to gawk at a fiery car wreck, when an amateur film crew shows up with the intent of getting some juicy footage and selling it to the highest network bidder. Seeing the opportunity to make some money and be his own boss, Bloom buys equipment with the proceeds from a stolen bike and catches a carjacking on film. He sells it to Nina (Rene Russo), a morning news director at a low-rated station, and it's off to the races. With his highly flexible ethical code, Bloom is not above breaking into homes or altering crime scenes for better shots. As he experiences more success, he hires a low-paid assistant (Riz Ahmed) and negotiates a better deal with Nina, becoming increasingly megalomaniacal in his goals and methods.

Gyllenhaal is fantastic in the lead role, shaving his facial features down to sharp, gaunt edges with an intense, unblinking stare to match. All the books and articles his character has clearly read about how to influence people and sell one's talents are completely internalized, smothering any baser emotion he might otherwise feel from lust to rage. He still feels these, but phrases their expression in terms of partnerships and self-improvement. Bloom speaks in professional terms, but Gyllenhaal's eyes sell the dangerous animal within. Russo is a welcome casting choice in one of her best roles in years, deservedly coming back to prominence after a long period out of the spotlight. Her Nina is just as desperate for success as Bloom is, though she doesn't quite share his ruthlessness. She is his equal until very suddenly, she isn't. Russo sells the 100% position of strength Nina is operating in, and she again sells the creeping few percentage points of vulnerability that Bloom is able to use against her.

The big takeaway from Nightcrawler is essentially don't watch network news if all they're going to give their audience is crime. A deeply intelligent person, Bloom sees the vital service he provides to fear-mongers like Nina, who insist on broadcasting 'urban crime in suburban environments,' despite the fact that crime is uniformly down. Nina would be the villain if Bloom was less repulsive, but her miscreancy happens secondhand while Bloom is the one getting his hands dirty. Bloom also points out the misplaced share of each news half-hour dedicated to crime, as the impulse that dragged him into this line of work is one most other people are eager to indulge at a safer distance. He is this base impulse given life, the embodiment of voyeurism and rubber-necking deprived of empathy or human feeling.

Gilroy does a great job filming the several car chases in Nightcrawler, and since much of the job is waiting for something to happen, he films these long pauses with plenty of tension and looming catastrophe. His script is noticeably obsessed with titles, as Bloom tells people to call him Lou or Louis depending on who he's talking to, or other characters insist on being called the right position. This power dynamic game feeds right into Bloom's wheelhouse, letting him know the other person is playing the same game as he is, though they likely aren't living and breathing it to the same extent. I'm not sure if Gilroy's unwillingness to give Bloom a shred of sympathy is a mistake or an admirable commitment. There's no real arc for the character, as he's already horrible in frame one. The generic score is a missed opportunity, as the extra push from a better one would further augment the tension and the cool factor. Was Cliff Martinez or equivalent busy?

Nightcrawler's mostly despicable characters operating in a mostly despicable fashion makes for an uncomfortable but worthy experience. Though the characters' are largely unrelatable, that doesn't mean they aren't interesting. With great lead performances, a daring and raw script, and tense direction, this is a world worth dipping a toe into. Full immersion would be too depressing. B