First Man (2018)

Damien Chazelle is our American wunderkind. In many respects, he shares similarities with Xavier Dolan, the Canadian counterpart. They even kind of look alike. Chazelle takes a page out of Dolan's book with a format change a la Mommy. Except when Dolan does it, it's pretentious and forced, we watch a box format for the whole length of the movie so he has the chance to stretch it out in one scene. Chazelle does it more seamlessly, and with better finesse. The moon landing scene is filmed in glorious IMAX 70mm, while the rest of the movie is on beautiful grainy 35mm or 60mm. Film ain't dead.

Linus Sandgren's cinematography is breathtaking accompanied by Justin Hurwitz's hypnotic score. What's really extraordinary is how intense this movie is. Much like Chazelle's brilliant Whiplash, he manages to make something that is not obviously intense unbearably intense. Despite knowing how it's going to turn out, it is still exciting. We are fully immersed in the space missions, with the shaky cameras, close-up shots, and thrilling soundscape. We feel the anxiety that Gosling's enigmatic Neil Armstrong does when a mission fails. At the end of the day, it's not actually about the moon landing. It's a character study on the Armstrongs (yes, Janet too), one of whom happens to go to the moon. Ryan Gosling and Claire Foy are both excellent.

Blade Runner 2049 (2017)

Magnificent. It is an epic three hour artistic feast. It is a visually stunning movie, surely to win the long overdue master Roger Deakins an Oscar. The colors! The futuristic production design that borrows from and yet somehow also modernizes the original. The epicness of each frame is enough to take your breath away. If you can't tell, I loved the look of the movie.

But of course, the strength and beauty of Blade Runner (perhaps of science fiction generally) is its ability to ask the tough questions. What does it mean to be human? In my opinion, this movie is a very natural sequel to the original. It builds off the established themes and pushes the boundary to the next logical steps. The character, less obviously but very effectively, advances this question of humanity. She is a computer program, pure software. She obeys orders. She is made to order. But does her capacity to love make her human? Does the capacity to love make a replicant more human? Does the ability to reproduce make you human? Is there a more abstract idea of a soul that makes us human? It asks the tough philosophical questions.

Denis Villeneuve has proven himself a phenomenal director of science fiction following Arrival. And in the same style, he has a way with reveals that shocks the audience. I won't give that bit away, but the reveal allows the viewer to discover another theme, and that is insignificance. We may find ourselves very important, but is it possible that our stories are insignificant in the arc of history? It's this willingness to tackle grandiose ideas that makes this sweeping movie a pure epic.

La La Land (2016)

La La Land is exactly the masterpiece I hoped it would be. I have been waiting to see this film ever since they announced casting of Emma Stone and Ryan Gosling for a jazz musical (two things I love) directed by Damien Chazelle, hot off of Whiplash. He is perhaps our finest young director today. It did not disappoint; it was so beautiful. How do you know you're watching something special? I literally had goosebumps, and there were moments in the film that just brushed over me. It's when you can physically feel the euphoria take your breath away. Only film and classical music do that to me.

Let's start with the plot. It's simple but it's classic a la Golden Age Hollywood. I have to admit, their first encounter in the restaurant tricked me. It was the seen that we're fooled into thinking we knew already from the trailer, but it's not that scene. At first you're taken aback, but then you understand that their courtship is a little more complex than that. Amidst the dream-like sequences, the plot and dialogue is actually extremely realistic. The dialogue is perfectly natural. The movie is so emotionally affecting because it is so well written.

This is a contemporary musical nostalgic for a time gone by. That theme is played out through Seb's infatuation with traditional jazz. It makes a plethora of references to the classic musicals of yore, but it looks forward. It includes the requisite pas de deux, and the big numbers, and the recurring musical themes. It moves towards a wistful ending, not necessarily the happy one you expect from old Hollywood (the ending actually sort of coincidentally reminded me of Once). This movie has depth the way song-and-dance used to be able to get away without.

Chazelle's love letter to Hollywood is necessarily a love-letter to movies (the tone is reminiscent of Cinema Paradiso). You know I love movies about movies. But it's more than that. Because Los Angeles is a unique city. He captures the spirit of a town full of dreamers. Briefly about the ending--I think it's perfect. It reminds us that the essence of the film is not simply their love for each other, but for their high hopes and dreams. The film, after all, is named for the city that will make or break you.

This review is going to get a lot longer than I intended but I'm going to keep going cause there's a lot of ground to cover.

The look: the colors are perhaps a little too obvious. And by that I mean, they pop so much that we're not used to such bold un-patterned primary color coordination. But I think that adds to the dreaminess of the film. The ten-minute balletic epilogue is just stunning. The cinematography is just stunning. Los Angeles has never looked so good. La La Land is not the first film to do the long takes, but it does it very impressively. Someone in the Crowd requires some fancy camera navigation and a well-placed mirror. The opening sequence was all filmed in one shot. I think we've entered a period (maybe starting a few years ago with Gravity) in which the expectation is for contemporary films to go big and do the long single takes. It is becoming normal. But that is not to underscore the massive achievement of getting it all at once perfectly.

Jazz: The soundtrack is phenomenal. I've been playing it on repeat nonstop. Also, looking at the lyrics more closely, they're appropriately fitting. Justin Hurwitz has two Oscars coming his way, for sure. I think jazz is very fitting for Los Angeles. LA is not a jazz town, but the music really captures that trying spirit. Everyone is a constant struggle to make it and what is jazz if not about improvising your own path. As Sebastian points out, it is conflict and compromise.

Acting: I saw Emma Stone in Cabaret on Broadway and she was great. She's not the best singer and neither is Ryan Gosling. But if they could sing, then they wouldn't be struggling artists. The whole point is that they are talented in their own right, but that's not always enough in LA. The parts don't call for excellent singers. They were correctly cast. The leading lady and man are our new Hollywood couple. They've acted together before and I imagine they will continue. They have the look. I love the scene when they're singing City of Stars together. Whereas some scenes look like the actors are singing to a track, this one is unequivocally live. You hear and see it in the imperfect tone and the quavers in their voices. It is vulnerable and human. And it pulls us down from dream world (or la la land). Ryan Gosling plays piano very convincingly. Even if he can only play those couple of pieces, that is pretty impressive. Emma Stone carries the film though. We may focus more on Sebastian's story line, but Emma Stone gives her character dimension and emotion more interesting than Gosling's. I do think John Legend was a weird choice; he's a little too smooth for jazz. I kept thinking Jamie Foxx would've been great.

So if you couldn't tell, I loved everything about this movie. To people that say they liked it but didn't love it, just look and hear and moreover feel how beautiful this movie is. Don't confuse it for a shallow musical. It is more complex than it may let on. 

The Nice Guys (2016)

I missed the premiere screening of The Nice Guys at Cannes, but it got a pretty good reception, if I remember correctly. It's a pretty funny buddy cop mystery movie. It has a sometimes inappropriate, but witty, script. It's better than a Judd Apatow kind of inappropriate, though I can't quite explain why. The movie hearkens back to the 70s with an appropriately fun soundtrack and ridiculous costumes. Russell Crowe and Ryan Gosling have a great buddy chemistry. I guess Ryan Gosling just has good chemistry with everyone. 

The Big Short (2015)

The Big Short succeeds in explaining economic concepts to the average viewer in an accessible way. A Jenga demonstration by Ryan Gosling makes perfect sense. There are hilariously placed cameos by Margot Robbie, Selena Gomez, Anthony Bourdain and economist Richard Thaler. They use analogies to explain economics and break the fourth wall, as do many of the characters. It is like a well-made documentary at some points. The style of the movie is so unconventional that it makes you laugh. The picture freezes to allow the narration come in, and there are rapid cuts of historic/cultural images to show passage of time. The movie nicely balances comedy with drama. Steve Carrell and Brad Pitt bring some conscience to heartless Wall Street.

The movie simultaneously follows three groups who separately short the housing market, depicting the greatest economic collapse of our time from the point of view of the only people who benefited from it.  We watch them as they separately come to the revelation that would cripple the world economy. The ensemble cast is excellent, and I think Steve Carrell does exceptionally well in a role that I would not have picked him for. It falls somewhere in between the ridiculousness of The Office, and the dark drama Foxcatcher. There is nuance in his role as he comes to the realization that we are all doomed.

The film is a searing indictment of the whole system at every level from the banks to the rating agencies to the regulators. It really brings meaning to the phrase "If you're not outraged, you're not paying attention" (Portlandia). You root for the protagonists who awaken and bet on the seemingly impossible. But then you realize that their bet is against the American economy, actually the world economy. They could be seen as villains, but they're really not at fault for reading the fine print. But nor are they heroes. There are no heroes in the economic crisis, just varying degrees of villainy. At the end, it all comes together when Carrell comes to the greatest, move devastating and tragic and cynical realization: it's not stupidity, it's not a matter of paying attention, it's a lack of care knowing that that'll get away with it and the less fortunate will suffer for it.