A Most Violent Year

JP Liz V1

ciaranlong wrote: »

I'm looking forward to another crime movie coming out soon - it should be out on Jan 1st I think. It's called "A Most Violent Year". It's set in New York in 1981 and stars Jessica Chastain. Early reviews are comparing it to The Godfather, so my expectations are certainly high!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o87gG7ZlEAg

Looks pretty damn impressive plus Oscar Isaac and JessicaChastain are two of this generation greats in acting talents

Dots1982

Watched it tonight. Its a movie about a theme (being moral in an unmoral world) but in terms of plot & script its very weak.

I'd also be suprised if the budget was much over 10 million.

MisterAnarchy

Its a slow burner allright .

The acting is good and its well shot but the story is lacking a bit of suspense .
It has quite a few similarities to the Godfather .

Its a decent movie with a great score but nothing special overall,I was expecting more.

duckysauce

its a slow burner alright , so slow its a snooze fest . Didn't like it , not sure why it's getting such high scores . It's all been done before , but alot better

e_e

Thought it was solid but bizarrely disjointed and ponderous. Some individually excellent scenes but it just never cohered for me.

Dirty Steve

At the start the it seems to promise so much, having a lot of the elements needed for a great film; it just doesn't really go anywhere.
I kept waiting for something to happen and then by the time things did, interest had been lost. Slow moving stories can work, but you have to give the audience enough to keep them interested.

Oscar Isaac does well in his role; wish they had made more use of Albert Brooks though, he's a very underrated actor.

longshanks

Terrible film. It started like it was going to lead to something, instead it just meandered. Which seemed like a waste of a decent cast.

stanley1

slow as a wet sunday.

e_e

Slow is not always a bad thing though, especially as it's often deliberate and clearly not an accident of the director or editor. I mean All Is Lost is arguably even slower but that was (for me anyway) a gripping film to watch. This film's problems lie elsewhere imo, maybe because All Is Lost is such a simple movie and this quite convoluted.

OldeCinemaSoz

Fascinating.

A film which can CAPTURE THE PERIOD most perfectly. WE all know that Walter Hill did all this
without a raised eyebrow back when and did it most recently with Sly. But this is one little gem of a film.

Too quiet for my tastes but a sincere 7/10 for effort.

tunguska

Went to see this Tonight and I thought it was great. I had read the reviews, all of them glowing but still I went in with low expectations as I knew it wasn't gonna be a traditional gangster movie or crime thriller. I can see why some people were disappointed, there's not a strong story arc and it is more of a character study than anything else. But the acting is phenomenal, the dialogue is tight, there's a great minimalist score and its beautifully shot.
I think its the kind of film you have to see more than once to fully appreciate.

world_weary

the guy who reviews movies on matt coopers show , gave it an absolutely glowing review , had thought about going

Lukker-

Thought it was excellent personally, would have it up there with the best movies of the year.

Think some people went to it expecting an action movie, which it is not.

Thought that this was good but a bit too-hyped by critics. Yes, as others have said it captures the period well etc. but just because the main character is brooding and composed, his dialogue is more show than tell and the movie throws out a couple of obvious hints at the hypocrisy in his nature

calmly plugging up the hole in the fuel tank at the end just after yer man has scattered his brains to the five winds, disregard for his drivers' safety whist going on about how honorable he is

doesn't make him deep. Very watchable all the same.

MisterAnarchy

glasso wrote: »

his dialogue is more show than tell and the movie throws out a couple of obvious hints at the hypocrisy in his nature

calmly plugging up the hole in the fuel tank at the end just after yer man has scattered his brains to the five winds, disregard for his drivers' safety whist going on about how honorable he is

Yeah that was pretty cold but I thought the whole

Driver on the run thing was completely blown out of proportion to be honest.All the guy did was fire a few shots in public in self defence against thugs that were trying to steal his truck and injure him .
If he had a clear record he would probably get off with a suspended sentence .
Youd think he had shot a few people dead the way the police were out to get him .
Why did he even contemplate shooting himself ,he did very little wrong .

WHIP IT!

I found this an absolute snoozefest and, I must say, whoever said the dialogue was great must've watched a different movie than me. I felt the dialogue was the worst part of it - unimaginative, littered with pauses-for-dramatic-effect which added no drama and had no effect.

I felt the main character spent too much time sitting still trying to look like Michael Corleone. There was quite a bit of open laughter in the showing I went to last night.

I'd agree with the person who said they underused Albert Brooks, his character at least had some life in him.

I knew nothing about the film going in other than reviews were good but I found the storyline weak, repetitive and frankly uninteresting.

batnolan

Oscar Isaac is good.

The story is bizarre though. At the start of the movie Jerry Adler, Hesh from Sopranos, explicitly

tells Isaac that he has 30 days in which Isaac has to complete tasks and that 30 days is the deadline and finite. We never find out what the tasks of the contract were and Adler grants Isaac an extension despite saying the contrary earlier on.

Then we have Isaac dressing like a gangster, acting like a gangster (having a big Sopranos-esque sit down with his fellow competitors) but the catch is that he is not actually a gangster. Wow. Engrossing.

The film tries to be a slow burner but it doesn't even achieve a fizzle. Damp squib.

batnolan

batnolan wrote: »

Oscar Isaac is good.

The story is bizarre though. At the start of the movie Jerry Adler, Hesh from Sopranos, explicitly

tells Isaac that he has 30 days in which Isaac has to complete tasks and that 30 days is the deadline and finite. We never find out what the tasks of the contract were and Adler grants Isaac an extension despite saying the contrary earlier on.

Then we have Isaac dressing like a gangster, acting like a gangster (having a big Sopranos-esque sit down with his fellow competitors) but the catch is that he is not actually a gangster. Wow. Engrossing.

The film tries to be a slow burner but it doesn't even achieve a fizzle. Damp squib.

I thought that that bit on the contract was very clear. He put down a deposit that was non-refundable (later revealed to be 40% of the total) and he had to get the rest of the money within 30 days...

johnny_ultimate

I really liked this. It toyed around with gangster tropes in an intriguing way - even having a central character who is so proudly determined not to sell his soul felt like a refreshing subversion of norms. I felt a real sense of foreboding and uneasiness throughout the film, that creepy, understated organ score at times playing like a more subtle take on Zimmer's work on Interstellar. The beautifully sombre colour palette enhanced that throughout.

The film definitely has a tendency to become rather 'plotty' on occasion, and the execution isn't always inspired (the sequence where it cross-cuts between a number of different 'attacks' felt overfamiliar). I wouldn't call it exceptional, but it's another interesting, moody film from Chandor.

lukin

MisterAnarchy wrote: »

Yeah that was pretty cold but I thought the whole

Driver on the run thing was completely blown out of proportion to be honest.All the guy did was fire a few shots in public in self defence against thugs that were trying to steal his truck and injure him .
If he had a clear record he would probably get off with a suspended sentence .
Youd think he had shot a few people dead the way the police were out to get him .
Why did he even contemplate shooting himself ,he did very little wrong .

Yeah I know I though that was fairly stupid as well.

The only reason I can think of for him running is because maybe the gun he used was unlicensed.
As you say, all he did was defend himself by firing a few shots at a couple of scumbags who were shooting at him anyway (admittedly he fired with people around). Considering the rate of crime in New York at that time it seems like no biggie.

As for the film itself I thought it was quite dull. I kept waiting for Jessica Chastain's character to

use her dark and mysterious mafia connections to sort everything out.

Can I also say I got absolutely sick and tired of the way Oscar Isaac's character kept saying "Thank you for seeing me" to every single person he had a sit-down with. It's clichéd Mafioso-speak that really irritates me.
Oscar Isaac's character screamed "Michael Corleone" in every scene he was in. Bloody hell, he even looks like him for chrissakes!
The only thing it was worth watching for came right at the end when

he plugged the leak in the tank with his hankerchief.

I though that was class.

cloud493

I liked it a lot. Can't say it felt slow to me, but thats subjective of course.

batnolan

glasso wrote: »

I thought that that bit on the contract was very clear. He put down a deposit that was non-refundable (later revealed to be 40% of the total) and he had to get the rest of the money within 30 days...

Ah right I didn't pick up on that. I thought at the start Hesh had set him challenges. Although I was on a movie marathon by the time I watched this one so maybe I was fatigued !

Lukker-

Just an FYI, simple possession of a fire arm in New York state is a felony offence and you can get 4 years without even firing a bullet or using it any criminal act. They have the toughest gun sanctions in the USA.

Arsemageddon

Thought it was pretty decent up until the end when

he's totally fecked for the last bit of money and suddenly the missus tells him about the 600 grand she had skimmed off the company. Thought that was like the classic 'mammy was calling me for school, it was only a dream' ending kids use when writing stories in national school

WHIP IT!

Arsemageddon wrote: »

Thought it was pretty decent up until the end when

he's totally fecked for the last bit of money and suddenly the missus tells him about the 600 grand she had skimmed off the company. Thought that was like the classic 'mammy was calling me for school, it was only a dream' ending kids use when writing stories in national school

It was

only 200-odd k to "get his brother out of the deal"

but yeah I agree with you.

Dots1982

The attack on the house by a gun wielding burglary is a red herring/loose end in
the plot

or does anyone think it was explained.

That_Guy

Very slow burner of a film. Has a decent car/on foot chase scene and some of the tension is built up quite well but it's a bit of a cock tease.

Not very violent and seems to have been set over a couple of months.

Who was the fella with the gun at his house at the beginning? Was it ever explained?

The whole, "oh by the way, I've a bank account with money here" admission was just awful and felt very lazy.

Jessica's Chastain character really felt under-developed. "Oh hey, your fathr was a big crime boss wasn't he?" *nudge nudge* I really wish they had given her a bigger part to play especially with some of these elusive mob connections.

Oregano_State

The only thing I didn't like about the film was the title. While I can see why it was chosen - the movie was set in a particularly bad year for homicides and gun crime in New York - the plot only takes place over the course of about five weeks, and the mention of violence in the wording leads the audience to expect something that never comes.

Otherwise, I thought the acting performances of Isaac and Chastain were excellent; we learn enough about their characters to flesh out the story, but are left wondering about some details, such as

Chastain's gangster family who we never see.

I found the pacing to be spot on; I enjoy character-driven films, and while a little bit more action wouldn't have gone amiss, there was plenty there to keep me interested. Some of the suspense was great. When

the runaway driver followed his attempted fuel-thieves down the stairwell, and caught his breath at the bottom, I was sure he was going to be shot once he walked through the door to the park.

There was plenty more I could write about, but overall I thought it was two hours well spent, which is a fine compliment for any film.

Oregano_State

That_Guy wrote: »

Very slow burner of a film. Has a decent car/on foot chase scene and some of the tension is built up quite well but it's a bit of a cock tease.

Not very violent and seems to have been set over a couple of months.

Who was the fella with the gun at his house at the beginning? Was it ever explained?

The whole, "oh by the way, I've a bank account with money here" admission was just awful and felt very lazy.

Jessica's Chastain character really felt under-developed. "Oh hey, your fathr was a big crime boss wasn't he?" *nudge nudge* I really wish they had given her a bigger part to play especially with some of these elusive mob connections.

To answer your questions with my interpretation of the story:

1.

The lad with gun was sent by one of the rival fuel companies. They were all trying to get him to stop muscling in on their turf, as he was the new and rapidly expanding. The people behind it were most likely the same that had sent the guys to steal the fuel.

2.

The part with the secret bank account was a key element of the story, and was a climax in the relationship between Isaac and Chastain. Isaac's character up until that point genuinely believed he had grown a legitimate business from nothing, and that he was being unfairly targeted by the police and DA. Once his wife reveals she's been skimming money off the top since the beginning, this image of himself is destroyed and he now knows he's vulnerable to the charges being brought against him. He sees that he's been helped every step of the way from the start by his wife's family influence despite his best efforts to separate himself, his family, and his business from them

3. Personally I thought Chastain's character was very well developed.

We hear Isaac's character refer to the father as a "corner store Brooklyn gangster". JC Chandor knows that his audience is aware of what to expect from that character. It's been done to death by Coppola, Leone, Scorcese, The Simpsons even. Putting this type of stereotypical persona in the film would cheapen it, and is unnecessary IMO. That description by Isaac's character was enough for me anyway.

Just saw this a few days ago, surprised it was still showing as it seems to have entered the cinema a while back.

There's one or two points that don't really make sense but you could make a decent argument for one.

When the guy with the gun was at the house, you're led to believe at that point it's part of the plot against him.
However when he catches the van thief we find out he wasn't working for anyone so you could argue the guy at the house was literally just there by chance

However and I haven't read this mentioned here....

When the sales man is beaten up and dumped outside the town, we're led to believe it's a part of the ploy to ruin the business.
Again going back to the fuel truck thief, he says he wasn't working for anyone but was selling it on.
So if he wasn't being specifically targeted from the off, then it makes absolutely no sense why the sales man was beaten up in the cellar of the house and dumped outside town.
Also on that topic, surely it would have been easy to find the culprits since it was a door call and he was attacked IN the house

Hans Bricks

But disappointed overall. I don't see how it separates itself from other crime dramas. Too much "I'm not a gangster" rants. They tried too hard by juxtaposing 1981's notoriety with the plot over the radio stations like in the film "Killing Them Softly". Almost like this justified giving the film it's title.

Issac conveniently shovels himself out of a 1.5 million dollar debt by borrowing, discovering his wife's skimming operation and an extension by Jerry Adler when he specifically stated the deal was black & white. I just fail see any clever plot twists or meaningful undertones to it. Kind of just went nowhere in the end.