A Most Violent Year

First of all let me just say, if IMDb allowed 0.5 votes, this would probably get a 6.5 from me. Where to begin with this one ? Well it's shot well, the cast nail the parts, but from start to finish you are waiting for the film to come to life, and unfortunately it just never does.

Some people will appreciate this film much more than others, but for me it was average at best. The main reason we all watch films and television, is to be entertained, and unfortunately with A Most Violent Year, it feels like we have been left wanting.

You never really get to appreciate 1980s New York, a couple of panoramic skylines don't really cut it. With a bit more substance to the story, better visuals & some period music, this film could & should have been much better.

Sausage1

It's 1981 NYC, and it's not American Hustle. A Most Violent Year is set in the most brutal year in the city's history, when Mayor Koch and the DA would not like it to be so. While Hustle sets the scene with humor and style, Violent is happy to understate lawlessness and concentrate on the dialogue, which has undercurrents of corruption in each syllable.

Oscar Isaac plays immigrant, oil delivery company owner, Abel Morales, with an Al-Pacino veneer that goes low key, not Godfather or Scarface operatic. His double-breasted suits and ever-present camel overcoat suggest the smooth, verbal, charismatic, but unassuming business owner who wants to be as straight as his wardrobe. It's a difficult ideal because someone is hijacking his oil trucks and selling the oil on the black market.

What to do? His wife Anna (Jessica Chastain), beautiful but born to a crime family, is at times more ready to deal with the sabotage in a traditional mob way than her husband is. But Morales deals with it in a civilized, diplomatic way that of course makes him and his employees vulnerable to the rude, irrational hoodlums.

Director J.C. Chandor knows minimalist dialogue, apparent in his All is Lost, where Robert Redford gives out with one line but an Oscar worthy performance anyway. Much more dialogue here, still minimal, but it has the David Mamet attention to the power of each word.

In a world Sidney Lumet depicted quite well, everyone has a brush with lawlessness, from truck drivers to cops to politicians—no one is exempt, except maybe Morales, who tries to do the "best right" thing in the face of pressure to use violence as the tried-and-true technique. That's why this is such a sweet action, crime drama: You can identify with the protagonist and not be bogged down by gratuitous violence.

This is one of the best action-crime dramas in years. Isaac is Pacino without his edginess; Chandor's dialogue is soft Mamet, a welcome substitute for rude bullets. Indeed, while the film is titled A Most Violent Year, it is not the most violent movie. Leave that to Martin Scorsese.

Having seen it a few days ago, the more I think of "A Most Violent Year", the more I like it.

This is not a spoiler, but a friendly tip: don't expect a lot of what the title implies, because the movie does not focus on violence.

While there are tense and violent moments, the movie's strenght lies in the performances and the interactions between characters.

Oscar Isaac plays Abel, a businessman who is trying to make a clean living while being more and more pressured by an unknown threat. The competition plays dirty while he wants to stay an honest man.

Abel's moral struggle is what the narrative revolves around. Jessica Chastain play Anna, Abel's wife and business partner. She is equally as powerful, assertive and dominant as he is, if not more so.

The director did a wonderful job at creating a tense, sad and dramatic mood throughout. The cinematography is wonderful, the subtle moody soundtrack plays a big part in creating a feeling of impending doom throughout the entire movie, and I am very impressed by the recreation of a 1981 New York. It's very immersive.

While nothing mainstream audiences will drool over, I find "A Most Violent Year" an excellent drama. If you like this movie, you should give "The Two Faces Of January" a chance as well. Not only you would notice what a chameleon Oscar Isaac is, but you might enjoy the classic mood and character-driven vibe of that film as well.

So I read a lot of complaints about the movie being slow and missing tension and violence. Why? Because of the title? Do the viewers nowadays pick their movies just on title and trailer?

The title is perfect: This movie is all about violence. Every single moment in this film is a consequence of- or triggered by violence. Even all the news broadcasts on the radio are about violence. Abel's business is, as he says "in a rough patch". There are good years and bad years and this one is a particularly bad one. The fact that the movie doesn't feature a lot of violence makes it an even better one as the threat of it is constantly palpable.

As for the tension: my god, what tension did I feel. I won't describe moments, but one particular chase sequence had me biting my nails, and I haven't done that in a very long time. There is constant tension in almost every scene and almost unbearable tension in some. And of course throughout the whole film you keep asking yourself; is he that honest, will he yield, or will he even snap. Oscar Isaac's role as Abel is written and played out so well I can understand the comparisons to Pacino's Michael Corleone in the Godfather. Hell you could even mention the two films in one breath. It has a great classic feel to it, though this is much smaller and more intimate.

A modern classic like: "We own the night" by James Gray or the recent "The Drop" by Michael R. Roskam. Beautiful slow burning masterpieces. This film will stay with me for quite a while. I'll put it away, wait for a rainy day somewhere in winter and experience it all over again. 8/10

Once again, Chandor gives us a well-written, well-acted, beautifully photographed film, on a relatively small budget, that winds up being incredibly watchable. I would say he's done this with all 3 of his films. None of them were action-packed film, but that all had a truth and reality to them, that really pulled me in.

I've read some reviews on here that complain that the film was too slow for them or that it was "boring." Look, despite it's title (which may have mislead a lot of viewers going in), this film is not for the Fast and Furious or Transformers crowd. It's not even for people who loved the blood-soaked Scarface.

It portrays violence and the fear of running a business in NYC in the early 80s, in a very real way. And it captures the early 80s look flawlessly.

This film may, however, be be for people who loved films like The Godfather or DePalma's Dressed to Kill. Not only does Oscar Issac seem to channel bits of Michael Corleone, but the film is lit and photographed in a very similar manner to the way that Gordon Willis shot The Godfather. Also, for those who think there was a ton of action and killing in the Godfather, outside of the final few minutes, there really isn't. Though very different films, what pulls you into the Godfather and Dressed to Kill is similar to what pulls you in here. Tension, honesty, a simple story, well told. No BS. No shooting up a whole town, with dead bodies falling everywhere, and then cutting to the next scene at dinner.

In real life, violence is frightening, finding a gun is frightening, shooting a gun at someone is frightening, having your life savings at stake, and the fear of losing everything you've worked for is frightening. Chandor pulls this all together to build tension, and it results in a very satisfying film.