It's a Mad Mad Mad Mad (Film) Blog

Alice in Wonderland (2010): 2/10

2010-03-09T16:45:00.001-08:00

Tim Burton’s adaptation of the musical Sweeney Todd signaled a possible return to form for the director whose work has become intermittently successful. The 2000’s were a very uneven decade for him. Starting out with his worst film to date Planet of the Apes, then moving on to the refreshing personal work that was Big Fish and then on to the mediocre Corpse Bride and the horrid Charlie and the Chocolate Factory finally moving to the fantastic Sweeney Todd. Will this decade be better for Burton? He certainly is not getting off to a good start with Alice in Wonderland, a film in the same league of misfire as his first film of the 2000’s, Planet of the Apes.

While Burton adapting Lewis Carroll seems like a match made in heaven in concept, it isn’t when Disney is thrown into the mix along with Burton’s visually exploratory ambition missing in action. Disney, who requested that Burton direct their planned live action adaptation, takes out any elements of Carroll and instead puts in elements of other works that don’t belong in the author’s created world. The nonsense, pointlessness, narcissism, exploratory structure, satire and humor are gone. Also gone, with the decision to have Alice be 19, is the journey of a child’s acceptance into the world she is part of. This change would have been interesting if the film had replaced the themes of the original with something worthwhile. Instead Wonderland, or as it has been transformed in the film, Underland, is a place filled with purpose and seriousness with underwritten characters galore who are far too humanized and underdeveloped to justify the decision to change the basic characteristics of nearly everyone.

The main plot involves Alice played by Mia Wasikowska, now 19 with no memory of having gone to Wonderland as a young girl. On the day that she unknowingly attends her engagement party and flees a marriage proposal in front of everyone, she finds herself going own the rabbit hole once again and seeing Underland, a deadened version of Wonderland due to the Red Queen (Helena Bonham-Carter) taking over the land from her sister the White Queen (Anne Hathaway). With help from The Mad Hatter and others, Alice sets out on her task to fulfill her destiny. She is now a chosen one, with a mission to carry out which involves slaying the Jabberwocky because it is foretold in an oracle in the form of a scroll…or something.

One of the main problems with the plot, bad on nearly all counts in its execution, is that 20 minutes into the film it is revealed exactly where the climax is headed and what will take place within it. While we can safely assume that the film will end happily that does not give screenwriter Woolverton the right to insert the exact circumstances of where Alice’s journey will end. That greatly decreases story involvement right off the bat and diffuses any sustained interest. In the film, Wonderland is a place where things actually happen; where events take place followed by consequences and long term effects are felt by Wonderland’s inhabitants. This grounds the world with a purpose and tangibility which takes away Carroll’s intentions on every level. Again, doing something this critical to the author’s intention needs to be justified by the quality of the storytelling but Disney, Burton and Woolverton do nothing to justify their bastardization. Luckily though, the first 10 minutes of the film, the last 2 minutes and probably 9 minutes in the midst of the wasteland that is the rest of the film are well done. At least it starts and ends on a good note.

Surely the contrivances can be made up for by the visuals? No. Burton feels like he is sleepwalking through this endeavor. Not only is there very little creativity gone into making a unique world filled with surprises but the effects themselves are consistently self conscious and mediocre. The idea of Underland should have brought a lot of interesting concepts to the table. How do you make Wonderland look and feel broken down? Dead? Ravished and decayed? Apparently you don’t do much. The world neither popped or amazed; in fact it was boring. There should have been a level of fascinating discovery and unpredictability to the visuals but instead Underland becomes mere background. Something needs to fill the screen, right?

Add to all of this the weak characterization and the making of a truly bad film begin to emerge. The White Rabbit has gone from fidgety and impatient to….nothing. He has no character at all. The Caterpillar retains his sense of frustration and wisdom but his wisdom is placed in a context making him merely a storytelling prop. The White Queen has not one line of characterization and Anne Hathaway, severely miscast is left to theatrical mannerisms and delivery in order to infuse some sense of character into someone who on the page could be anybody. Tweedledee and Tweedledum quibble a bit and represent more indifference. The Cheshire Cat is kind of sly and clever but floats around with lines that don’t assert his character to the extent they should.

Johnny Depp as the Mad Hatter is the biggest misfire of all. His Hatter is all about changing accents and mumbling his words so nobody can understand them. This performance is another bag of eccentricities and accents combined with an extreme appearance but it does not work this time. He is uninteresting to watch and annoying at times. While the concept behind humanizing him is interesting, the execution of it is wishy-washy. If the performance itself had been different, maybe this aspect of the film would have been more successful. Depp’s incomprehensible rabble is so forced and uninteresting that he buries most of the character’s intentions with his eccentricity overload. And wait till you get to his dance move because it could be the most quintessential jump the shark moment in a film in recent memory.
There were a few characters that did work. The March Hare was pure insanity with humor to boot but is used far too little. Bayard was mildly interesting and Stayne (Crispin Glover) was underwhelming but was acceptable in comparison to other characterizations the film had to offer.

The only truly successful aspect of the entire film is Helena Bonham-Carter’s performance as The Red Queen. While her dialogue is questionable, Bonham-Carter not only makes it work to her advantage but she actually manages to be consistently funny and entertaining, creating a very memorable character and performance. She actually creates something and works with what she is given in a way that helped her instead of drowning her in poor writing ala Hathaway. Her scenes are entertaining and her presence livens up the film every time she appears. Not only is she great but she looks fantastic managing to be the only visually satisfying character.
Mia Wasikowska carries the film as Alice. Without her, this would have been unwatchable. She does a really nice job, managing to keep the film somewhat interesting with her stunning presence. Her fabulous work on the first season of “In Treatment” revealed her as a young actress to watch and judging by her upcoming projects, she is about to make a stamp in the ingénue world.

Between the thin and contrived plot, the absence of wonder and unpredictability and visual creativity and the underwritten and uninteresting characters (outside of the Red Queen), Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland is no less than a snoozefest; a visual bore surrounded by a bad script makes for a weak retelling of Carroll’s story that lacks his spirit and misses the point of the purpose of his lack of purpose. Maybe if this had not been a Disney film but a project that was allowed to go to dark places maybe something could have come of it. Maybe. However, the success of Harry Potter and the Half Blood Prince, a PG film reeking of danger, paranoia and oncoming dread managed to be impressively moody and dark, rendering Alice in Wonderland’s family friendly PG rating a weak excuse for the film’s failure. Basically; go watch Jan Svankmajer’s version.

Thoughts on the 2010 Academy Awards

2010-03-09T16:42:00.000-08:00

Thoughts on the 2010 Academy Awards:

Overall it was a fun but rather dull and distinctly awkward evening to be honest. Last year the structure of the awards were changed in a way that focused on the art of making films through its presentation of the individual categories. For film lovers, this was fun to watch. This year they kept the motivation to show viewers how films are made, however there was an imbalance.
First of all, cutting out the Achievement Awards of Lauren Bacall and Roger Corman is blasphemous to say the least. Instead of getting the proper treatment that dignifies their life’s work, we get a short montage of the evening that did pay tribute to them, which we did not get to see. Then Bacall and Corman awkwardly stand up as a standing ovation occurs which felt obligatory and forced as opposed to genuinely given. The break dancing went on for too long. While getting a chance to really listen to the scores that were nominated was fantastic, each segment lasted too long and a few of the segments were misfires. Not having any segments to go along with Best Cinematography or Best Editing was disappointing, considering they are my two favorite technical categories.

How was the hosting? Again; it was awkward. While much of it was funny, this was due to Steve Martin’s impeccable delivery skills and not necessarily the material itself. There were weird pauses between each joke and there was no flow to anything. While Alec Baldwin and Steve Martin are good together, some of the awkwardness could have been taken away with it just being Steve Martin up there. The shots of audience members also add to the awkwardness because nobody ever looks amused but looks bored and annoyed to even be there. The George Clooney incident set the vibe for the night, which many people think was fake but I am convinced it was not.

What else failed? The tribute to the Best Actor and Actress nominees is nice but again, goes on for far too long. Also the deal that the ceremony made about Kathryn Bigelow’s win was frustrating. While she deserved it, putting that much self aware attention onto the moment and its creation just shows how far we have to go. Let her just go up there as a winner like everyone else. We know it is an important moment and we do not need to be told in abundance. It does not treat her as an equal but as a child. Playing “I Am Woman”? Really? They had to do that? It is embarrassing. Just let her have her moment!

Things that did work included the John Hughes tribute. People have complained it was too long. Really people? While his films were not necessarily masterpieces and some of his stuff was quite mediocre, he did something that very very few filmmakers can claim to have done. His films managed to literally represent an entire generation. They now serve as time capsules and are more meaningful now than they were when they first came out. Personally I can say that Ferris Bueller’s Day Off remains one of my all time favorite films. I truly believe it is perfection in entertainment filmmaking and it means quite a lot to me considering that Cameron Frye could be my favorite film character of all time. It sounds stupid and I’ve seen plenty of other films from other time periods and other countries and Cameron Frye remains for me a true gem.
I also liked the Ben Stiller segment. While many of the things he was given to say were corny, his delivery was spot on and his presence made the entire segment funny even if it went on for far too long. Tina Fey and Robert Downey Jr. should star on a film together because their segment was probably the only fully successful presentation moment of the night. Tim Robbins’ tribute to Morgan Freeman, Colin Farrell’s tribute to Jeremy Renner and Stanley Tucci’s tribute to Meryl Streep stuck out last night. Basically, Stanley Tucci and Meryl Streep should be together in real life; no offense to their spouses.

The night shows few upsets. Best Adapted Screenplay took away Up in the Air’s chance of having anything which was a shocker. That might be about it? Avatar’s win for Best Cinematography was disappointing to say the least. The White Ribbon fully deserved it. However, Avatar’s two other wins of the night, Best Art Direction and Best Visual Effects were fully deserved.

Needless to say, The White Ribbon should have won Best Foreign Film no matter how good El Secreto de Sus Ojos is. I do want to watch it soon. Sandra Bullock’s win was a joke; however, she gave the best speech of the night, almost making me forget her win was undeserved. Michael Giacchino’s win for Best Score for Up was particularly special. Listening to over a hundred hours of composition of his from scoring “Lost” and knowing how beautiful his score for Up was made his win particularly special for me. His speech was also the other best of the night.

Finally The Hurt Locker taking Best Picture was a lovely way to top off the night. Out of the major contenders (excluding Up and A Serious Man) it was deserving of the award, certainly over Avatar and to see it beat out the highest grossing film of all time was rewarding to say the least. Overall my predictions were not all that great scoring at 16/24. Best Dressed of the night was Gabourey Sidibe who looked beautiful and worst dressed going to the otherwise awesome Vera Farmiga. Overall the ceremony gets a B-.

My Architect: A Son's Journey (2004): 7.6/10

2009-10-31T14:03:00.000-07:00

My Architect: A Son's Journey (2004): 7.6/10

My Architect: A Son's Journey, the 2004 documentary made by Nathaniel Kahn about his father, important architect Louis Kahn is a jumbled but fascinating documentary with an added personal touch due to the relationship between the filmmaker and the deceased subject.

I am not normally a fan of the filmmaker of a documentary being overtly present in his own documentary. Herzog’s narration in his films is an exception. While his presence both in narration and on camera feels at times self serving, because of the level to which the films subject relates to him and the film essentially being Kahn’s mission to put together a full picture of his father, his presence is understandable and necessary.

There are two things in the structure of the documentary that is slightly unique to the way the majority of other documentaries function. The first is that instead of cutting back and forth between interviewees, Kahn shows us all of the footage he wants to from an interviewee at once. He also lets the interviews feel more like a conversation in the way he lets the conversations go on and in the way he allows us to hear his questions and their immediate responses. Kahn also has his conversations taking place in a more informal if not constructed and slightly staged environment. Many interviews take place standing up, with both subjects walking and are shot at Louis Kahn’s buildings. This allows the documentary not only to be about Kahn’s mission to discover more about his father but it allows for the simultaneous tribute and appreciation of the architects work. It also helps the interviewee discuss Kahn’s work when they are walking inside or outside of it.

The other aspect of the film that makes Kahn’s documentary slightly unorthodox is that Kahn structures the film by what he found chronologically. Instead of starting from Louis’ birth and moving through his life, as we see bits of interviews that are relevant to the specific aspect or time in Kahn’s life that they discuss, Nathaniel structures the film based on his journey (hence the subtitle) and not as a typical biography. There are moments where Nathaniel inserts scenes of straight forward biographical information which ground the film and allows for the chronological structure.

At the start of the film it felt pretty standard but by the time you get to the end you realize that this is actually is doing something pretty incredible with its exploration of so many relatable and complex aspects of humanity. This idea that Louis Kahn was brilliant because he put all of his time into his work but that it never allowed him to really connect to anyone and as a result he treated the women and children in his life pretty terribly through his neglect. His contribution to architecture though is a result of his neglect of people. His trip to Bangladesh near the end and the man he speaks to is just extremely moving. The scene when he talks to his sister in laws about whether or not they are a family is very interesting. And then we have Nathaniel’s mother who is convinced Louis was coming back to marry her when he died which Nathaniel himself is doubtful of. This is a very well rounded documentary about a man’s life and how his devotion to his work left many others abandoned and one sons journey to come to terms with that.

Mr. Blandings Builds his Dream House (1948): 6.7/10

2009-10-31T14:00:00.000-07:00

Mr. Blandings Builds his Dream House (1948): 6.7/10

The reason this film worked for me was because of the actors. I wanted to love this and I thin ksomeday I possibly could but for now I have to admit I had a few issues with it. What were these issues? Let me explain:

The first reason that some of this movie bothered me has to do with the present ecomony. In this day and age when everyone is hard up for money, is it really that fun watching a couple who has money complain about losing some of it? What I mean is that throughout the film Jim and Muriel Blandings learn that building a house is much more expensive then they thought it would be. They find themselves unable to control the mounds of bills and the pile of problems that building a house causes. While this is all very stressful to them, they clearly are going to be ok. The fact that these extra costs are not destroying them, for me means that I really do not care about their money problems if they can afford to have money problems. Watching Muriel refuse to get rid of their FOURTH planned bathroom and insisting upon all these rooms is not funny to me; it is very annoying. Jim's little speech at the end when he freaks out and wonders how possible it is for anyone to build a house these days especially the people who are not as well off as they are is the only time that the idea that it is harder for other people is brought up. While there problems are valid, it still can be grating after a while to watch two yuppies deal with money annoyances that barely cross into the realm of legitimately dangerous money issues. Yes I know this is a comedy. I cannot help it though; it bothered me at points.

The second issue I had was that I could not for the life of me figure out the point of the subplot involving Jim suspecting Muriel and his best friend/lawyer of having an affair. I liked the Bill Cole character and I think he should have been there but the subplot felt unfinished and completely unsubstantial. It was simply a time filler and I think Bill's presence would have meant a lot more to me if he had just been a supporting character/narrator who did not need his own particular subplot.

It sounds like I hated this. I actually liked it a lot. I just wanted to get my issues with it out of the way. It is one of those harmless classic comedies that do not have an inappropriate bone in its body. I liked the fact that it was a comedy about an established married couple. It is really entertaining to watch Cary Grant and Myrna Loy act like that have been married for 15 years. It was just refreshing not to have to go through the courting phases with anyone in this movie. These two are stable and they clearly love each other. They do such a good job of showing us their relationship and how they interact with one another; it is not hard to believe that these two characters have been married for so long.

In general Cary Grant and Myrna Loy make this movie. Cary Grant is always a wonder to watch and it is hard to beat his comedic roles in my opinion. He has the greatest reaction shots out of possibly any actor who ever lived. The way he just stares after certain characters speak is just remarkable and the director is smart enough to get his talent at this and tends to keep the shots going longer than what would usually be neccesary because of it. My favorite moment in the entire film is when at breakfast one if their daughters says "You can't squeeze blood out of a turnip" and Grant just stares at her looking so completely confused. He also has these weird little noises he makes as a reactionary habit as well and these are equally entertaining to watch. It is impossible not to be taken in by Cary Grant because he was brilliant and he is excellent here.

Myrna Loy is always a joy. Did you like that rhyme? Because I did. Seriously though, she is always more emotionally in control than Grant and it is really fun to watch her calmness in every scene. She has always been able to keep up and to be an equally essential part of an on screen duo (The Thin Man series) and she does that here as well. She makes everything look so effortless.

My favorite parts included the time the film took to show us the Blandings' morning routine. I really loved the two daughters and the breakfast scenes were actually my very favorite parts of the film. Something I really liked about it as well is that it reminded me of Father of the Bride. In that film there is also an established couple and while the events they are preparing for are different, both films involve the couple going through a certain process and meeting lots of people who will assist them in some way and running into all sorts of problems, particularly money ones. I love Father of the Bride so I liked that it reminded me of that.

Overall despite some issues I had with the film I did enjoy this very a lot mainly due to Cary Grant and Myrna Loy and their on screen chemistry and legendary talent.

The Black Room (1935): 6.5/10

2009-10-31T13:57:00.000-07:00

The Black Room (1935): 6.5/10

At first I did not know whether or not I was going to like this particular Boris Karloff film due to its very stilted dialogue in the beginning. It felt unfinished and confusingly unclear not ni plot but in moments. Then there was a scene about 20 minutes in when Boris Karloff is talking about a pear and I was hooked.

This 1935 Boris Karloff horror flick is set in past Czechoslovakia and concerns a twin set of Barons who are born and are expected at some point to the dismay of many to fulfill a prohecy in which the younger twin will kill the older twin. The film is about the events that set the prophecy into motion but not quite in the way we expect. The twins Anton and Gregor are played by Boris Karloff in a very meaty role between the two characters. Anton is the younger twin and the nicer one who has been gone for 10 years because of his fear that the prohecy would be fulfilled. He has spent his time studying and traveling. His right arm was also paralyzed since birth. The evil twin, Gregor was left to act as Baron and govern the people and he is pretty awful. He seems to be responsible for the dissapearance of many women and he's just an all around douche. Anyways Anton comes home because of a letter in which Gregor requests him to return. There is a girl named Thea as well played by Marian Marsh. So what did I think of this film? Overall I quite enjoyed it, especially once it got going. There is not anything really overtly scary in this but I do think that Karloff can be very terrifying and so the scares basically come from the ridiculous vibe of skeeviness that he puts on here. He does a fantastic job as both brothers. He felt genuine and naive as the nice one and like I said, ridiculously skeevy as the other one. The scary element or rather disturbing element of the story is the length that Gregor will go to secure his place with Thea. My favorite scenes were the ones when Gregor was pretending to be Anton. He does not play these scenes overtly but because we know it is Gregor, we read his delivery of lines completely differently and its very interesting to watch as a result.

Marian Marsh does a very nice job here. Her reaction to certain things felt very underwhelming but she had a way of delivering this one line that she had and it completely won me over with the creativity that she said that line with. There is also a small part played by Katherine DeMille, the adpoted daughter of Cecil B. DeMille who is a standout here. The film is decently shot but there are definitely 2 standout shots that I can think of that really impressed me.

I am becoming very quickly a HUGE fan of Karloff. Absolutely and completely superior to Lugosi in every way shape and form. There is no contest. I had only seen him in Frankenstein, Bride of Frankenstein, Scarface and of course as the narrator of How the Grinch Stole Christmas. I had not reallly seen him in the roles that involve his beautiful voice (which obviously I was aware of from the Grinch). Now since I have been watching some stuff with him I have become enthralled. After having seen him recently in this, The Old Dark House, Isle of the Dead, The Body Snatcher and Targets I can safely say he has earned a spot on my favorite actors list.

My last comment on this is that I really enjoyed that a dog played a really significant part in this. He is sort of the reason the film goes where it does which was random and amusing.

Overall while I did have some problems with the film, (rough start, villagers reacting to certain situations in stupid ways) Karloff makes it for me and the plot is quite intruiging on its own. Check this out if you ever stumble upon it. It's like an hour long.

Review: Paranormal Activity (2009): 7.1/10

2009-10-29T17:29:00.000-07:00

Paranormal Activity (2009): 7.1/10

I need to say a few things about this film before I get to the actual review. There is so much hype, so much calculated and planned hype that has been built around this film. I want to ignore it or try to for the sake of the review because while the marketing is brilliant, it is annoying and everyones reactions to it seems to be based off of the marketing of the film making everyone think this way before they even had seen the film. Looking at the film on these expectations; does it live up to them? Absolutely not. I do not want to judge this in comparison to the claims that it is the scariest film ever made; because it is not. It is far from being that. Based on these claims, the film is completely overrated and completely overhyped. However, if I look at the film without thinking about everything it has been built up to be by the marketing, I really really liked this a lot. I want to keep thinking about the film as its own entity and as a very impressive and creative use of essentially zero budget.

Two things first: 1. I did not see this in the theater. Before anyone can claim "well no wonder it was not one of the scariest movies you have seen if you did not see this in the theater" let me stop you right there. While scary movies are much scarier in the theater then they are while watching at home, a scary film should be able to have relatively the same reaction with people at home then on the big screen. It needs to be able to function and succeed without relying on the communal experience factor going for it. Most of the scariest films I have seen are films I have not seen in the theater. If it cannot match up to those films, then it does not belong on a list of my most frightening films. I am not saying the movie did not scare me. It creeped me out quite a bit.

Secondly the version of it that I saw had the original ending. After reading the new ending that was released in theaters (which proves that it was being prepped for a mass audience from the beginning) I can say that if I had seen that version my rating would be lower. Talk about stupid. While I had problems with the original ending as well, not in content but in style, the ending that I saw was of the classic nobody wins variety that I like to see. Personally though my favorite ending would be the one that was only shown at one screening. It is the ending that after reading about it, just having come off the movie, prevented me from sleeping for a good 15 minutes.

So as I have said before I am not judging this on the basis that it is one of the scariest movies ever made because for me it was not. I am judging it on the basis of whether or not I enjoyed the film. I am a fan of films like this; they do inherently draw me in. I think what the director and writer Oren Peli did with what he had to work with was very impressive and displayed a great deal of creativity on his part.

The film relies on anticipation to an insane degree but it works because the pay off, no matter how small it is, is satisfying based on how he builds the tension throughout the scenes. The film only has two people to really stay with as Micah and Katie provide us with the characters that we watch throughout the film. They, along with the homemade nature of the film ground it in a believability. When this subgenre of films is used, it is neccesary to get actors who can act as naturally as the style of the film calls for. This was an issue I had with Cloverfield; while the style was going for a level of authenticity, the acting was as stilted as any bad big budget film. This is a huge reason that the film that Paranormal Activity is being compared to, The Blair Witch Project (which deserves its status because without it, none of these other films would exist) works so well; the actors in it, particularly Heather Donahue were so good and you never felt like you were watching someone act. While Micah does a very nice job in an unlikeable role, Katie Featherston is extremely convincing here as Katie. She does a really nice job of drawing us into the story and of making us care about what happens to this couple.

Rather than focus on individual character development, Peli focuses on how they interact as a couple. This works well because it does help us care about Micah more when we see that they are happy as a couple at least until Micah gets out of hand with his priorities. It was very amusing to hear him squirm when Katie tells him that he is not in control of the situation; that IT is. "How dare you...blah blah blah" What an idiot. He does set his priorities straight by the end though...but it is too late.

For me the creepiest moments were the pattering footsteps and subsequent crash, the shadow on the door and of course the finale. While the movie is not incredibly scary, it is legitimately creepy in both its use of anticipation and its use of minimal effects. The lack of effects (obviously because of money) adds to the relatability factor that the movie carries which I think is extremely important. In another movie we would have seen a lot more and would probably have seen the demon at some point. The sounds and creepings about that the film shows us are all the types of squeaks and shadows that we think we see in real life. Little moments like that have terrified all of us in real life so taking those small goings on and allowing them to be parrt of an inescapable and random evil is very effective.

I am not looking forward to a sequel at all mainly because as I see it, the film did not end the way other people saw it. While I am intrigued to see what this director can do with a budget and I think he deserves the chance most definitely, I just do not want a sequel. At all.

Overall I really liked this a lot but I hate the hype and the marketing of it, brilliant as it is. It is not one of the scariest movies I have ever seen but it is quite effective and has stuck with me since my viewing of it last night.

Review: Treeless Mountain (2009): 6/10

2009-10-29T17:26:00.000-07:00

Treeless Mountain (2009): 6/10

This South Korean film about two sisters who have to learn to adapt to a new life is affecting but ultimately unsubstantial. 6 year old Jin and her sister 3 year old Bin live a comfortable and pleasant enough life with their mother.

Their mother goes off to try to deal with their father in a clearly complicated situation which the audience is kept out of the loop on. She brings them to their aunts place, the mothers' sister-in-law. She clearly cares for her children but finds herself in a situation that cannot be dealt with while her children are with her. The aunt is not depicted as a bad person by any means but is (nicely) shown as someone who is just as confused about how to deal with this new dynamic as the children are. She is nice to them overall but in many moments and scenes fails to display the patient understanding that is neccesary in dealing with the children and their ways of coping with the situation.

While the mother is not depicted as a bad person in the film (nobody is), she does something that very much frustrated me. Before she leaves she gives Jin and Bin a piggy bank and tells them that everytime they obey their aunt, the aunt will give them a coin and when the bank is filled, the mother will come back. Why would she say this to her kid? This was a painfully immature move on her part in that she apparently assumes that a 6 year old will not take this literally. So of course a huge chunk of the film is Jin and Bin trying to catch, cook and sell grasshoppers in an effort to fill up the bank which they do. I am just not sure why she would say this to her children. It goes beyond false hope.

The film rests on the performances of the children who not only carry the film but are the film. We are not really shown anyone else's perspctive and so the leads most importantly Jin must be emotionally resonant which she very much is. Hee-Yeon Kim is so beautiful and surprisingly moving in this film. We can see her trying to understand what is going on in her head and we can also see the emotions at work within her. Song-hee Kim as Bin is a nice contrast and companion for Jin but since she is 3 years old it is hard to comment on any sort of intentional performance going on. I can only say that she is filmed so that we can she that she is effected as well.

The film, which is all observational in tone) is nicely shot with a couple of outstanding shots which would constitute a favorite shots of the year list if only. While the film is interesting, moving and is carried well by the leads, ultimately it never really crosses into great territory. It is just a pretty good film. So in the end, its only flaw is that it is too mild to really cross the line into being great.

Review: A Serious Man (2009): 9.4/10

2009-10-29T17:21:00.000-07:00

A Serious Man (2009): 9.4/10

Out of the 45 films I have seen so far that have come out in 2009, my vote for the best of those goes to the Coen Brothers' bleakly hysterical A Serious Man.

Let's just get this out of the way; anybody who has a problem or is turned off by the Coen Brothers' extreme cynical worldview is going to hate this. Their cynicism is pushed as far as it can go with this film. This is cynicism and particularly their brand of it in its raw stripped down form. The film shows absolutely no hope for humanity and the shred of it towards the end which does occur is stomped out in the films' final moments. The claim that it may be their best film is not unfounded; it could be my favorite by them.

A Serious Man is basically a retelling of the story of Job. In this film, Job is represented by Larry Gopnik who played by theater actor Michael Stuhlbarg (this guy has a lot of presence. Fascinating to watch in every scene). The performance requires him to watch his life fall apart and he does a fantastic job of it. It is hard to pull off these lines for such a prolonged period of time and not become annoying as a character and he manages to maintain our sympathy (or at least mine) for him even though we wish he would try to do something more than be confounded with the extreme turn that his life takes. This leads him to begin questioning his faith and we see that in his desperate search for an answer as everything around him only gets worse.

For me it is very hard to review this film with a respectable amount of depth because there is so much packed into each scene that it would take many viewings to get a handle on this. Every character is simultaneously part of a pattern and rhythum that the Coens' have cooked up. Every recurring character (and there are many) adds to this built tension as it increases the stress in Larry's life. When they come back later in the film it is only to make the situation for Larry are dealing with worse.

The Jewish culture, religion and community play an essential role in this film. While there is a lot of thematic and soul crushing worldview stuff going on, they are also trying to recreate mid west Jewish suburbia in the 60's. While it is not something I can personally relate to, they create a clear and distinct portrait of how the 60's are dealing with two different worldviews clamoring for dominance. Someone I know has a father that grew up in this enviornment and he was really impressed with how accurate it was to his experiences.

Since at this point I really only have random bits and pieces of things to say since I have only seen this comlplicated picture once, I will delve off into some random thoughts.

There needs to be a shoutout to Fred Melamed for his truly memorable performance as Cy Abelman. His "calming" voice is discomfiting and knowingly deceptive and he plays the character with just the right amount of absurdity to make Larry's situation that much more confusing to him.

I really like that while the film is almost exclusively from Larry's perspective, the only other character to get an individual focus is his son Danny. We see that Danny is in the middle of conflicting world views as he struggles to juggle his familial obligations in preperation for his Batmitzvah and his instincts to be a normal kid who gets into trouble and to explore the changing world of the 60's. The recordings he listens to in his studies of the Torah are contrasted by the ever present music of Jefferson Airplane which represent the changes going on in the decade. It comes to a head in a fantastic pay off in the scene between Danny and Rabbi Marshak.

Something that works so well in this film even more so than their other films is that every scene that is saturated with these truly horrible and depressing perspectives and statements about life are so damn funny at the same time. The more depressing it is the funnier it is. The devastating hopelessness of this film is so successful in that it depressed me and it is all the more impressive that in each scene, the film managed to take me out of those emotions enough for me to be able to laugh at it all...and to be legitimately disturbed by its hopelessness. If that makes sense.

For anyone who did not get the end of No Country for Old Men, be prepared for an ending similar (only in that it leaves you staring at the screen after its end) to that film. But completely different as well.

Carter Burwell's scores are consistently haunting and have become an essential component to the Coen Brothers films and how they function in mood most prominently.

That might be all I have to say about this for now. I do think it is a film that needs to be seen more than once to fully comprehend ones thoughts on it in detail. When I was watching it though it became very clear that their are so many threads running through the film which are marked by characters entrances, exits and repeated occurances of entering and exiting after they have done slightly more damage to this man. Everything is weaved together beautifully. The person I went with saw it as being "a bit all over the place for them" and I can see that perspective but for me it is their most tightly scrpited film.

While I doubt A Serious Man will ever gain the cult status that The Big Lebowski has (overrated in my opinion) it has already gained a lot of momentum as being the film tha most accurately represents their worldview. This is a statement I agree with. I have my worries that this film could hurt them for the future. By this I mean that by after seeing a film that if neccesary can completely sum them up as filmmakers, where do you go from there? It does not get any bleaker than this film. There is no answer. There is no savior from doom. There is no control. It only gets worse. And all you can do is watch.

Push (2009) 3.1/10

2009-08-12T18:07:00.001-07:00

Push
3.1/10

As much as Push was a failure I did not hate it. There were things to admire about it. It was shot very nicely and the colors popped well despite the slapshot editing that basically counterbalances any impressions that are to be made from the cinematography itself. The cinematography does deserve a little credit though. The performances are not bad either. I have decided I don’t hate Chris Evans. I think, as much as I hate the character type he plays in Fantastic Four, he fits into that smug douchey douche character and Hollywood uses him for that but luckily he is not like that in this at all. While its not a performance that requires much from him, he gets the job done. Dakota Fanning is the one who I clung to in the film though. I am a fan of hers and she basically lights up the movie with her presence. Everyone does a nice job here except for Camilla Belle who is not quite bad; she just has the personality of a toaster. So all in all the actors are trying hard enough and Fanning puts in an entertaining performance. The effects blended in well with the rest of the film and did their job as opposed to being distracting to the film. That might not sound like much of a compliment I find this to be an issue with usually much higher quality films so believe that this is a huge compliment.

The problem does not lie in with the actual concept which, while undeniably unoriginal is also filled with potential. The problem, the fatal problem lies with the plot and the script, both of which are a mess. The plot decides to kick into high gear before we really know the players involved. It uses one dead parent and one unattainable parent as motives for two separate main characters. It never really stops to explain things clearly which is the big problem. There is a suitcase and drawings and a syringe and a girl and there are just too many things going on that really have no real purpose to them. Everyone needs to get there hands on the suitcase. Why? Well it has a syringe that could kill people with powers. Everyone needs it but why? I thought Division wanted to make them stronger and make an army. Then there is the one girl who survived the injection, Camilla Belle, whose character is never developed in the way we hope it will be. Again, as I said her personality leaves much to be desired and everything involving her feels unsuccessful. They try to help the plot make sense but the whole thing is just a mess. Everything is so urgent but you cannot explain why that is. I could not explain much of the plot to someone if I tried. This was the problem. This is why the film was not good.

As I said though, there was potential and there were things I liked. Cassie, the Dakota Fanning character was refreshing as she did not seem to fill any typical role. The dynamic between her and Nick, the Chris Evans character was interesting enough and attaching. I enjoyed Cassie’s drawings as well. I feel bad that they set up the end of the film to be ready for a sequel but I doubt that will happen. It is aggravating at the same time though because plot elements that they set up never become fully seen through which means that the film feels lazy as well as unfinished.

So in conclusion, Push was not good but I did enjoy it mildly even though I had no idea what was happening. Nothing was solid, the film felt like it went nowhere for 2 hours and essentially the film decided to stop 3 quarters of the way through in anticipation of a sequel. The plot was too extremely shoddy and it never gave the characters room to breathe enough as characters rather and necessities to a story. I will say this though, as a last note just to emphasize how much I mean it; I really truly enjoyed everything involving Dakota Fanning in this film.

Funny People (2009): 7.9/10

2009-08-10T19:20:00.000-07:00

Sorry it has been so long. So many reviews got overwhelming. From now on I plan on doing a weekly update and short review compliation of the films I've seen and seperate longer ones for 2009 films.

MODERATE SPOILERS

Funny People (2009) 7.9/10

“Funny People” is simply put, Apatow’s most effective and possibly the most flawed film of the three he has directed, the other two being The 40 Year Old Virgin and Knocked up. It is also clearly Apatow’s most personal film and I suspect actor Adam Sandler’s most personal film as well. Sandler and Apatow have been friends for many years and even roomed with each other during their days as struggling performers. The memorable first part of the opening credits of the film include real footage of those days in which Sandler prank calls people as Apatow films and with Janeane Garofalo in the room as well. Sandler’s and his character George Simmons both have a very similar status as actors. These are only a few of the reasons tat the film feels deeply personal.
The film is about a struggling stand up comedian Ira (Seth Rogen) who works at a deli to support him and lives with two friends. One is Leo (Jonah Hill), a more successful stand up comedian than Ira and Mark (Jason Schwartzman) an actor whose starring role on a terrible sitcom on NBC named “Yo Teach!” makes him think he is better than others. Mark represents the absurdity of ego in the film and TV industry and how little exposure one needs to develop a superiority complex in the business. In the meantime, George Simmons a former stand up comedian and A list actor with a lot of terrible movies under his belt, finds out that he has a form of leukemia and that his chances for survival are very slim. One thing leads to another and George is hiring Ira to write jokes for him.
The film then develops the extreme love-hate relationship George has with Ira, treating him well one second and like shit the next. It is not long before you get the feeling that Ira is really there so that George is not lonely and so he can also have someone to kick around to make himself feel better in his final days. George introduces Ira to the world of fame and it both appeals and repels Ira. Ira sticks around through all of George’s behavior towards him because he does care very much for him. In the meantime we learn about the girl who got away; Laura played by Leslie Mann. They were engages to be married when George cheated on her. She is now married to Clarke (Eric Bana) and has two kids. George becomes a part of her life again when she thinks that he is dying.
That is all I will say about the actual plot of the movie. George Simmons is easily the most developed character that Apatow has ever written as well as being the most impressive. I cannot quite shake the character as of yet. He is still with me which is probably not for the best. You don’t want this character stuck with you. At least I don’t. He is miserable. Not all the time. He is not one dimensional like that. Many others probably won’t feel this strongly about George. He is not a bad person. He is simply flawed. He is just full of self hatred whether it be on the surface or underneath at any given moment. There is a great loneliness always with him even when surrounded by people. The way that the film depicted the Hollywood lifestyle disturbed me with its realism. The way it can take someone like George Simmons and his inherent problems and loneliness and just leave a bigger hole; except this time around you can have anything or anyone you want and everyone loves you. Adam Sandler is remarkable here. It is not the kind of showy performance I expected as in something like “Reign Over Me”. He is not afraid to let the character be. I never felt like I was watching a performance. I feel like I was watching George Simmons. This freaked me out a bit. George is a sympathetic character nut is also someone who you probably would not want to spend much time with.
Seth Rogen’s Ira on the other hand is basically as likeable as it gets. There is not an unlikable bone in this character’s body. Yet he is still nicely individualized. He balances George and Rogen gives a more restrained and thoughtful performance here and shows a maturity in his acting capabilities. Everyone is excellent in the film and everyone fills their roles well, especially Eric Bana as Laura’s husband Clarke.
The film’s main flaw is that it is overlong. I was never bored but I did feel the film drag in several spots. This movie does not need to be two and a half hours. It by no means ruined the movie for me but it is a significant problem. It is as if Apatow thought that the option of deleted scenes on a DVD did not exist. It was either that the scene went in the film or it would never be seen by anyone. It takes nearly an entire movie length itself for the Leslie Mann character to be fully integrated into the story. That is an issue. There was too much of a focus on lending to the realism in the movie with star cameos. It did its job well but scenes featuring Andy Dick and Eminem did not feel worth the realism in comparison to the length it added. There was also too much with Jonah Hill and Jason Schwartzman. While I love them both dearly and both were great, their screen time should have been cut by at least 10 minutes. With little trimmings here and there I do believe that film could have been comfortable and had the same impact at 2 hours.
That is really the only outright complaint I have. I felt that Daisy, the love interest for Ira was nice but at the same time she is just not a very engaging character. Daisy is also a stand up comedian who for whatever reason has no sense of humor in real life seemingly because she is a woman and she barely has a personality to boot. Yet I liked her because I felt there was potential for an interesting character. There were also times when I felt that it was a little confusing about who knows about George’s condition and how up to date people are on where he is at.
I have mentioned about how impressed I was about the realism that Apatow puts into the film.. I felt every moment with George knowing about his impending death. How one deals with information like that has been handled on assumedly lesser works such as The Bucket List and Last Holiday. Here it felt all too real, to the point where it forces us or at least it did me, to be terrified if ever I have to deal with information of that weight. As I said before the way Hollywood fame, wealth and life is depicted is all too real. The way women are seen in that world was very realistic and also sad. The women who just want to sleep with celebrities are everywhere and they are in this film and you see how being surrounded by that all of the time would impact the way someone sees women which is extremely saddening and disturbing. The way the film addresses commitment and an inability to change ones circumstances at a certain point or at least the potential consequences of a life change can have is quite depressing. Finally the idea that two people can be meant for each other and at the same time not meant for each other is something heavily explored by the end of the film which I commend it for.
While “Funny People” is flawed due to the unnecessary scenes leading to over length, the film is the most accomplished of Apatow’s works. Overall it is very much worth seeing because of its refreshing complexity in its handling of the story itself. All of the performances but especially Adam Sandler’s truly layered work as George Simmons acts as a strong reason to go see this. While “Funny People” may be funny, I did not leave that theater laughing. In its last scene it has a sort of conventional ending but in other ways it isn’t. Nevertheless though, I still left the theater not knowing what to do with my life. Granted I am more affected by films than most others but that does not mean that this film was all laughs. That also does not mean that the film is not worth seeing. It is.

Who's Killing the Great Chefs of Europe? (1978): 6.8

2009-05-28T18:15:00.000-07:00

Who’s Killing the Great Chefs of Europe? (1978)
Grade: 6.8

I highly enjoyed this. It is definitely slow and has a few characters that it takes some time to get used to. However due to a brilliant performance by Robert Morley and a dark comedic sensibility this movie is quite entertaining. George Segal’s character is quite annoying at first but in the end I actually somewhat cared about his and Jacqueline Bisset’s characters relationship. Its been a while since I watched this but I loved the scene in which all of the potentially best chefs from France get together for a meeting. It was evident immediately who the killer was. Still fun though. Basically the main reason I enjoyed this was because it was consistently entertaining with unique bits of humor and a really good cast. I wish I had more to say but honestly, I watched about 25 movies since this one. It’s a little light in my memory. I do know though that it was better than most of the movies I have watched this summer and I am finally glad I have seen it after 5 years of having it on Amanda and I’s list of movies to watch.

Monster on the Campus (1958): 3.5

2009-05-28T17:25:00.000-07:00

Monster on the Campus:
Grade: 3.5

These grades try to be a mix of how enjoyable it was and how good the film was quality wise. These kinds of films are the hardest to judge ; the ones that really are terrible but in such a fun way how can you fault it? It is always risky watching one of the scifi/monster movies of the 50’s because they could either be great in both a genuinely good way, bad in the best way possible or bad in the worst way possible. There are a lot of these types of films that can be really truly bad in that they are quite boring. Monster on the Campus probably would have suffered greatly if I had been watching it alone but I wasn’t and thus I had a great time with this. I do not even know what to give it because it is not good. But it was a blast to watch. I was crying at one point from laughing. It is ridiculous enough to be a fun watch in a way that merits a grade above the worst possible grade. I bought this from Video Visions. I was not ready to let go of the memory. I even don’t even know what to say about this movie. An axe gets thrown into someone’s face at one point which completely threw me off guard. The main character cannot figure out that he is the one attacking people even though all signs point to him and he is blacking out and coming to with torn clothes. The professors’ classes are about the eventual destruction of humanity. The way he handles the fish. The girl dying of “fright” even though the monster is a fucking monster. So many brilliant moments to be had here. Overall this was obviously terrible but one of the most unintentionally funny movies I’ve seen in a long time.

“Jimmy would know his own dog”

Quartet (1948): 9.0/10

2009-05-28T16:49:00.000-07:00

Quartet (1948)
Grade: 9.0

The only awesome thing it terms of legitimate quality that Amanda and I have watched besides Cousins. What a breath of fresh air this was. And vignettes to boot! I ended up buying this from Video Visions actually. W. Somerset Maugham introduces the film which includes 4 short stories, collectively known as Quartet, each done by a different director, each a half an hour. This British film literally has everything going for it; its’ only flaws are a false feeling ending to the third story, an almost universal hatred towards women and a corny at times introduction and conclusion by Maugham himself (but it’s so deliciously random that I cannot fault it).

Each story contains a unique story in which the modesty within is so charming. The first story called “The Facts of Life” involves three wonderful surprises. The first is that at first one thinks that the story is going to be about an old man whereas it is actually about that man’s son. The story revolves around a young man going to Monte Carlo for a tennis tournament and the son’s experiences with the things that the father warns him against. The second surprise is that the old man tells his son to stay away from gambling, lending people money and women. Since the father warns the son about three things, we have no idea which is going to take the lead in the trouble that he will get into. The third surprise is that the father’s perspective is somewhat skewed and his worry at the events of the story are misleading which leads to a delightful ending. Overall this story surprised me in many lovely ways which felt refreshing overall and its’ protagonist Ralph is adorable and likeable.

The second story, my personal favorite titled confusingly, at least to me, “The Alien Corn” is about an aspiring pianist played by a young Dirk Bogarde whose uptight family makes a deal with him upon hearing about his desired profession; live in Paris for two years as he wishes with a small allowance to develop his skills. After that, a trained professional will listen to him play and their his/her opinion will be the deciding factor to whether or not he has any potential as a first class pianist. If yes, he can continue; if not he has to give up his profession. He agrees and…well I won’t tell you what happens. It all coincides with a subplot involving his cousin being in love with him and her efforts to discuss the matter. However, he is so wrapped up in his potential career, he never even notices her being around. This story was my favorite, only slightly because of its hinted upon complexities and the really impressive levels of the story that are available to be read into by viewers. Creepy incest aside, fantastic half an hour.

The third story, “The Kite” was my least favorite only because of the end which I really hated. Apparently if I remember correctly, it is supposed to be the narrators’ idea of how the story might have ended but I do not even care if it was an interpretation. I hated it. The character of Betty is also The Devil. Holy god what an evil woman. My lack of sympathy for the characters because of their supposed love even though they don’t know what the others hobbies are until they get married made me care less. I really loved the introduction of the story though and how they make you completely sympathetic towards Herbert after hearing the story. Even though that seems contradictory to what I said before, Herbert is somewhat sympathetic given the situation if only because the other characters are just not sympathetic.

The fourth story was an absolute delight mainly because of the utter awesomeness of the female character Mrs. Peregrine. I also liked that the story is told from the Colonel’s point of view starting with his lack of fascination to his annoyance to his stubbornness to his paranoia all leading up to the revealing confrontation he has with his wife that will hopefully start them on the road to a better marriage.

Overall I had very few problems with this film; all of them quite minor in retrospect. This was an utter delight of a film with four stories that all offered something different to the overall product. A refreshing relatively obscure gem.

Don't Tempt Me (Sin Noticias De Dios) (2001): 5.2/10

2009-05-28T15:44:00.000-07:00

Don’t Tempt Me (Sin Noticias De Dios) (2001):
Grade: 5.2

Don’t Tempt Me was a curious film. That’s the word I’d use to describe it. Curious. It’s a high concept sort of film with a stellar cast and a very incomplete world with missing pieces and unexplained concepts. I enjoy the idea. It’s abstract in execution and interesting to boot. But it seems incomplete. That’s a complaint I have about many of the films I watched during Amanda and I’s grueling 16 movie marathon. They feel incomplete. So many things happened which felt unexplained or undeveloped. The world had interesting concepts but never took the time to give us enough exposition on things. Again, there are movies in which lack of exposition and explanation work for a film; this is not one of them. The concept was simply too ambitious for the filmmakers.

Another major problem with the film is that the character of Manny, to me was totally uninteresting and undeveloped. His character is probably the most important in the film. Yet, I could not give a shit about him and I think that this is a major problem. The only interest he invoked in me was from the actor Demian Bichir aka Estaban from Weeds. I really really enjoy watching him whenever I see him but I just had no interest in Manny and I think it severely hindered the film.

Let us talk about the good stuff. Basically all of the main characters other than Manny (Lola, Carmen, Marina and Jack) felt very distinct and memorable. Its not an easy thing to accomplish and while their character development is questionable, their distinctness is not and I highly enjoyed the other memorable characters in the film. Penelope Cruz oozed presence and I absolutely fell in love with the twist involving her character at the end. I should have seen it coming; it was so so so obvious looking back but I just was not anticipating any sort of twist with this film and thus was not looking for one. Victoria Abril was delightful as well as Lola. Fanny Ardant is just the coolest woman around so she was great as the CEO of Heaven and Gael was good as well when speaking in Spanish as Davenport. He was doing something weird with his voice when he was speaking in English.

The general conception of Heaven and Hell were very interesting and something that I personally enjoyed to watch. Again it was when it went beyond the visual and extremely basic rules involving these two abstractions that things became very muddled. Overall there were moments and scenes and ideas and characters and performances I loved. But the film never came together as a completely successful work due to lack of development and likability in relation to a pivotal character, undeveloped and overly ambitious concepts, plot unevenness and more. I still was interested throughout the film though and am happy that I saw it.

Somewhere in Time (1980): 4.0

2009-05-24T14:00:00.002-07:00

Somewhere in Time (1980):

Grade: 4.0

Did you know that if you think about going back in time hard enough it can happen? Yeah this is what I have learned from Somewhere in Time, a time travel romance film starring Jane Seymour and Christopher Reeve. Sounds intriguing right?

One of the problems I have with so many romance films are how quickly two people can fall in love. That is represented here only so much worse than I’ve ever seen it done before. Well that’s not true but it’s at the top. Basically before Christopher Reeve even goes back in time he believes that the Jane Seymour character is who he is meant to be with. So it is because he figures this is his destiny that I honestly feel that she could have been anybody and he would have fallen in love with her because he believed that it had happened that way in the past. So he went back in time ready to love her. And that frankly is extremely annoying. Personally I very much enjoyed the movie as entertainment and I really enjoyed the feel of it and the originality of it. My problems were that Jane Seymour did not seem to have a character and neither did Reeve. They were not fleshed out as individuals or as a couple and thus I did not care about them. The film wanted me to think everything was so epic but that cannot happen when you have characters that essentially have nothing to them. The film looked really nice and I loved the costumes but these characters just had nothing to them.

Then we had the penny reveal. The absolutely ridiculous penny reveal. Everything was going okay and then all of a sudden the scariest most intense shot of a penny in the history of the cinema took place and then Christopher Reeve loses his time traveling abilities and starves himself to death. The End. Seriously. The End. What the hell movie was I watching for the last 15 minutes? I have no idea. It was crazy. And ridiculous. And since the movie never made me believe in the slightest about their romance it have no weight for me except for making me completely confused. So overall I was entertained, the costumes were great, the idea was great and the actors were charismatic but the story

1969 (1988): 5.5/10

2009-05-23T18:43:00.000-07:00

1969 (1988):
Grade: 5.5

What a dream cast this had. This movie could have been total and absolute shit and I would have loved it. Why? It has Robert Downey Jr., Kiefer Sutherland and Winona Ryder in 1988. Like I said; dream cast. I would have to say that the best part of the film were the opening credits. Absolutely incredible opening credits. From then on the movie has really great moments and really not great moments. A lot of the film was sort of ridiculous and hard to take seriously in that some of the characters did not have clear arcs and the film was too obvious about being set in the 60s with the whole freedom thing. I understand why Sutherland’s character is annoyingly enthusiastic about the time period. I’m sure a lot of people were and I’m sure a lot of people were annoying. The problems I had with the film was, again not enough development. Robert Downey Jr.’s character barely had an arc. I wanted to know more about Downey Jr and Ryder’s mother played by the reliably insane Joanna Cassidy. I wanted to know more about Sutherland’s parents. I felt that they could have been much more fleshed out especially because Dern and Hartley give really good performances.

What I did like about it though was the presence and charisma of the actors. The cast makes this movie. Sutherland is really fantastic in this playing an against type sort of role as a kid who is trying to find his identity while living through the 60’s as he wavers between what kind of person he might want to be. I just adore Kiefer and I really truly was impressed with his performance in this. Even though Robert Downey Jr. is criminally underused. He is supposed to be a main character and yet they never truly do anything with him. And Winona Ryder, early adorable awesome beautiful Winona Ryder. I love her so much. And her character Beth is great. I loved Sutherland and Ryder’s relationship. I was legitimately attached to them. And they might be the prettiest couple ever.

I was totally entertained throughout the film. Completely and utterly entertained. The cast left a lot of presence in the film to be had and added more than there was in the script for them. But overall the movie seemed to be a draft of what would have been the final film. There was a lot of potential here as well but things left…unfinished and not fully fleshed out. I’m so glad I watched it finally though since I had been meaning to see it ever since I wrote my biography on Winona Ryder for school in 5th grade.

“Well these things were in the refrigerator and now they’re not”…eofihg dkshjf ksdhf!!!

Merry Christmas, Mr. Lawrence (1983): 5.3/10

2009-05-23T18:06:00.002-07:00

Merry Christmas Mr. Lawrence
Grade: 5.3

I have no idea what I thought of this. I was interested in some of this. The beginning and other parts. I do not even know how to describe this movie. It had a lack of focus to it even though it seemed to have one in the beginning. I never felt that Colliers (Bowie) stay at the POW camp was solidified in its depiction which is basically what the movies success hinges on and I think it fails in this area. It also fails to show me a significant friendship between Colliers and Lawrence which the film seems to think it had developed.

It is very disappointing because if the middle section of the film had been done well I feel that this would have been a great movie. All of the characters are interesting especially Takeshi Kitano as Sergeant Hara. All four of the main characters were interesting; Colliers, Lawrence, Yonoi and Hara. I just felt that the character connections and the story were mildly there or not fully developed and it was disappointing since the film showed so much promise. I also enjoyed the flashback to Colliers’ childhood greatly but the problem with that was that the issues of the other parts of the film prohibit this section from making any sort of sense. A lot of this was too ambiguous for me. I don’t mind ambiguity but for a film like this I think there could have been a bit more solidity to it. I also felt like the movie did not know when to end. There was a lot of great stuff at the end but it just kept going. I think the image I will take the most from this movie is David Bowie buried up to his head in sand as he dehydrates to death. I cannot deny how haunting that image was. I think I found this film one of the most frustrating that Amanda and I have watched because I saw so much potential in it. There is a lot of great here but nothing to really connect any of it with a completely coherent story. Apparently this film is very well respected and is considered to be quite good. Oshima is a big deal. But for me I wish I saw the greatness others saw in this film. Again, I saw greatness in it and there are really fantastic characters here but there is not enough focus for a film that seems to think it as focus.

Magic in the Mirror (1996): 0.4/10

2009-05-22T09:30:00.001-07:00

Magic in the Mirror (1996):
Grade: 0.5

I cannot describe how painful this movie was to watch. I was so excited for it based on the cover and the idea that mid 90’s fantasy films should all be awesome based on time period alone. I was wrong. I have no idea how they managed to make this film so boring. And actively awful. Not one character in this movie is remotely likeable. They are all stupid and horrifyingly annoying. The only entertaining thing about this movie was the villainous man-fowl/Drake things. I have no idea what they were. And the only reason they were entertaining was because of how absolutely creepy and weird they were. They drink tea and human boiled tea is a delicacy. I am not making this up. The shots of the Drakes flying were my favorite because it was literally just the actors flapping their arms and standing in front of a green screen. No wires, no nothing. I hate this movie so much because it should have been good. Or at the very least entertaining. But no. This movie was absolutely painful to get through. Painfully awful. Painfully everything. Just awful. The main kid was bad; everyone was bad. Its boring as fuck. Nothing happens in it. What an awful mother Mary Margaret has. Yet she totally changes. Bella and Donna sacrifice themselves and are boiled into tea? Mary makes a wooden sculpture of a mallard that looks like Mrs. Mallard her principal. Personally the character I liked the most or rather the character I liked was the dead grandmother who is dead long before the film begins and yet she was my favorite. OMG I HATE THIS MOVIE!!!

Oblivion (1994): 5.1

2009-05-22T08:56:00.003-07:00

Oblivion (1994):
Grade: 5.1

It is hard to judge an intentionally campy film. Its goal is to make a fun and extremely campy film. Does it succeed? I would say it does. So…how to judge? It is the year 3031 I believe and basically the planet that the film takes place on is like the Old West. A reptile alien guy called Red Eye takes over the town and Zach Stone, the departed sheriff’s son and also a pacifist comes back to town to help defeat Red Eye. There are so many other things going on here. The enjoyment of the film is how it does not take itself seriously at all. It is the little things in this movie. The supporting characters make this for me. There is Julie Newmar as Miss Kitty making multiple references to her role as the original Catwoman as she makes random hissing noises. George Takei plays a drunken doctor/inventor/dentist who literally makes no sense throughout the film. He is hilarious in this movie. Carel Struycken plays Gaunt, the funeral man who arrives before people die because he can sense when and where someone will die. He was my favorite character. I think his casting had a lot to do with his iconic role as the Tall Man on Twin Peaks as his character only appeared in Cooper’s dreams as he forebodingly alluded to events to come. The roles are similarly fantastical. Meg Foster also creates a memorable character as cyborg Stell Barr and then we have Red Eye played by Mikhail aka Patchy from Lost (!) and Lash his dominatrix girlfriend. And Buteo the Native American. And Issac Hayes. I do not know what to say about the film. I had fun with it and I was taken in by its unique brand of campy. It was a blast to watch. And I did not feel like it was trying too hard. Well it was trying really hard but the point is that it worked. And isn’t that what’s most important about a movie like this?

Cousins (1989): 8.0

2009-05-21T21:08:00.000-07:00

Cousins (1989)
Grade: 8.0

What a pleasant surprise this was. A romance film starring Ted Danson and Isabella Rossellini? How could this work? The back of the film suggested that the film was about two people who are now cousins through a marriage within the two families and their spouses that cheat on the two main characters with the other person. This is true but the back also says that the two main characters deliberately pretend that they are having an affair to get back at their spouses and that hilarity ensues. This is totally false. The y never do this. Only in one scene do they pretend this. The film is actually a dramedy about these two characters and their special friendship through the circumstances in which they meet. As they develop their friendship they acknowledge that they love each other but they do not want to act on it because of the consequences. There is much more to the film other than this. First of all, the spouses of both Ted Danson and Isabella Rossellini played by Sean Young and William Petersen, get their own stories as well. They are not evil people. Well, William Petersen basically is but even he is not completely one note in this film. We get a subplot involving Danson’s son and father. There is a lot to be had here.

I seriously completely and utterly enjoyed this film. I thought that the chemistry between Danson and Rossellini was fantastic as well as both of their performances. My favorite thing about the film is the care and time that was put into their friendship and subsequent relationship. There are so many couples in films are hopefully to be couples that I could not care less about because the time and care put into them is so minimal and unoriginal and the actors often have little chemistry. Cousins got me completely invested in these two characters. In fact whenever I remake my Couples list, Maria and Larry are going on it. And quite high. They were adorable and unique. And I read that one person called it refreshing because it was a relationship focused on love and not sex and it is so true. These two have a mental and personal connection much before a physical one and this helps the movie greatly. I absolutely love these two characters and their relationship and I loved the amount of time that was spent on Young and Petersen’s character as well. Between the plots involving Danson’s son and grandfather (played by Lloyd Bridges and Keith Coogan) we get a well rounded look at relationships between generations as well.

The movie is not perfect. The big flaw is that I did not feel like we got a good enough look at the normality between the two couples before everything between Danson and Rossellini gets started. I think this would have helped us understand the original couple dynamics a bit more outside of the really basic on the surface information. Other than that, I loved the pacing, the acting and the characters. I loved this movie. I think it is so underrated and I cannot believe I am saying that about a Joel Schumacher film.

Satisfaction (1988): 1.7/10

2009-05-21T20:46:00.001-07:00

Satisfaction (1988)
Grade: 1.7

Oh boy..where do I begin? One of my biggest weaknesses when it comes to watching films is the concept of the girl group dynamic. Any movie featuring a group of girls whether it be good (Little Women) or something I grew up on (Now and Then, The Babysitters Club) or something bad (this film) is something I am always entertained by. So when a shitty movie like this comes along I am always going to be entertained by a film featuring a group of girls. This film depicts a group of four girls and one guy and their rock band as they spend a summer playing at a beach resort.
This movie was a total flop when it came out. It is not supposed to be good. At all. And its’ not. Each of the four girls is entertaining. Justine Bateman plays the main girl of the film, Jennie Lee who is, well, I have no idea what her characters traits are. She’s kind of tough? She is brave? I have no idea. She falls in love with the man who hired them to play at the resort who is older, played by Liam Neeson (yes, that Liam Neeson). They sort of form a relationship? It is never clear. He might love her? Or he does not? Or something? It seriously is never clear how devoted to each other the other one is especially Neeson. In fact their last conversation in the film which is supposed to be the scene that makes it clear how Neeson felt about her, ends up being extremely confusing. Then we have Trini Alvarado who I adore as Mooch, the tough one of the group. She gets into fights with gangsters and steals their vans? She gets into a relationship with the bands keyboard player, Nicky. They look at each other a few times during the film, Jennie Lee asks Mooch about it at one point and she denies it and then Nicky and Mooch have a conversation; they kiss and are together the rest of the film. It actually is quite cute and it is only cute because of the actors. The script gives their relationship and more importantly the build up to it absolutely no development whatsoever. Then we have Billy played by the gorgeous and awesome Britta Philips, later of the band Dean and Britta. She is really laid back and likes to pop pills? She smokes pot? She becomes attached to Neeson’s dog? There is one scene where she OD’s, they intervene and yell at her about it afterwards for literally 20 seconds and the issue is never brought up again. Then there is Daryle played by Julia Roberts on the brink of stardom at this point. She likes boys? She is engaged? She….I have no idea. Seriously no idea what her character was about. She was adamant about marrying Frankie then literally within the same conversation she nonchalantly decides not to and the issue is not brought up again.

These scenes that convey this almost nonexistent level of development are joined by scenes of the girls playing their songs for the bar that they work at. Their band really sucks and the only entertaining parts of these scenes are watching Britta. Then we have a random Debbie Harry cameo in which she has two lines as…Neeson’s sometimes lover? It is so unclear. Of course there is the lovely scene when the gang comes back to get Mooch and Billy for stealing their van which ends in…..an anticlimactic arrest of the gang members? Liam Neeson’s character drinks a lot for whatever reason. Bateman runs in the sand and screams “You’re lying!!!!! Wahehw.kfhedfkdfh!!!!” which was brilliant. Billy talks to the dog on the sand. Daryle has sex in the van with Frankie for a day? I seriously have no idea what happened in this movie. I was entertained certainly but the lack of a coherent story, absolute minimal to nonexistent development and just all around absence of any sort of focus or basis make this movie a bomb. However the performances of the actresses and Neeson, while neither particularly good nor bad, carry a presence and a chemistry to them which makes the film at least semi fun to watch.

Taken (2009): 6.1/10

2009-05-21T20:09:00.001-07:00

Taken:
Grade: 6.1

I had a blast watching Taken. Do not get me wrong; I thoroughly enjoyed this movie. My issue with it is that without Liam Neeson what would this movie be? I mean there are definitely other points of merit here which I will get to. The reason that this movie works though, and yes I am saying that I think the film works, is because of Liam Neeson. He is not the person you would expect to see in a role like this but it works so perfectly because for one you can take him completely seriously as a former spy in the film. The second reason and this is the important one; Neeson can immediately make you care about him and his character and his situation. Even during the set up sequences when you see that yes, he is a father who is trying to form a solid relationship with his daughter finally, you care completely. I was literally completely on this man’s side within 2 minutes. If you had someone else in the role, it would not have felt the same. There would be no emotional weight. Neeson carries the acting skills and the sympathy with him to make this movie a success.

Maggie Grace really works well here as well even though I cannot believe we are expected to believe she is 17 since I’ve was watching her on Lost 5 years ago and she was supposed to be older than that even there. Either way, her chemistry with Neeson is great and she has always known how to act in peril very well so the matchup works.

The second main reason that the film works is the pacing. This movie is 90 minutes, goes by even faster than that. Yet it still takes a good chunk of the movie to set everything up. I expected to get everything going within 15 minutes but the movie seems to take a good half an hour to set everything up and I loved that. Between this and the skills of Neeson, I cared about the plot. Once everything gets going, the pace really gets going and it really is a nonstop ride.
While it is nonstop, the action scenes did not excite me really and there are a couple of reasons. One is that I rarely become excited during action scenes. The film has been compared to the Bourne films but those films excite me in a way Taken could never dream of. The second is that, and I think this is both a flaw and a good thing; there is never any doubt that Neeson’s character Bryan will find the people and will succeed. The only aspect of the film that could give us any doubt is that he is a retired spy and might be a little out of practice. Other than that, which I did not see as something the film pushed, there is never a question of whether or not Bryan is going to succeed. Bryan is never thwarted by anyone in this film. He knows what he is doing the whole time. The one time he is stopped, he gets out of the situation so quickly and kills everyone in the room. So while this may be a flaw of the film, it also makes Bryan pretty much the coolest character ever and it funnels all of the anticipation from the audience from whether he will succeed to being excited about when he in fact will kill everyone.

So Bryan is fucking brutal. He will not simply injure anyone; he is always aiming to kill and when he has the opportunity to leave someone alive, he always kills them. This is probably not the best message to send and I was surprised that in this way, it was more anti authority than 24. However I cannot deny that these men all deserved death and it was just so satisfying to see Bryan kill everyone.

I cannot think of anything else to say about the film at this time because I am writing this paragraph 3 days after having written the rest of the review. Overall, the movie works because of pacing and the brilliant casting of Liam Neeson as Bryan Mills. While I still think most episodes of 24 are more exciting than this film was, I found myself interested throughout and certainly entertained.

Sliding Doors (1998): 5.6/10

2009-05-19T08:57:00.000-07:00

Sliding Doors (1998)

Grade: 5.6/10

I had been meaning to see Sliding Doors for a very long time. Sure the concept was gimmicky but that did not stop me from wanting to see it. Basically in the end I thoroughly enjoyed myself. Is it a great movie? No. There are definitely issues with it. One is that I never felt Gwenyth Paltrow’s character has a distinct personality at all. Since we see her throughout the movie dealing with two different situations, characterization is sacrificed for the concept. Yeah she is strong, was a notable PR worker and…well that’s all I got. She clearly has tolerance since her boyfriend throughout one of the stories does nothing all day even though he’s “writing his first novel”. She supports him and I guess just deals with him being a lazy douche. For me another issue was that it was hard for me to keep track by the end. My mother and best friend were pretty good with that part of the film so I guess I was having a dumb day.

The good stuff? I enjoyed the two stories as parallels. Each complimented itself with the other and brought additional interest when looked at the other. In fact it is only as parallels that these stories are enjoyable and that might be where the real problem lies. If you are getting bored with one story you do not have to worry because pretty soon you will be watching a different story. Even though I truly enjoyed the film I cannot deny that each of the stories separately offers absolutely nothing new to the romantic film genre. They each have good scenes on their own, but if you take one of the stories as one film, it does not work at all. Which in conclusion means it relies too much on its gimmick.

As I said before, there are good things about the movie. One is that I personally had a lot of fun watching it despite its flaws. While I find the way Paltrow does her English accent kind of phony even if it’s good, I still think Paltrow during this period of her career has an energy and presence that makes the film very watchable. All of the performances are good. John Hannah is an interesting choice for the love interest but he and Paltrow had chemistry that I bought and he was enjoyable to watch as well. John Lynch does a great job as the boyfriend who is unwillingly as he would put it cheating on Paltrow. I think seeing some stuff from his point of view and knowing where he was coming from even if it did not excuse him made him the most unique character in the film for me. Instead of trying to give Jeanne Tripplehorn’s character a perspective, they just decided it was easier to make her evil incarnate with a penchant for going off on ridiculous extended metaphors.

A few other observations:
- It is pretty annoying how unaware she is in one of the stories that he is cheating on her considering how horrible this guy is at covering for himself.
- John Hannah’s character, while charming, basically extends to being the nice guy as Tripplehorn’s extends to being total bitch.
- Lydia appearing at the window; what the hell is with this woman?
Other notes are that the multiple references to Monty Python got annoying, the soundtrack was pretty bad but lovingly wreaked of late 90’s, I liked Paltrow’s friend in the film. I also enjoyed that as we past the hour mark I was very confused as to what was going to happen in the rest of the film. So overall, while I personally enjoyed watching the film and I certainly o not think it is a bad film, it is hard to deny that the film’s success is essentially directly because of the concept and the star presence of Paltrow.

Frankenhooker (1990) Grade - .3

2009-05-15T12:26:00.001-07:00

Frankenhooker (1990)
Grade: .3

Apparently this is supposed to be the B-movie to end all B-movies. It’s one of those films that came out in the late 80’s early 90’s that prides itself on being purposely bad. It embraces its’ low budget and creates something purposely campy and tasteless for our enjoyment in the hopes that it will become a cult classic. Well, it has become a cult classic but that does not mean it is good. This movie flat out sucks. I see what it is trying to do but for me personally it fails. For many reasons. Thankfully I was watching this and many other films with Amanda which made the experience of watching it enjoyable which at least is something I can take from it. At least someone else shared in my pain. I had been meaning to see this for years. Let us get started.
The entire first hour is set up. Elizabeth is run over by a lawnmower that Jeffrey Franken, her husband, made. He is a scientist I guess; I really have no idea though. SO she dies in the first 5 minutes. In that time we learn about how she is apparently fat and Patty Mullen, the former Penthouse Pet who plays her is clearly wearing a fat suit and a very unconvincing one at that. Her acting as Elizabeth reads more poorly than a bad soap star but as we will see later it is her performance as Frankenhooker that will bring about the highlight of the film and the one of two very slightly redeeming factors that the movie has to offer.

The film has the right tone. Amanda mentioned it being similar in tone with Dead Alive which is so true. It’s that low budget campy uncomfortable feeling that films of this nature emit. The difference is that Dead Alive is all possible kinds of awesome and Frankenhooker is all possible kinds of suck. A lot of it is because the film is just boring and unfunny. Like I said the first hour is set up and the movie is only 85 minutes. I am going to have to say that the biggest or most overt reason that I hated the movie was because of James Lorinz as Jeffrey. This guy is annoying, boring, obnoxious and just totally unappealing and uninteresting. He is a hybrid of Andrew McCarthy (only awful) and Randall from Clerks (only awful). Since the first hour of the film is essentially Jeffrey talking to himself, you at least need someone that is interesting to watch and funny if the movie decides it is going to rely solely on him. This leads to the other big problem which is the screenplay which has absolutely nothing going for it. It takes way too short a time for Elizabeth to die and then it takes way too long a time for Jeffrey to set his plan in motion because he spends so much time talking to himself and going over the plan in his head and developing his ideas. Then the movie dissolves into a really annoying segment in which Jeffrey examines in detail all of the whores that he buys to he can figure out the one with the perfect body for Elizabeth. I was fully prepared for this movie to be completely tasteless but oh my god this scene lasted like 15 minutes no joke. Also apparently whores are ridiculously vicious and only care about crack, money and cock. Lovely. So anyways finally they all take super crack and explode. Yes you read that right. Then he creates Elizabeth finally. And this part contains really the only goodness in the film. Compared to the rest of the movie, the segments with Elizabeth came like a breath of fresh air. Even though they basically were just comprised of Elizabeth having the combined mind of the whores and repeating lines that the whores said earlier in the film and then making men explode (3 to be exact) when they either kiss, fuck or go down on her. I was also disappointed that all of the deaths were a result of explosions but not even bloody gross explosions, just explosions. It was underwhelming. Then Elizabeth becomes herself and Jeffrey and her talk and Zorro the pimp comes and cuts his head off and then Zorro is taken by the fused body parts of the remaining body parts which was actually the coolest part of the movie. It felt slightly Cronenbergesque which is always appreciating on some level. Then Elizabeth resurrects Jeffrey but because he can only resurrect females, he comes back with a female body that Elizabeth made for him and the film ends with him screaming as he discovers this. The End. The last ten minutes were by far the best part of the movie; by far. The female body on Jeffrey made me feel like I was watching an adult version of Weinerville so that was cool. I liked Patty Muller as Frankenhooker because in these scenes she actually went for it. She was not afraid to look stupid and it paid off in the only way being in a movie like this could; she made me chuckle to myself a couple of times. I mean she is still awful but I appreciate the effort and she was entertaining to watch. In the meantime outside of this and the last 10 minutes this movie was for me a failed attempt to actually be what it wanted to be. It had the tone, the ridiculous concept, the nudity, the bad acting, the short run time. But it was boring, unfunny, annoying, trying too hard and ultimately a complete failure.

Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1994): 3.6/10

2009-05-11T15:48:00.000-07:00

Mary Shelley's Frankenstein (1994)

Grade: 3.6/10

Frankenstein, written by the absurdly young at the time Mary Shelley is one of my favorite all time books. While I enjoy the 1931 James Whale film for an iconic performance by Boris Karloff, it is absolutely nothing like the book. I have always wanted to see Kenneth Branagh’s version of Frankenstein at first because I like films from the horror genre and it has a great cast. Then having read Frankenstein a few years ago made me even more interested in seeing a faithful adaptation of the story no matter what its quality level was.

After so many years of wanting to see this movie I finally have and the verdict is pretty weak. I enjoyed watching the movie because of its cast and the production values but unfortunately Branagh’s approach to the source material makes for a poor film. Branagh’s specific stylistics as a director includes loud constant music, lots of energy, melodrama and a staginess in the acting and sets. While for films like Much Ado About Nothing, this method works because the source material is a play and also lively and light and fun, Frankenstein is anything but. I can see where it might seem like a good idea to pump up the melodrama for a story like this. The story itself is fantastical yet grounded in our world, the time period and love story call for melodrama as do the Gothic feel of the book. However, the book is not full of energy; it’s full of slow contemplation and thought. The mood for Branagh’s film is all wrong. There should not be a fast pace and constant music and the film should not feel like it’s on a schedule but should unfold with a natural causal feel to it. Some of the pacing in this movie is unbelievable in a very bad way. The film feels like its rushing through so many things and there are parts of the movie particularly the first half an hour in which the film literally does not stop to breathe or to build up any sort of themes, relationships or characters within the movie. The film is too energetic and too fast paced for a story like this. The camera tracks around Victor’s mother as she has a baby with blood everywhere and there is very loud and intense music and there is lightning and it is so over the top. Then when she dies, Frankenstein cries and goes inside to find her dead body lying in a clearly strategically placed position to make the sight of her body look like art. Some of the film felt a little bit like the film was a stage play that was being filmed to be put on video. The next scene has Frankenstein at the funeral saying “No one needs to die” and that starts his obsession with the in his mind changeable inevitability of death. They set up this obsession so quickly that nothing that happens means anything to the audience because we are simply observing rather than participating in the story because the film is too busy throwing plot and movement and quickness at us for us truly care about anything.

The cast is interesting but also entertaining. Kenneth Branagh makes for a good Frankenstein; I just wish that his character was more fleshed out as I felt like I could not get a handle on the character nearly as much as you could in the boo. His obsession is made clear and his motivations were as well but Frankenstein as a person was a bit cardboard. Helena Bonham-Carter does a great job as Elizabeth; I always enjoy seeing her and she has always fit in so nicely with period films. Seeing the delightful Tom Hulce as Henry Clerval, my favorite character in the story was a treat and he fit really well into the role. Other appearances by actors such as John Cleese, Ian Holm and Aiden Quinn are welcome as well. Although Aiden Quinn’s performance felt a little off I must admit. He fit right in visually with the story but his acting in the film seemed as if h know that the prologue and epilogue of the story were meant to parallel the story’s theme of not giving in completely to ones will and determination because of other lives that might be risk because of one’s recklessness. Robert DeNiro is where things get a little interesting and certainly uneven. I will say it right now; he was miscast. If I did not know who Robert DeNiro was or if he had been an unknown actor for whatever reason, I would have greatly enjoyed the entire performance. However, when you have someone as big as DeNiro playing the Creature, it becomes distracting and at times difficult to take seriously. It was the same with the makeup as well; sometimes it would look good but in other scenes I had no idea why but it just would not click with me. To his credit though, the most effective scene and frankly the best scene in the film was the one between the Creature and the blind man which brings me to talk briefly about the most successful section of the film.

To me the most “unfilmmable” section of the book is the one in which the Creature educates himself and learns to read and speak and think logically through both time and his observations of a family. While of course the movie could in no way meet the complexities and depth of the section in the book, I still found this section to be the most successful and moving part of the film. This is mostly because Branagh changes the tone of these scenes by having a slower pace and no music. Again, while these scenes are still nowhere near as powerful as the book was, I still found a lot of value in them and I thought that DeNiro in these scenes was fantastic and the scene with him and the blind man was the best one in the film. I also found the departure from the book that the film took in that Victor brings back Elizabeth after she dies only to have her set herself on fire when she discovers what she looks like. I was surprised that Branagh went this way with the story when he had stayed quite close to the source material in terms of basic plot developments up until this point. I found the change intriguing in that it was actually effective in making the story very disturbing and depressing. At that point in the film I was not looking at it as an adaptation but simply as a film and whether or not it was effective and successful. So while the change was jarring and it ultimately changed nothing that happens in the film, it made the Victor and Elizabeth story more effective than it would have been if they had stayed faithful to the story.

In conclusion, while Kenneth Branagh’s adaptation of Mary Shelley’s Frankenstein was not horrible, it most certainly was not good and I would chalk it up as an ultimate fail. Branagh’s style as a director does not fit the slow contemplative tone of the book and ultimately the film ended up being weirdly paced and overly melodramatic.

Star Trek (2009): 9.4

2009-05-08T22:55:00.000-07:00

Star Trek (2009): 9.4

Directed by J.J Abrams

My experience with Star Trek is essentially nothing. The world has never interested me. I never really gave a shit; especially about the old crew. Give me a choice of which series to watch and I would pick Generations in a second. I always thought Spock seemed pretty cool if I ever gave the world a chance. So this movie coming out was not a huge deal to me. I was excited because J.J Abrams was behind it and as someone who helped Lost exist I immediately worship him. Also after seeing what he did with the Mission Impossible series, he had my respect in the world of film when I saw in that film that he could not only reboot a franchise that had in my mind been dead in the water after the abysmal pigeon filled pain fest that was Mission Impossible II (No offense John Woo, I loved The Killer but this…not so much), but could expertly film an action scene (something that comes along rarely these days in American film). The action scenes in Mission Impossible III had me on the edge of my seat; they excited me with their freshness. Then Cloverfield further impressed me not so much in the actors, who I thought mostly brought the film down, but in the film itself which moved past its gimmick stylistics to provide a genuinely participatory experience. So with a franchise that I do not really have an interest in getting a reboot from a director who interests and excites me, I was moderately interested but not overwhelmingly excited.
I really am of the opinion that it is just as hard to make a good blockbuster/big budget film as it is to make a film with more depth at its core, the films that more often get the respect of cinephiles. How many times do we see a well respected art house director make a mainstream American film and fail in terms of quality? Not everyone can make blockbusters that are good. It’s not easy. I honestly cannot even imagine how hard making any film must be especially one that has this much at stake. A successful blockbuster to me does not mean that it makes money. That just means it’s a blockbuster period. People are going to go to these films; I mean a film that has a huge budget and that actually genuinely entertains and pleases and excites and is well, good. It so rarely happens. So when something like this comes along it’s like a breath of fresh air and it makes you realize how poor so many big budget films are.
Star Trek took me completely by surprise. From the second it started it entertains, excites and moves. In fact the beginning scene depicting the death of Kirk’s father and the simultaneous birth of Kirk is so jam packed with urgency, action and emotion that the climax cannot dream of living up to it. It is hard to make us care about what is going on so soon into the film but I must say that the opening battle scene moved me and had me feeling for these people that I did not know. Michael Giacchino’s music (Composer of Lost among many other works) is so loud and so present that some might think it detracts, but honestly in a film like this, it enhances. Films with a budget this big is supposed to have everything act as enhancers. They do not have to prove that they can move people and control audience emotions without the manipulator of music; that challenge is for other films. The music here simply brought me more into the world and into the film and I for one loved it.
As I was saying, the film entertained on every level. I am not sure the last time I have seen a film with a pace as fast and pressing as this one that in no way compromised the material. The film starts out on a high and just keeps going. The level of energy that this film has is infectious and something that must have been ridiculously hard to accomplish considering that I never see it done well. Abrams keeps the brightness of the series in visual tone, in fact he makes it brighter and I applaud that. So much of the film is pitch perfect in terms of the reboot. It’s hard to update this kind of material but it felt very much respectful and in spirit of the original as it injected new life into it at the same time. Abrams uses…I cannot even explain it. Every shot on the Enterprise deck has shiny stuff across the screen. It is like the reflecting shininess of the room hits the camera and it shines every time the camera moves, which in this movie is a lot. It was a stylistic effect that I really loved. It added uniqueness to the look of the film.
The really impressive cast is where this film really hits the mark. From top to bottom everyone works perfectly. I love that, like Watchmen, they got recognizable faces for the roles but not out and out A list actors. Chris Pine was the actor I was worried most about because mainly I just thought he looked like a vapid CW guy (no offense Jensen Ackles and Jared Padalecki, you are not vapid at all) such as Chace Crawford or dare I say it Chad Michael Murray. Within 5 minutes of Pine showing up in the film I realized I was wrong and he completely won me over. He’s a womanizer to be sure and does therefore really embody Kirk from the little I know but he also has a difficult task of embodying Shatner in that he has to be recognizable as the same character but at the same time he has to not in any way be anything like Shatner. The other actors can embody the old actors and bring something new if they choose but Pine had to stay away from the actor, at least it is what I would have recommended. And he does this and succeeds, making him likable and funny and rebellious. He has presence and charisma which I was worried he would not have.
As for Zachary Quinto, well I never worried about him because the second I found out he was cast I pretty much thought it was the most brilliant piece of casting I had heard in months. Since I ditched Heroes I also ditched Sylar which was a shame because I loved him on the show but he was not enough to keep me watching. So it was nice to see him again and he was perfection. Absolute perfection. I do not even know what to say about him except that he was everything I had pictured and more. Everyone else in the main cast is really just pitch perfect as well; John Cho, Zoe Saldana, Simon Pegg and Anton Yelchin. Eric Bana was good as Nero as well even though overall would have to say one of my complaints is that Nero simply was not that interesting and I think Bana had more to offer than the material gave him to work with. Winona Ryder makes a wonderful cameo appearance as Spock’s mother which reminds me just how much I love and miss her being more frequently around. Leonard Nimoy was of course wondrous. Tyler Perry sucks and I hate hate hate that he was in this but it is a minor quibble amongst the many great things.
I cannot deny that I had a few complaints. Only a few though. One I just mentioned which was that Nero just overall was not that interesting a villain. I thought Eric Bana was so good and it was a shame that he was not given the material to match his dedication. My second complaint was that the plot was a little confusing. Honestly it’s because pretty early in I decided to stop trying to figure things out and to just go with it which explains things. I cannot blame the film entirely because I know a lot of it is me being dumb. I just feel like a lot of stuff did not fully make sense to me even if I partly got it. My third complaint was the use of Uhura. I love Zoe Saldana. I’ve been following her since she randomly popped up in the first Pirates film and did not show up for the second two. She is not in very good movies usually but she has presence, talent and beauty. First of all the choice to keep the miniskirts was pretty annoying to be honest. I’m sort of peeved that did not update that aspect of things. Second of all Uhura is given nothing to do except of course to look longingly at Spock and offer to give him “anything he needs”. The film does not shy away from the fact that she is incredible in linguistics and yet it gives her no big moment like it does with the other characters to save the day. She just walks around in a mini skirt and makes googly eyes with Spock. I just wish she felt more integral to the group than she does. It’s the old when screenwriters do not know what to do with a female character, let’s give them a romance thing that I resent.
I must mention the special effects in this film; some of the best I’ve ever seen; period. I’ve seen effects as good as these, although rarely and I’ve never ever seen effects that have impressed me more than this. There were so many wow moments that took my breath away.
These seem like pretty big complaints but altogether they are pretty mild compared to how much fun I had. All in all this was a really great way to start out the summer. It has a lot of humor, plenty of action, an extremely young and charismatic cast and a refreshingly fast and urgent pace. Take a good look people; this is what a good blockbuster is. There is a good chance my Summer of 2009 in movies has hit its peak.

Clerks 2 (2006)

2009-03-20T12:39:00.000-07:00

Clerks 2 (2006)

Grade: 8.4

So I have finally seen Clerks 2. I was a little nervous about how it was going to be. I actually completely and utterly enjoyed this. I really felt that it retained the qualities of the old one while still letting it be updated with higher production values. Yes it is operating under much more contrived circumstances involving the plot but since the casting of Rosario Dawson was so essential to the whole plot working and because she brings such presence to the role and does such a good job, even though its contrived, its pulled off well. Randal and Dante feel like the characters we know and its very easy for us to believe this is where they would be in 10 years. Its scary how easy it is to get back into it. Now let's just clear up the fact that I hate Randal. Hate him. He is basically the epitome of everything I hate in a person. Yet I still found him to be really funny during parts like The LOTR vs. Star Wars conversation particularly his imitation of the films and his quest to "take back" the word porchmonkey. I also loved that the film takes place in one day again and that Kevin Smith takes the time away from the ridiculousness of it all at times to have long serious conversations such as the one with Becky and Dante in her office and particularly the jail scene between Dante and Randal. I also loved Becky's character. Yes a lot of it has to do with it being Rosario Dawson who I truly love but I really thought that even though she is still essentially playing "the girl" role, that Smith really took the time to make sure she was not a cardboard character, that she could be as gross as the guys, that she did have a personality and was someone you actually cared about. I respected that completely. I also loved Elias and the moments with Jay and Silent Bob had me cracking up. The two parts that literally had me in tears were: 1. Jay's reenactment of the "Silence of the Lambs" Buffalo Bill scene and 2. The Pillowpants conversation. The music there and Randal's face and just the concept of Pillowpants was comedic gold. Oh and Smith gets double props for using "(Nothing But) Flowers" by Talking Heads in the opening credits. This basically completely fulfilled everything I would want in a Clerks sequel and that's about all I could have asked for from this film. Its weird how completely satisfied with this film I was.

Review: "Watchmen" (2009): Grade: B+

2009-03-06T12:15:00.001-08:00

Watchmen (2009): B+

Note: I'm giving this film a B+ as a film and not as an adaptation even though I've read the source material twice.

I've had a lot of time to mull over this film. I had been highly anticipating it but I did not go in expecting much to be honest because I did not want to hype myself up too much. Basically what we get here is a huge array of quality here. Some aspects are incredible, some good, some not so good and some atrocious. Overall though I really truly am of the opinion that this is way more than I ever would have expected for an adaptation of this source material. I think people are failing to understand how lucky they are to have as many elements of this film come together the way they do. What Zack Snyder got away with is incredible to me. He does so many things that are contradictory to what the studio most likely wanted and the film that we could have gotten would have been extremely awful had they followed the lengths that studios go to be accessible. So while others rip this film apart because they have nothing better to do with their lives let me say that is could have been a thousand other films; all bad. The Paul Greenrass version which was in preproduction at some point by the way would have had a film that takes place in the present day. The cast that they got together on this is better than anything I could have hoped for and normally an entirely a-list group of actors would have come together on this but instead we got a group of character actors who let us slip into the world more easily instead of us saying "oh look thats Jude Law playing Ozymandias". Then we get to keep the R Rating. We get to keep the alternate history. We get to keep the length time which is incredible to me that it gets to be this long. Also...it is word for word taken from the source material. Its insane. Some think this is a flaw and in some places it is but honestly just as a fan it is extremely satisfying to see something like this exist. Snyder gets so much right here. So much.

I'll say it right here and right now. "The Dark Knight" may be an altogether better film (although even I am not so sure) but I sure as hell enjoyed this film more than "The Dark Knight". The problems I have with this film are substantial in size but small in number.

The Bad:

I carry major issues with the ending. Not with the squid. Who gives a shit about the squid. I am happy they took it out. It would have been ridiculous. But by changing it to Dr. Manhattan it gives him a reason to leave instead of it being completely his choice at the end which is different. So his character motivations change drastically because of this. Also it does not make the attack completely anonymous. It makes it traceable and I feel that it makes the idea of the world uniting under a cause to be a bit flimsy.

While they kept the destruction of New York City intact that is basically all they keep. The fact that it happens. The tone of it is completely different though. You barely see the destruction. The heaviness and vastness of the event that takes place at the end of the graphic novel barely registers here. It feels like the equivalent of maybe a couple of hundred people dying and not New York City. It should have felt a lot heavier. Snyder not once cops out on the violence but here he actually does. I want to feel like I just lost that city. Even in a fictional story. I want to feel that in some way. I did not. I wanted him to move "Sounds of Silence" to this portion of the film and play the song in full with the visuals being the deaths of all of these people. That would have been incredible. In a film that takes inues for a sex scene you would think the elimination of New York City would get some screen time. But it does not. The studio does not want you to feel like it happened. That and Snyder fucked up big time. When Laurie and Dr. Manhattan observe the rubble its just rubble. No bodies. None of it held much weight for me and if I am watching a 3 hour film that is absurdly faithful to its source material and is mostly really great for the rest of it I expect it to not cop out for the pessimistic finish. But they do. I did not FEEL it. And that sucked. The film drops the ball on the end.

As did the last scene with Dan and Laurie and Sally. Oh everyone is so happy. And I'm sorry but penis problems do not just disappear like that especially when you add on the destruction of New York City and the fact that they know who really did it. Apparently that gives them a great sex life. Well whoop de do. Lame as hell. And the reconciliation with Sally and Laurie made me feel like I was watching a soap opera.

Also the 2 seconds of the MCR "Desolation Row" in the film. Its much less than I expected but it still meant I was forced to listen to it as I attempted to crush peoples' heads in an effort to get out of the building so my brain would not fry from musical abomination.

Also I had an issue with Laurie and Dan so violently defending themselves when they get mugged. They kill everyone. Its ridiculous because it makes Rorschach's violence completely acceptable by comparison and you are not supposed to feel that way. There is also a scene with Dr. Manhattan killing people at a club who pull guns on him. And first of all who would be that stupid? Second of all he explodes them when he does not have to. So while the Comedian's actions remain appropriately horrific, Rorschach's become so much more commonplace because of the violence that Dan, Laurie and Dr. Manhattan needlessly employ. You are supposed to get the feeling Rorschach goes too far and you do to an extent but not enough.

Those are the major issues. My minor ones are that I felt that Carla Gugino's makeup as an older Sally was awful. I hated the Richard Nixon they got and the makeup they put on him. This is a problem I have with the graphic novel as well but Laurie's character just does not hold up to the rest of them. Its like Alan Moore decided because he apparently does not know how to write a woman character that "I'll just give her mommy issues".

Also the "Hallelujah" sex scene was hilariously awful. Oh my God. Poor Leonard Cohen. Poor me. As a huge Leonard Cohen fan it was tragic to see what Snyder did to the song. The scene was shot well but the music choice could have been better because it was the worst scene I have seen in a movie since "The Happening". Yeah; I went there. But Snyder gets huge props for using the original Cohen version instead of going with the much more widely used Jeff Buckley version or even the Rufus Wainwright version. He showed a much appreciated faithfulness to the Cohen even though it was completely misguided.

The Good and the Beautiful and Perfect:

Pretty much the rest of it I loved. Even though a lot of the impact is lost on the amount of time that has gone by since the book was written, the alternate history held up pretty well. I think the film could have had a more consistent energy to it and I saw the potential for greatness in a lot of places where I saw goodness but getting to see this adaptation made me so happy and was generally so satisfying.

The attention paid to faithful detail in this is remarkable and I cannot get over how impressed I am with what Zack Snyder accomplished. I thought he captured the feel of the source material in a lot of places. I thought the lok of it was perfect. I loved the effects. Keeping the dialogue so exact was astonishing to watch. He touched upon the themes of the book and definitely addressed the issues.

I was unsure how to feel about Malin Akerman and Matthew Goode after seeing it. I definitely do not think Akerman is as bad as everyone seems to think she is. I think she has a stylized way of delivering lines that is more reminscent of Classical Hollywood acting and does not neccesarily match with today's more naturalistic style of acting. And she is the weak link but she has a lot of presence and I thought that made up for a lot of what people seem to percieve as bad acting instead of what I percieve which is an adequate performance surrounded by much better performances. Matthew Goode I thought brought a different quality to Ozymandias than it did on the book. I did not see him as quite so effeminate. In the film an issue is that I did not believe he was the smartest man in the world. He came off as a schmuck who likes to think he is the smartest man in the world. But he again carried the presence and had an interesting and fascinating line delivery at times. His face when Nite Owl was beating the shit out of him at the end basically made for my favorite moment in the performance.

The rest of the performances completely nailed it in my opinion. Patrick Wilson has been one of my favorite actors for a while now ever since seeing him in "Angels in America". I have a massive crush on this man. I've pretty much seen the majority of his film work at this point. His Dan was appropriately dweeby and mundane. His mannerisms were perfect and my favorite moment with him was right when Rorschach leaves after the first time he visits and Dan sits down and takes his glasses off right next to the suit. This was one of those moments of everything coming together perfectly to capture the feel of a panel. The music, shot, body language, everything. I liked the way he played his friendship with Rorschach as well. Because its one of my favorite aspects of the source material.

Jeffrey Dean Morgan. Another person I'm already a huge fan of. His work on "Supernatural" was fantastic. This man carries an immense presence with him. He brings that presence to this film. He is appropriately despicable but I still love him strictly on a character basis and his scene with Moloch brings a weird slight sense of momentary empathy to him. This is one of three perfect performances the film has.

The second would be Billy Crudup as Dr. Manhattan. Holy shit. Incredible. What he does with the character goes way beyond what I could have expected. The decision to make him soft spoken is beautiful and it is his voice that made me officially decide on Jon being my favorite character from this story. Instead of giving him a lame loud booming voice, Crudup gives him a gentle distant monotonous one. Because its the same voice he had when he was human which makes sense. Then he makes the voice distant sounding which completely goes along with Jon's distance from humanity and disconnect from it. You feel it in his voice. It gave Jon a poetic and hypnotic quality to him that I found endlessly fascinating. I am obsessed with this performance.

And of course the performance everyone is obsessed with and rightfully so; Jackie Earle Haley as Rorschach. The only way I describe it is perfection. I read a quote from a review that summed it up perfectly and I will let her words speak for me: "It's one of those wonderful collisions of actor and part where God seemingly set a man's atoms in motion so he could tumble through life and land in front of this camera in this costume." Its so true. This performance is ridiculous(in a good way obviously). I have never or very rarely seen a character go from book to screen with the kind of perfection this one did. I have loved Jackie Earle Haley since I saw him in "Little Children" (which also starred Patrick Wilson coincidentally and Kate Winslet for that matter where Patrick and Kate have a much more effective sex scene than the one in this movie). Haley was nominated for an Oscar for his perforamance in this film, had a major shot at winning and lost to the infinitely inferior performance of Alan Arkin in "Little Miss Sunshine". I am convinced he lost because Oscar voters did not feel comfortable putting the checking a performance off of someone who is playing a paedophile. His performance in that film is in my opinion one of the top 5 greatest performances of the decade. The hardest and most uncomfortable performance I've seen this decade as well. He makes the film physically hard to get through. So when I heard he was cast as Rorschach I immediately was ecstatic. Oh my God I am also obsessed with this performance. His prison scenes could not have been better. The scene where he injures a fellow inmate in the lunch line and then says "I'm not locked in here with you. You're locked in here with me" was explosive. Seriously I almost exploded with glee. His death scene was perfect as well. I cannot say enough about how incredible and surreal it was to see this performance come out of this movie.

All of the secondary people were great too; Hollis Mason, Moloch, the psychiartrist, etc. My personal favorite of the secondary people was Laura Mennell who played Janey Slater. Everything just came together with her for me.

I was happy to see that Zack Snyder's obsessive need to stay faithful meant that he did not cop out on any of the male nudity. Yes it was only for a need to stay faithful but it showed me the potential every film has to treat nudity with fairness and graciousness and it was a refreshing change to the unbalanced bullshit implanted because 99.9% of media is filtered through the male gaze. And while it still is here, its a balanced gaze and not the shit that takes place everywhere else you look

The other thing I love about the film was the soundtrack both score wise and song wise. Tyler Bates has the perfect amount of 80's feel to the score without going overboard with it. And it has an atmospheric quality at times that I loved.

The songs used in the film outside of "Hallelujah" and "Desolation Row" were superb and weird and great. I know people are complaining about some of them and a few were questionable but while I was watching the film I was thinking this is way more interesting than typical instrumental tracks. It broke things up a bit and I liked that. "I'm Your Boogie Man" was so awesome. So awesome. "The Sounds of Silence" is my favorite song of all time so hearing that was basically like my dream. I would have paid the 10 dollars just for that minute and a half scene. Nat King Cole's "Unforgettable" gave the Comedian's death a haunting and actually beautiful quality to it as choreograph based and violent as it was. It was the best action based scene in the film. But there are obviously two song usages that stand out for me. One is the best opening credits sequence that again I've seen in years and the other was the best part of the film and one of my all time favorite sequences in a film ever ever ever. If I see a better scene in 2009 I'll be surprised.

Using "The Times They Are A Changin" may have been a bit obvious but it turns out that these opening credits give a feel for how grand the scope of the film is and it manages to perfectly and I mean perfectly and brilliantly fit in the history of the Minutemen and of history in general in a series of semi still moments set to the Dylan song. Its my favorite Dylan song so this scene was already a mindblow to me as it was. The scene could have been a black screen with the credits set to the song and I would have been in heaven. But my god what Zack Snyder accomplishes here is nothing short of miraculous. His opening credits scene in "Dawn of the Dead" using "The Man Comes Around" by Johnny Cash was already one for the books but this one tops it. My favorite semi still in the scene is the one with Sally's retirement party and she is pregnant and the way her and the Comedian are looking at each other was subtle and great. This scene is a tour de force.

But there is another scene in "Watchmen" which was honestly the best solid chunk of 10 minutes I've seen in a movie since.....I do not even know when. Speaking from a subjective point of view I actually enjoyed Dr. Manhattan's origin story sequence more than I enjoyed any 10 minute chunk of a film from 2008. Yeah, I said it. First of all when they used Philip Glass' score from "Koyanissqatsi" in the trailer I flipped my lid. This score is a stunning. So then Snyder uses it in the film. For Jon's backstory. This is a masterpiece of the scene. The way he skips around time just like in the comic. Billy Crudup's voice when he speaks combined with this music is unlike anything I could have ever hoped for from this film. It is the only sequence in the film that adds something to the source material. It actually elevates the panels. I felt like I was floating when I watched this. I have not gotten this feeling from anything since I watched "Mulholland Drive". That is a film that has changed my perception of what film can and should strive towards doing. It taught me to emphasize my admiration for a film much less on the story as an but on what a director can achieve with pure feeling and atmosphere. This scene captured all of that for me. And I applaude Zack Snyder and Billy Crudup and Philip Glass for his score in the first place. Snyder showed me a light touch of genius by using "Pruit Igoe" and "Prophecies" from Philip Glass' "Koyannisqatsi" score. This scene took me and put me into an almost literal 10 minute trance. His line reading of "They are shaping me into something gaudy" is haunting me right now. The despair and passivity carried in the voice is beautiful.

Another moment that stood out for me was Dan's dream which I felt was really well done and I am impressed Snyder had the guts to tackle it.

When I think of the problems I had with the film I get a little concerned. But I get more concerned because they got so much of the film right so it had the potential to carry more power. But when I think of all of the abominable things this film could have been I start to think of the end product as a minor miracle. Its not the source material, it never as going to be, I knew that from the start. It does not hold the significance or emotional power. The urgency of it is lost. But so much of it is there. You know what? This is actually a pretty damn impressive work for the most part.

Review: Dear Zachary: A Letter to a Son About his Father

2009-03-04T10:19:00.000-08:00

Dear Zachary: A Letter to a Son About his Father (2008) (Documentary)

Grade: A-

This is the most depressing and gut wrenching documentary I have ever seen. Never in my life have I sobbed like this during a documentary. The pure emotion that is contained in this film is something to behold. The film has flaws. Its totally biased and makes no effort to even be in the slightest objective. But for me in this case it does not matter. The film was made by the very good friend of Andrew Bagby who had been shot to death 5 times by his ex girlfriend Shirley Turner. She has a son Zachary that is Andrew's. Kate and David are Andrew's parents and they want to raise the kid themselves instead of letting their son's murderer raise him who fled the country and is now walking free in Canada her home country. The film follows Kate and David's experience trying to gain custody of Zachary as well as interviews with tons of people who knew Anthony. Kurt the filmmaker has pure rage and wants to give you as much high voltage emotion as possible so you can feel what everyone in the film feels. You feel like you know ANthony as a person by the end and you hate it that he is dead. Absolutely hate it. It breaks you. You want to hug Kate and David who go through so much in the course of this film and who are truly incredible people. And then something happens as Kurt is making this film. Something horrible that cuts you to pieces and I'm still trying to put myself back together.

I liked the fast way it was edited together because I felt that it served the purposes of Kurt very well. He's not looking for a slow experience. He wants to overflow you with the emotions and try to put the unaware viewer as closely aligned with what these people are feeling as possible. He want us to feel the passion and love that everyone had for Anthony. And to see the scope of how many people loved him because so many people did. Its a film about emotion and anger and sadness and because the filmmaker is first hand strongly connected to the subject matter, with other films this might cause some problems objectively but here it helps the film and gives it a life that most documentaries do not have because they are too busy trying to be unbiased. The iflm makes no attempt to excuse Turner for her actions, frankly nor should it. I would have liked to learn more about her and her problems and it sucked learning that she has kids at the end of the film and seeing that they were not interviewed about what she was like. Why? Because Kurt, Kate, David and anyone watching the film who knew Anthony do not give a shit about Shirley and her issues. They hate her. And considering what happens later in the film....jesus.

So in conclusion another documentary from 2008 that is better than "Man on Wire". One that is not perfect from an objective point of view but in a way if they had fixed these errors, the film would be more flawed. So in a way its perfect. It is the rare case in which a documentary that relies on pure emotion and subjectiveness is all the better for it. Bring a couple of boxes of tissues to this film.....Seriously. You will sob. And if you don't cry than you are inhuman as another reviewer wrote of the people watching this film.

Comments on Academy Awards 2009

2009-02-23T13:59:00.000-08:00

Comments on the Oscars 2009!!

Overall I was delighted with the ceremony itself. It was a little cornball but it always is. I thought Hugh Jackman was fantastic. He is just adorable. "I'm Wolverine!". I loved the opening number. I thought the "Musical's back" number was a little much and also really random. But not bad. I loved the way the awards were presented although I would have liked clips from the acting awards. Also instead of lots of people saying thank you for the montage on who has won I felt that lots of clips from the actual preformances would have been more inspiring and less self serving. Loved the short Judd Apatow film. Loved the genre montages. Loves the stage setup so so so so so much. Tina Fey and Steve Martin were great as was Ben Stiller in his Joaquin Pheoniz spoof.

Basically though there were no shockers last night. The only one was the loss of "Waltz with Bashir" losing to "Departures" which I felt in my gut and did not go with so while it was a surprise, anyone intensely following the Oscars as I have would have heard the case for why that film might have stolen it which it did. And I really felt that Sean Penn would be taking it home for a while now so that came as expected for me. I am happy he won even though I think Rourke deserved it. He really did an incredible job. Dustin Lance Black's speech was very moving. Kate Winslet has finally won an Oscar. I really thought Penelope Cruz would lose for some reason. I was wrong. But I adore her so its fine. Heath winning was expected and touching. Was hoping for a Slumdog upset but clearly that was not in the cards. Hmmm...thats about it. Its weird that the Oscar year is over. I am unsure of what to do with myself now. I'll get into lots of manga and start watching Mad Men and other shows; that's what I'll do. Well until next year. I'll try to do much better with blogging from now on. It will be hard but I would really like to try.

Lots of New Films that I do not have Time to Do Individually

2009-02-23T13:06:00.000-08:00

Ok I have seen lots of films that I do not have the time to write about individually.

Among them:

City of Ember (2008): B- Really great first hour. Could have been amazing. Best art direction of the year. But the last half hour just meanders off into nothingness.

Choke (2008): B: Really entertaining and fun but ultimately forgettable in the grand scale of things. But I'd recommend it because it is very good. Sam Rockwell is fantastic as always.

Let the Right One In (2008): B+ Stuck with me very much after it ended. Not obsessed with it the way some people are from a subjective point of view but in terms of recognizing how great it really is I can attest 100% to that. The relationship between the two is done beautifully and the violence is handled with immense skill and subtlety without hiding away from it in the slightest.

The Visitor (2008): B. Not normally my type of film but Richard Jenkins really got me involved. I want him to be my awesome uncle or my best friend. He is incredible in this really doing some beautiful work. I am very happy he has finally gotten some recognition for a performance that whole heartedly deserved it.

Shine a Light (2008): C. After seeing Gimme Shelter this is basically a really really really poor man's version of that. And its not even that. Its definitely decent. The concert is shot really nicely by Scorsese and the Rolling Stones still put on a great show but ultimately I wanted more archival footage and did not get that.

Reprise (2008)B-. I wanted to love this but in the end I felt like we were kept at too much of a distance from the characters to really get to like them at all and these are characters that I think you are supposed to care about. The director shows a great amount of talent and skill with his first film but it is too focused on being influenced by the French New Wave films to really give us anything of real value. There are some nice moments and really great parts and other parts where I rolled my eyes. Great soundtrack though.

Penelope (2008): C. This sounds like I did not like this but I actually did. But in the end its just an average movie. Not bad but not anything really good. So it gets an average grade. Christina Ricci and James McAvoy elevate the material's forced quirkiness and make us care but again its just not memorable.

Paranoid Park (2008): B+. Not as good or substantial as Milk but really really fantastic film about the ennui of adolescence shown to an extreme with the way a young skateboarder comprehends and deals with the fact that he accidently killed someone. The use of Nina Rota in this is beautiful. And Gus Van Sant's tracking shots always impress me. One of my favorites of his.

The Strangers (2008): B+. One of the most frightening and terrifying experiences of my life. While I felt more could have been done to get us to like and care about the characters who are being terrorized I felt that the experience itself made me feel like I went through something and thus caring about the characters did not change the fact that I felt like what I was watchign was happening to me. This is the director's first film and he brings a completely refreshing vibe and skill set to the horror film lessening on the gore but not the disturbance and using very little music and concentrating on subtle uses of sound and camera shots to scare us. His use of other music such as Joanna Newsom has a profound effect. This is a very talented director. Even Roger Ebert who hated this film goes on for paragraphs about the skill level that the director shows. This is a film that breathes life into the horror film. And I cannot wait to see more from this talented guy.

The Incredible Hulk (2008): B
I personally enjoyed this as much as "Iron Man". Yes I know. Shocking. But I did. I really really liked this a lot. Edward Norton and Tim Roth bring a degree of respectability and talent to the table. Liv Tyler and Edward Norton did a great job and have good chemistry. As I said, Tim Roth was my favorite aspect of the film. The scenes with Tim Blake Nelson slowed thinkgs down a bit and fucked with the tone a little but no biggie. While its not "The Dark Knight" or anything, I still think it should be put in the list of films as examples of the superhero genre upping its game.

Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired (2008): A-
Incredible and fascinating documentary. I know some say that the film is on Polanski's side and that the film tries to get us to like him but I sort of disagree. The films main goal is to point out that Polanski's guilt put aside, he had an unfair trial with a completely corrupt judge. I agree that he got completely fucked over. The way the director puts together this material and story is truly remarkable. That aside it does not change what he did and while he is an incredible director and his talent is important, he did something horrible and I do not care if the girl publicly forgave him years later. I do not think the film tries to hide behind what he did. I think the film addresses it but also tries to make him a sympathetic figure due to his history. I don't think the film forgives what he did or even tries to excuse it; they do show that he is supposedly a nice guy and a good person but honestly anyone with half a brain should understand that what he did was wrong and I assume the film assumes that people are not stupid and can honestly decide for themselves that a man who drugs a 13 year old girl and rapes her is not very cool. But I do not think the film was that one sided although I would have liked to see more from the victim of it.

Frozen River (2008): B. Really interesting film with an unbelievable performance from Melissa Leo. Really refreshing raw look at a person struggling. The film is not sugarcoated in anyway or polished to be accessible. This woman's life sucks and in a very realistic way. I appreciate the film for that.

Lakeview Terrace (2008): B+ I loved this. I flatout loved this movie. I was completely taken in by it. I do not even know what to say about it but it completely took me by surprise. Loved loved loved this.

Nick and Norah's Infinite Playlist (2008): B-. I only give this a B- because some of it felt false but the parts that did not in particular the relationship between Nick and Norah which woud be the most important aspect of the film rang true to me and I thought the chemistry and talent of the two actors really clicked and that time was taken to develop their relationship that normally is not seen as much as it is here. Ari Graynor did a fantastic job as well as the drunk friend who I hope to see in more roles.

"Changeling" (2008) Grade: B

2009-02-06T15:13:00.000-08:00

"Changeling" (2008)

Grade: B

I really like the feel of Eastwood's films. I always have. This is no different. I never felt it broke beoynd a certain level into becoming one of the truly impressive films of the year but I still feel it is a bit better than people seem to think it is. I was interested the whole time. Horrified much of the time. Eastwood did such a great job of recreating the 1920's. Really beautiful. The real life events of the film make a good subject because some of the things that happened were so ridiculous that you would only believe it in a film. Eastwood's music is subtle and moving as usual. The performances were for the most part great. Angelina Jolie manages to break away from her real life status and really give us a moving and genuine performance as Christine Collins. The helplessness she holds is so many situations by her character are really felt by the audience because of her performance. Her hope and desperate nature are conveyed really beautifully by her as well. I cannot believe this is the same woman from "Wanted". Collins is a woman functioning in a man's world and the power the other gender holds over Los Angeles and the country at the time really hindered Christine's choices as well as anyone who would take her and lived in a world where a woman who was desperate for helped was written off as crazy. While the emotions were there I wish there had been a been more of character here though. I do not feel like the script really fleshed her out enough at all but its not a huge complaint. I also felt John Malkovich would have had more presence here as the Reverend but he's just sort of there. But I loved how his character is a sane religious person. It was so refreshing to see a religious person portrayed as sane and likeable and good. I'm not religious at all but I feel that all the time they are portrayed as literally insane in films and its sort of ridiculous. So it was nice to see that change. I actually think I was the most impressed or at least the most effected by Jason Butler Harner as Gordon Northcott. Some people thought he was bad and over the top but I thought he was haunting and that it was as disturbing a performance as you can get. He seriously fucked with me and made the disturbing subject matter about 10 times as hard for me to watch. Because this was a disturbing film. Definitely hard to get through. I thought he was brilliant in this and I think its one of the best performances of 2008. Excuse me for being in the minority. Any Ryan was good here as well. The character I personally came to like the most out of anybody in the film was Detective Lester Ybarra. He;s not really a character though seeing as you do not really get to know him at all but hes in a ton of the film and I really liked the role he had within it. Despite all fo these performances I thought Jeffrey Donovan as J.J Jones was actively bad. I could not take him seriously with his stupid half Irish accent and found that he frequently took me out of the movie. Congrats to Jolie for being able to emote in the same scene with him. I hear he is good on "Burn Notice" but hes really not good here. He looks the part but does not play the part well. All in all this was a very solid film. Not one of the best of the year but definitely one of the better ones. While I'm not sure it works completely I still was effected by it. The scene in which Northcott hangs was the best scene in the film. Man that's fucked up. I read one comment that said that the scene explains best why the reviewer was against the death penalty. Its funny because for me it explained exactly why I was for it. Its really the only conservative thing I am for but I won't waver on my support for it. Some people just do not deserve to live. Gordon Northcott was one of them. So yeah those are my thoughts on "Changeling" Good, sometimes great, not a masterpiece by any means but definitely solid.

"Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian" Grade: C-

2009-02-06T15:03:00.000-08:00

"The Chronicles of Narnia: Prince Caspian" (2008)
Grade: C-

I was going to give this a C but after rewatching some of The Lion the Witch and the Wardrobe on ABC Family last night I forgot just how damn good that film is and it further made me realize that this is just not a good film. The effects are great and beautiful, the kids have a lot of presence. But other than that, nothing held the weight it did last time. I thought they stayed too faithful to the book and needed to branch off of it to give these kids some development because while they had presence this time around they had absolutely no personality. These kids grew up in the last film and then went back through the wardrobe and had to be kids again. That is such a golden oppurtunity for exploration. Really? You aren't going to do anything with that? Also this is the most violent PG film I have ever seen. I am convinced the MPAA was on crack when they gave this a PG rating considering that all of the kids KILL people in this ( i don't remember if Lucy does though) and Peter DECAPITATES SOMEONE!!!!!!! What the hell!? PG!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!?!??! Also everything involving Caspian and the Telmarines was uninteresting and I know that it has a lot to do with the fact that I'm not huge on the book either but still. And Ben Barnes as Caspian was a joke. That accent was funny and distracting and he could not manage to give emotional weight to anything he was doing. This is a shame considering he is playing Dorian Gray in the new adaptation and that I really liked him in "Stardust". And I understand that these books and film is completely religiously motivated and I accept it and will not ridicule it. I do not think there is anything wrong with it but it distracted me at times. Also this stupid Susan and Caspian romance nonsense? Barf.

Despite all of this I feel that there were a couple of areas it succeeded in. Again I love the kids despite the nothingness required of them this time around. I loved how they handled the scene when Peter and Susan find out they will not be coming back to Narnia. I also have always loved the music in the first Narnia film and I loved it here as well. And again the effects were great and the film looked beautiful. But all in all this was dissapointing.

"American Teen" (2008) Grade: B-

2009-02-06T14:54:00.000-08:00

"American Teen" (2008)

Grade: B-

Ok I am getting tired so I have to hurry these along. "American Teen" is a documentary that felt a bit too MTV for me. I think the style of the film is what detracted from it for me. I believe it when the director says its all real. Obviously some shots are staged as some always are in documentaries. But she shot 1,000 hours of footage over the course of a year, she had a lot to choose from. I believe its all real but I think the way it was edited together felt a bit fake which is why she is catching some slack. The animation sequences when they were each describing their dreams was really stupid. It was lame and honestly condescending to the meaningful stuff each of them were saying. It took me out of the film and was such an unneccesary gimmick that it would have gotten a B without those. I just wish the style had been different. Also the placing of information was structured in a very convenient way as to manipulate people into feeling things for these characters at certain times. For example, throughout the film we hate Megan for doing horrible things but then we learn right before her acceptance letter for Notre Dame is supposed to be coming in that her sister committed suicide two years before. All of this just in time for us to want her to get into Notre Dame instead of not wanting it. Colin was the least interesting for me. I adored Jake and Mitch (until Mitch did something really stupid). And of course Hannah was my favorite. Absolute favorite. She was so freaking cool. I want to be her best friend. But anyways yeah, definitely really really entertaining but put together in a way that is unfortunately a bit too stylish for its own good.

"Stuck" (2008) Grade: A-/B+

2009-02-06T14:44:00.000-08:00

"Stuck" (2008)

Grade: A-/B+

"Stuck" is awesome. Seriously awesome. Stuart Gordon is brilliant. This film is so fucked up and has such a weird sense of humor about it that makes me wonder how hard it must be to create a film with an atmosphere like this. This film instead of showing a character making bad decisions that are unrealistic like many of the ones made in horror films, this film shows a character making horrific and seflish decisions that make no sense whatsoever but are so real for some reason. By the end of the film we must assume Brandi's character (Mena Suvari) is insane. Because seriously her constant assertions that none of it was her fault and just basically every single thing she does is so mind boggling to me but in a way that purposely adds to the film and does not detract from it. Suvari is so good here as is Stephen Rea doing so much with not a lot of time before he is stuck in the windshield for much of the film. This was based on a true story, the incident happened exactly as it does in the film as in real life but the film takes liberties from there. The film asks the question what makes people do the WTF things that they do? The score to this was spot on as were the rap songs particularly the one at the beginning giving the film a unique feel right off. I also loved the character of Rashid who starts off as sort of a stereotype but so much is done with him by the end of the film. I think you sort of have to get Gordon's style to get the film and I think you sort of have to get that the film is a dark dark comedy going into it otherwise this is going to seem ridiculous. It is ridiculous. But intentionally so. I loved this film. More than the majority of 2008 stuff I have seen. I think it reaches a near brilliance at times.

"Horton Hears a Who" (2008) Grade: A-/B+

2009-02-06T14:39:00.000-08:00

"Horton Hears a Who" (2008)

Grade: A-/B+

I cannot explain what a kick I got out of this movie. I was expecting to be pleasently entertained but I laughed so much and was so taken in by everything. This won't be a long review because there is not much to say here except I loved this movie. Loved loved loved it. The Katie character was one of the most bizarre and random creations I've seen in animation in a long time but I was laughing so much everytime we saw her. The voice work was excellent with Jim Carrey providing such a likeability, fun loving innocence to Horton and Steve Carell provides an amusing practicality to the Mayor. I just really truly enjoyed this. It might have strayed from the feel of Dr. Seuss with its humor and slapstick but I still feel like it captures the feel of his drawings and the appreciation for life that his stories carry. Did I mention I loved this?

"Boy A" (2008) Grade: A

2009-02-06T14:30:00.000-08:00

"Boy A" (2008)

Grade: A

Wow am I happy I saw this film. Weinstein picked it up and distributed it acroos a few theaters in its release in 2008. The year before it had played on TV in the U.K picking up some awards. I always have counted a films release date as when it is released in this country. So for me it is a 2008 release. And its better than 4 of the Best Picture nominees in my opinion. I was hooked onto this film the second it started. I highly highly recommend it. Anthony Garfield deserves heaps of attention and I think it looks like he will have a career based on his performance in this film. Katie Lyons is excellent her as well as is Peter Mullan. Everything about this film interested me. It was never done in a cliched way, the film had respect for its characters, it never really chose a side but asks you do make a decision for yourself which made for challenging viewing. I am convinced his conversation with her in the last 5 minutes is imaginary. Some people complain about the believabililty of the incident which surprises me because I never thought for once second that that was meant to be taken as real and still do not. This must be a very confusing read if you do not know what it is about. Basically it is about a boy who helped kill a 10 year old girl with his best friend at the time. Years later he is 24 and is released under a new name to start a life for himself. We see him attempting to start a life while seeing glimpses of his childhood. Garfield gives one of the best performances of the year creating such a likeable character whose predicament as a child becomes easy to see and the story and performance provide a character that is not at all what you expect to see which makes the story that much more interesting. I highly highly highly recommend it.

"Ghost Town" (2008) Grade: B

2009-02-06T14:24:00.000-08:00

"Ghost Town" (2008)

Grade: B

This was a nice little film. The music was corny and too slight for my taste and I found Greg Kinnear to be very annoying but Ricky Gervais and Tea Leoni made this movie work (even though it had a very adequate script also). The two of them really pushed this film to its heights. She has such a presence and likability here that she alone gives the audience a layer of involvement that most romantic stories lack. And Ricky Gervais really is fantastic here and it works because as Ebert put it "he's not trying to make people laugh". Alan Ruck and Dana Ovey provide a touching subplot as well. While this movie is not amazing and its not anything to write home about, its a nice and refreshing surprise to the sameness that a lot of films have and it took a few turns I did not expect so overall I certainly would not call the film predictable either and that is another thing the film has that most do not.

"The Other Boleyn Girl" (2008) Grade: C

2009-02-06T14:15:00.000-08:00

"The Other Boleyn Girl" (2008)

Grade: C

This was not as bad as I expected. I find it hilarious though how literally not one thing in this film is factual. Its all made up. Hardly any of it happened. Anyways, I found the film to be quite entertaining actually with interesting performances from Natalie Portman and Scarlett Johannson. They each have one birthing scene and its funny to see how they sort of try to outact each other with it. I actually felt Johannson did the better job with the role of Mary than Portman did with Anne. Sometimes they were hard to take seriously and other times they were very effective; it was weird how all over the place they were. Kristen Scott Thomas is always a pleasure to see. The end was effective. I guess my problem with it is that it feels hollow and rushed as if the scenes were cut down to their essentials yet its really long. There is little time for development basically leaving the two actresses of the roles of "the good sister" and "the bad sister". And honestly Henry is such a douche that it makes no sense as to why Mary would actually love him after everything but I guess those were the times. All in all the film just does not too much at all. But I was definitely interested, the performances were adequate and at times quite good, the story was interesting, costumes fantastic and the cinematography pretty. Basically I subjectively enjoyed it much more than I was unimpressed with it objectively.

"Encounters at the End of the World" (2008) Grade: A

2009-02-06T14:04:00.000-08:00

"Encounters at the End of the World" (2008)

Grade: A

First thing's first: I liked this a lot more than "Man on Wire". Honestly I was a little underwhelmed by that film. Objectively it is masterfully put together. The part on the film when he actually goes on the wire was beautiful. I firmly believe what he did was beautiful. I adore Petit. But this film just engaged me so much more. Herzog's narration is so unique. It makes you look at what you are seeing in a completely different way. His narration is as I said unique, touching, haunting, adorable, funny and insightful. He has created something here that is so special. There are so many moments that were so weird and off and not anything I ever expected to see in a documentary. He paints Antarctica as a weird place, one that people who have been through so many different portions of their life find themselves. A place where important research is being done and things are being discovered. A place where little oddities are everywhere for you to discover. He presents a place that is completely hypnotic. I cannot get the moment when the lone penguin walks off towards certain death out of my head. It was so beautiful yet so disturbing. I highly suggest you see this for a unique look into a section of the world.

"Quid Pro Quo" (2008) Grade: C-

2009-02-06T13:50:00.000-08:00

"Quid Pro Quo" (2008)

Grade: C-

I appreciate this film's attempt to explore a condition that is not well known to people; BIID, a condition in which people desire to be an amputee because they believe it will make them happier. The film was interesting for this reason and because of Vera Farmiga's performance (has become one of my favorite actresses). However the film was simply unforgettable and actually too short (76 minutes) to accomplish what it wanted. I never felt like I had any sort of understanding of the condition. I'm not expecting much but I did expect a slight insight which I did not feel that I got. The subject matter was really interesting and again I respected the attempt to tell a different story but I thought it was building up to something and I never got a payoff. The film was not actively bad which my grade suggests; it just was not very good. Love the poster by the way.

"Gonzo: The Life and Work of Dr. Hunter S. Thompson"

2009-02-06T13:47:00.000-08:00

“Gonzo: The Life and Work of Dr. Hunter S. Thompson” (2008)

Grade: C

Hunter S. Thompson fascinates me. I just feel that the film is a little too introductory. I wanted more from the film and felt that it sort of jumped around a bit too much and skipped over some stuff. There is so much to cover that I feel like we just scratch the surface of it all. I never felt that I got to know him very well. It was interesting since I did not know a lot about him but at the same time I was underwhelmed. I know this got great reviews and I'd recommend it to anyone interested in the subject but but for me it was a bit all over the place with not a ton to offer.

"Surfwise" (2008) Grade: B+

2009-02-06T13:45:00.000-08:00

“Surfwise” (2008)

Grade: B+

This was an interesting documentary about the Paskowitz family who raised their 9 children outside of the system so to speak. None went to school and they all were raised in a very small trailer that they would ride around in and surf. All of them are alive including the parents and all are interviewed about their lives and how they felt about the way they were raised. The father’s comments were the most interesting because it was his beliefs that were the reason that everyone lived the way they did. I am not sure how I feel about the reunion at the end but the film is definitely worth checking out. Probably my second favorite of the documentaries I have seen from 2008 which include Encounters at the End of the World, Man on Wire, American Teen and Gonzo: The Life and Work of Dr. Hunter S. Thompson.

"Berlin: Symphony of a Great City" (1927) Grade: B

2009-02-06T13:42:00.000-08:00

“Berlin: Symphony of a Great City” (1927)

Grade: B

This film done very much in the manner of “Man with a Movie Camera” (although made earlier) is a sort of tribute to the city of the Berlin in the 20’s. We have talked about it in length in class and I cannot figure out what I think the film is trying to do since there are conflicting views. I certainly think because of the status of Berlin at the time that the film is attempting to honor the city and show how unique it is and how different it is from other places with its liberal attitude. There are moments when it seems to be wary of certain issues of class and despair. The score has moments that are meant to overwhelm but the score is a posthumous score and awe do not know if it is what filmmaker Ruttman intended. While I think Ruttman is very much establishing moments of caution, I do believe that he is much more interested in the rhythm of the piece, the avant garde nature of the film, creating the idea of visual music and paying tribute to a unique city in a unique time. That is how I take the film. That being said, the film was excellent; I am always interested in seeing films of this nature and the B grade is more due to this being no “Man with a Movie Camera”. It was excellent and certainly interesting but it is not “Man with a Movie Camera”. Vertov has him beat.

"Grave of the Fireflies" (1988) Grade: A+

2009-02-06T13:39:00.000-08:00

“Grave of the Fireflies” (1988)

Grade: A+

Surely one of the greatest films ever made. The film takes place during WWII and the air raids in Japan. While the film never offers a statement on their part in the war and the atrocities they committed as well, the film simply points out the obvious but taken for granted fact of the citizens of Japan (in this case children) and their sufferings. The film explores the efforts of two children Seita and his little sister Setsuka who are unwillingly caught in the midst of a war that they do not understand and are not a part of. The film is trying to put the spotlight on the suffering of children during the war and how they are really the victims in all of this. Basically if you do not cry during this then….you have no soul. That’s right I said it; you have no soul. This film is a bitch to get through. Seriously, it is a very hard film to take in and handle. But it is well worth your time. Isao Takahata has a keen eye for the beauty in stillness and small moments that say so much. I am convinces Takahata wants to make people as miserable as possible with this film. I am joking. Well, I’m half joking. This is widely known as one of the greatest films ever made and rightly so; it is one of the truly few masterpieces in cinema; a film only bested by “Fantasia” in the world of animation.

"Barefoot Gen" (1983) Grade: A-

2009-02-06T13:36:00.000-08:00

"Barefoot Gen" (1983)

Grade: A-

This was an extremely disturbing yet very moving and masterful anime film dealing with Hiroshima. The first 25 minutes are pretty lighthearted at least compared to the rest of the film. Once the bomb drops there is a sequence of the most disturbing animation I believe I have seen. Everything fits so well here though and there are moments of humor amongst the horror which give the film the humanistic quality that makes the film stand out. I do not know really what else to say except that it was very moving and beautifully put together despite how disturbing it was. I could say a lot more because we have discusses it in my anime class in great detail so I'm well versed on the films themes and depiction of WWII but I have so much more to get through.

Will Update Soon

2009-02-03T11:27:00.001-08:00

Sorry I've been so negligent of this blog. I will update soon. I've seen some stuff and will give really quick reviews of things soon and then I will try to give more regular updates. : )

"My Bloody Valentine: 3-D" (2009) Grade: C-/D+

2009-01-30T12:31:00.001-08:00

Ok Here we go I am going to write short reviews for everything I have seen in the past few weeks.

My Bloody Valentine 3-D (2009):
Grade: C-/D+

My first film of 2009. I was basically dragged to this by my boyfriend who basically flips out over anything 3-D. I admit it was a very fun movie to watch. It was not as bad as I had expected but it still was not good. However, it was better than the original which was really horrible outside of the beginning and the very end. There was one scene in the film with Jamie King and another girl in the supermarket that was well done. A few of the kills were a lot of fun and the 3-D was really fantastic. It enhanced everything a great deal and made the experience a memorably fun time. That being said it was below average for several reasons. One was the fact that the twist at the end was ridiculous and pretty obvious once you get 40 minutes into the film. There is a lengthy scene with a naked woman running around being chased and it goes on for what seems like forever. While the woman was a pretty likeable character that does not change the fact that it is being put there for the sole purpose of heterosexual men seeing a completely naked woman tormented for their own amusement. Jamie King did her job well in the film; I liked her character enough. Kerr Smith was ridiculous and over the top but in an entertaining way. Jensen Ackles who in the past has shown that he actually is a good actor as Dean Winchester on “Supernatural” is really not very good in this. His soap opera background comes out a lot and he never really can bring anything notable together in this. These flaws shine through at times on “Supernatural” but he has proven himself capable of powerful emotion when the time comes on that show. I was hoping to see him able to carry a film but he cannot. He made the last 10 minutes pretty laughably bad. So yeah, a really fun time but not a good film.

Reactions to the SAGS

2009-01-26T13:54:00.001-08:00

Hello everyone! Sorry I never post anymore. School takes up all of my time. I tried to post stuff on here a while ago but it would not let me so I will give it a go here.

Reactions to the SAGS:

- The TV Categories are a jokeas they always are because with acting from "Lost" and "Battlestar Galactica" (a show that many magazines and newspapers have stepped out to say carries the best acting on television today which I agree with) not being represented it is simply not a fair competition. That being said, I was happy to see Hugh Laurie get awarded not because he deserves it, although he is insanely good on the episodes I have seen but because he gives the best speeches. I was happy to see "Mad Men" win even though I have not seen the show because I fully intend on watching it.

-The E! interviews with Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie were the most awkward and I mean the most awkward preshow interviews to an award show I have ever seen. Juliana was rambling, asking the weirdest questions, she was clearly nervous and Angelina and Brad could not give a shit about being up there. Angelina was giving very half hearted responses in some cases simply staring at Juliana. In the meantime Brad refused to answer a question and just thought the whole thing was ridiculous. Talk about awkward.

-Kate Winslet winning for Supporting Actress, while exciting, does not help us any with understanding the Best Supporting Actress race at the Oscars because she is not in the category. Personally I want it to go to Viola Davis. Then where does that leave the Best Actress race? Meryl vs. Kate? Meryl won last night giving a truly fantastic speech in which she rightfully praised the work of actresses this year. Streep very much leans towards feminist thinking and I love her for that. Apparently everyone has forgotten about Anne Hathaway though which is the performance that I want to win (with Winslet as a very close second).

-Gary Oldman went up to accept Heath's award this time which was very moving. I have massive amounts of love for Gary Oldman.

-Sean Penn winning the SAG last night to me solidifies his spot as Best Actor at the Oscars. I do not mind much because Penn was just ridiculously remarkable as Harvey Milk. Even though I would like Rourke to win, if he was going to lose, I cannot think of a more deserving performance than Penn's. His speech was interesting. I think he had clear things to say that sort of got muddled in the immediacy of the moment. Looking back on it, he praised everyone's work very sincerely, he insulted TV commentators who want to pit Penn against Rourke in this race and create anomosity where there is none (they are good friends). While I think Sean Penn's acting is virtually unbeatable today I hav never been a fan of his from what I have seen of him as a person, like at all. That being said, his speech was very geniune and appreciative and of the moment.

-Ok so Best Ensemble goes to "Slumdog Millionaire" even though "Milk" by far by far by far by far had the better ensemble. If not "Milk" than "Doubt" deserved it. Seriously, you do not get better ensemble acting than "Milk". It just does not happen. "Doubt" is a freaking powerhouse of
acting. The SAG treated Best Ensemble as Best Picture and that is not the way it should work. This film is now unfortunately unstoppable. Last night proved it. Again I really liked the film, even loved so many parts of it. But the sweep that it is doing everywhere it goes is so annoying. And it will not stop.

Ok that is all for now. Oh I forgot this adorable and amazing quote from James Franco at the preshow:

The interviewer asks is it harder to be in love with Sean Penn or to be high onscreen?

Franco: "I...I don't know. In life I am in love with Sean Penn and I stopped smoking weed so..."

Also even though it is related to TV this is an article questioning "Battlestar Galactica's" relavance in an Obama world. I love that this article exists. Because what other shows demand that this question be asked in relation to political events of the now?

http://io9.com/5137514/is-battlestar-galactica-relevant-in-the-obama-era

Some New Films (Short Reviews)

2009-01-21T06:31:00.000-08:00

So I have seen a lot of films but since school started it is really hard to keep this updated between classes, screenings, work and homework. But Ia m going to try. The Oscar race is heating up with just two days before they are announced. Goodness gracious. Well hopefully I will get my power cord in time so I can actually post my Predictions before the Oscars air. But in the meantime here are some films I have seen.

“The Happening”:
Grade: F

Oh Lords this was awful. I knew this going in obviously but truly truly this was horrific. I could see what M. Night was trying to do and I appreciate the ambition but overall I think he thought making a B movie would be easier than it actually is and overstepped his boundaries. Not to mention the fact that since he seems to think he is the second coming of cinema I feel it is safe to say that he strived for something a little out of his reach or talents. Mark Wahlberg provides us with perhaps the scariest part of the film: his performance. It is amplifies by the way that the director films him using close ups with straight on, slightly low angle shots that amplify his performance and its badness and makes it seem so much worse than it is even though it is already laughably bad. The same goes for Zooey Deschanel who flat out sucks in this. Everything about this is bad. There are at least 10 times when you say to yourself “this is for real?” That is a bad sign.

“Wanted” (2008)
Grade: B-

This was decent. I liked the time and effort put into it and I appreciated the R rating and the guts that the filmmakers had to actually make an action film with violence instead of skirting around the issue by making their films PG-13 even though just as much killing is occurring, just without the blood. I hated the narration though. I mean hated it. It was trying way too hard for a “Fight Club” feel and failed miserably. Since the film begins with constant narration I could not stand the beginning chunk of the film. It does not help that James McAvoy tried way too hard in his narration. Generally I thought his character was annoying but I liked that they went for a different type of male lead. I wish Thomas Kretschmann was in more of this though as he was severely underused. Severely. But in general I thought Angelina Jolie stuck out in her role despite not having much to do, she carried a presence felt in her scenes even if she had little dialogue. I also thought there was an overuse of tenchniques and that in general the film thought it was a little cooler than it actually was. That being said, it was a cool movie. I liked the action scenes, I liked the thought that went into it and the time in developing the story and all of the stuff with the characters’ training. But it felt like it tried too hard sometimes and relied too heavily on trying to be visually innovative that it fell a bit short.

“Be Kind Rewind” (2008)
Grade: B-/C+

While I see the problems people have with this and have a difficult time being able to look past them as well I did enjoy this. I have never believed that Gondry’s films take place in this reality so that feeling of everything being a bit off and as a consequence implausible felt OK to me. Not great as I feel that his other films have captured that off feeling more successfully but it still excused a lot of the implausibilities within the plot that other people complained about. I thought everyone was good, particularly Melonie Diaz, I just felt like there were no really defined characters. Everyone felt undeveloped and all over the place. But nevertheless Michel Gondry has a brilliant mind and his visions while not always successful are still trying out ideas that are indeed unique and refreshing to me.

“The Edge of Heaven” (Auf der anderen Seite)
Grade: A-

This was so good. This is sort of like “Babel” only successful instead of never really coming together in a way that felt right. This is a beautiful film filled with interesting characters and great performances all around. The way it weaves in and out of the stories is seamless and the way it quickly establishes the characters as people you want to see more of despite their flaws and characters who feel unique and specific very quickly instead of just being rehashes of the same kinds of characters we are used to seeing. These felt like people and I loved that. Great great film.

“Rachel Getting Married”
Grade: A

I do not even know what to say about this. I felt like I was a guest at this wedding. Demme lets you soak up the atmosphere by having us listen to bits of all of the speeches and go through the ceremony. He cares so much about the characters but is determined to give us the bigger picture and open the film up. The characters and dialogue felt real. They are flawed people, people you do not always like, sometimes never do. Some things are explained others are not. Progress is made between some of the relationships but even then very little. This is a brilliant film, a better and more original work, more raw and more telling film about humans than any of the films being projected as the 5 Best Picture nominees (although Milk does something just as important with its film). You may think it is a film about another dysfunctional family but what this film does is go so far beyond what you expect and delivers a one of a kind experience that Demme infuses with his love for music through the casting of the lead singer of TV on the Radio as Rachel’s fiancee and Robyn Hitchcock as guest at the wedding. Anne Hathaway took my breath away with her fearless performance. It is astonishing what she does here. I went in expecting something really good but nothing near the performance I saw. Rosemarie DeWitt is just as good here as she never makes herself the good sister; she is flawed as well and she shows it. Bill Irwin as the father is remarkable and Debra Winger packs one hell of a punch in her big scene as well as speaking unsaid volumes with her face in the end. This is absolutely essential viewing for the films of 2008.

“The Life Before Her Eyes”
Grade: C-

This film was too ambitious. It was pretentious and was trying too hard to be something else when its real potential lied in the possibility of telling a moving story about survivors’ guilt but in the films quest to be different it forgoes all of that build up and ends up crushing it all with a twist ending. The Uma Thurman scenes make no sense and add up to nothing. There is a reason for this which is explained at the end but I feel there was potential here even with the ending but it was not executed in a way that worked. So those scenes feel like a waste. Then with Evan Rachel Wood’s scenes they are definitely more interesting but still feel unfocused. The only scene that made an impact was the scene in which the shooting took place which effected me heavily. However they shove it down our throats by using it about 6 times so they could not even do that right. I think the twist could have been very effective if the script had been given an entire reworking somehow. Everyone was very good it was nice to see Uma Thurman doing something serious and Evan Rachel Wood was great as well. Eva Amurri was the real standout in the film though containing the most presence and being the character with the most life and livability.

“Wendy and Lucy” (2008)
Grade: B+

Beautiful simple film with a remarkable lead performance by Michelle Williams. I cannot write anymore so I have to end it there. Ugh

I also saw “The Simpsons Movie” which was pretty fantastic, consistently funny and much better than I expected, “The Student of Prague” (1913) and probably something else but I have no idea what.

Lots of Short Reviews

2009-01-09T13:41:00.000-08:00

Hello all! So I have seen a lot of things but I do not have time to write full reviews of them so I will do shorter reviews all in one for everything I have seen.

Happy-Go-Lucky (2008) Grade: A- This was my first Mike Leigh film and I absolutely loved it. I understand that this is a much more positive film than his other works. The unique way Leigh prepares to shoot his films is absolutely fascinating. While I wanted to strangle Poppy many times she is one of the most artfully crafted characters of the year. Sally Hawkins gives a performance of unmatchable realism and gives the best female performance of the year that I have seen. I love how there is little plot, yet I was completely interested the entire time. It does not adhere to the typical mechanisms of scripting again due to Leigh’s techniques. It is like getting a peek into a real person’s life and seeing how they function in different situations. Eddie Marsan is also incredible as Scott the driving instructor. This should be in the Best Picture race. But of course it isn’t.

Vicky Cristina Barcelona (2008): Grade B. A worthy new effort from Woody Allen. Slight, but definitely worthwhile. The film looks incredibly beautiful as a sort of love letter to Barcelona. The omniscient “Magnolia” like narration is one of my favorite devices in film. Like “Little Children” and “The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford” it is like reading a novel but with visuals presented to you. It may save the actors from getting their own characterization across at times but it saves time and actually does give a much fuller understanding of the story and characters in a short amount of time even if it is a short of shortcut. Rebecca Hall proves why she is one of my favorite actresses. Javier Bardem is really good as is Scarlett Johansson. Penelope Cruz should not be sweeping all of these awards for Supporting Actress but she is absolutely terrific bringing the film to a new level when she enters it. I like how essentially nothing changes by the end and nobody have learned anything and pretty much ends up where they started. It is a refreshing change from the characters learning something and their lives changing in the film.

Gran Torino (2008): Grade: B The character of Walt Kowalski made this film. And the score. I really very much enjoyed all of it actually. I do not know how great of a film it is except that I was affected by it. The Hmong boy was horrible, essentially ruining the dramatics of any scene he was in. The Hmong girl was better, still not great but I just really liked her despite not being all that natural. I also really liked the priest. Clint Eastwood is fantastic here, creating a full character that I became attached to. While I do not know how successful the film is I did really enjoy it so I do not really know the criticisms.

Passengers (2008): Grade: D. Ugh this was just awful. The last 10 minutes were good and Anne Hathaway did a great job with it but the rest of this movie despite appreciating the director’s ambitions is just a mess. It has no idea what it is doing for the entire run; I actually had no idea what I was watching despite the illusion of an actual story. Terrible.

The Reader (2008): Grade: A- I have no idea what the lukewarm love for this movie is about. I thought it was excellent on virtually every level. Yes it is very clearly an Oscar movie from the Weinstein’s but other than that obvious push from the beginning this film brought up tough questions without any easy answers. It presented complex characters and provided an interesting and refreshing take on the post WWII Germany. It brings up the question of how does the younger generation after WWII function knowing that their elders participated in genocide, not knowing who did what and having to carry the weight of all of the anger from others on their shoulder despite not actually being a part of the genocide. This is very interesting stuff that is addressed in very subtle ways. Kate Winslet knocks this one out of the park as Hanna Schmitz. This is not a supporting performance but a lead one and one that should be the lead category. It is a stronger performance than hers in Revolutionary Road. While both contain equal amounts of subtlety and extremes, Hanna is a more complicated character and one that I felt that I got to know more despite actually learning less about her. David Kross also impressed me so much here. He learned English for the role and really matched up with Winslet in the intense scenes. Ralph Fiennes tops off his great year with a third terrific performance. The film looks beautiful, is paced fantastically and should be getting more love this Oscar season because I feel that it is a better film than 3 of the frontrunners for Best Picture.

Hamlet 2 (2008) Grade: C – The film itself is a mess, despite some gems within the dialogue and story. Elizabeth Shue felt out of place, Catherine Keener and David Arquette felt completely misguided and the kids have no motive for their participation in this play at all let alone their enthusiasm for it. But Amy Poehler is fantastic, as is the child critic. The real reason to see this though is Steve Coogan who just goes completely over the top with his performance in the best way possible. It is maniacally inspired. Worth seeing for him and that honestly the entire film was enjoyable because he was in every scene. As a film though, it is all over the place.

Flight of the Red Balloon (2008) Grade: C+. While this is beautifully made and I always love seeing Juliette Binoche, personally this was not for me. Everything involving the red balloon was entrancing and I liked the point of its presence in the film but the rest just was not interesting enough for me. I do not think this is a bad film at all, quite the contrary; it just is not to my taste.

Non 2008 Films:

Grey Gardens (1975) (Documentary) Grade: A
Could I have liked this more? Unlikely. I do not even know what to say about it except that the eccentric story and seclusion of Little Edie and Big Edie on Grey Gardens is a glimpse into 2 very interesting lives, one unregretful and the other full of regrets. As opposed to trying to hide the fact that the conversations are natural, there is an interesting twist here. While the conversations are entirely authentic, the Maylses brothers do not hide the fact that these conversations that bring up the past arise because the brothers are there as they each try to talk to the Maysles brothers about their lives within real life and not through specific interviews or questions being asked because this is cinema verite style which is my favorite form of documentary.

Mr. Hulot’s Holiday (1953) Grade: B+. I would not have liked this if I was younger when I saw it. Today when I am more admirable of atmosphere in a way than some stories and even character development, this film was absolutely delightful. Virtually no plot, the jokes are subtle and not as catastrophic as the back of the DVD suggests but it is a masterpiece; easily one of the greatest films I have ever seen. Jacques Tati is a genius. His film is a take on the dull routine of French vacationing and the need to inject youth and freedom into it as the vacationers desperately try to keep everything in perfect order. The little dialogue there is, is all very low in volume, a purposeful move by Tati. It sucks you into its framing and shot composition; it is a stunning film.
The Thin Blue Line (1988) (Doc) Grade: A- Oh God did I get into this one. Absolutely fascinating documentary that helped get a man released from jail from a life time sentence. The way that this case was handled is mind blowingly horrific; as terrifying as any horror film. I cannot explain how horribly this case was handles and Morris’ acute and meticulous construction of the course of events really puts into perspective how and where everything went wrong. Also, Mrs. Miller in this film, in maybe about 10 minutes of it, is the most terrifying woman ever to be seen in a documentary. The woman is a fucking nut job. A nut job. Oh and David Harris is pure evil.

Gimme Shelter (1970) (Doc) Grade: A- I learned that I never would have gone to Altamont if given a chance. That said, this movie ruled and I do not even know what else to say about it except that it ruled and I am getting tired of typing.

Harlan County U.S.A (1976) (Doc) Grade: B. Interesting and heartbreaking account of the year long coal miner strike in Kentucky. I loved the inclusion of the woman’s actions during the strike. I loved the music. I also loved how it depicts so well how hard it is for so many people to get basic things included into their jobs and how unwilling the companies are to give them anything that they justifiably ask for. This is a never ending circle that these people go through. Also Pete Boyle is a nut job as well.

The Fallen Idol (1948) Grade: A. I need to own this. This was one of the best movies I have seen in years. I liked it better than The Third Man. The deep focus was incredible. The little boy is the cutest little British boy I have ever seen. Everything about it was just perfect. I do not have one complaint about this movie. I could watch it over and over and over again. Brilliant.

WGA Predictions

2009-01-07T12:04:00.000-08:00

WGA:

Original:
Milk
Rachel Getting Married
The Visitor,
Vicky Cristina Barcelona
Tropic Thunder

Adapted:
Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Slumdog Millionaire
The Reader
Frost/Nixon
Revolutionary Road

Review: "The Wrestler" Grade: A

2009-01-03T23:22:00.000-08:00

"The Wrestler" (2008)
Grade: A

Well, after finally recovering from “The Wrestler” I am ready to review it I guess even though I just watched it I should let it sit with me but I sort of just want to get the review out of the way. While the story of “The Wrestler” is somewhat formulaic, the way it is told is not and what comes out is a film that really impressed me on virtually every level to the point where I now have it as my second greatest film of the year. It cuts deep. It really does, it is not an easy film to watch.

As I said before, this is a sort of familiar story. A has-been cannot seem to get his life in order and every attempt made to establish a connection with someone ends up putting him worse off than he was before. After watching the film I am convinced that Randy the Ram is real. I never once felt like I was watching a performance; it all felt like a documentary. The only love he has from anyone is the crowd cheering and his fans when he wrestles. Outside of wrestling he really has nobody and nothing going for him; so he needs his wrestling to survive. His body suffers so much abuse for the cheering but he puts himself in deliberate pain as long as it means he still has a crowd cheering. He attempts to have a relationship with Cassidy/Pam, a stripper played by Marisa Tomei who also uses her body for a living and also puts herself through a lot of pain to survive. The difference between the two is that she does not like what she does and prefers her Pam persona to her Cassidy persona. Randy on the other hand always corrects people to call him Randy even though his real name is Robin. He prefers the persona, she prefers her reality. She is drawn to Randy but she has a rule that involves no relationships with a customer. She is so adamant about it because she is desperate to keep her outside life and her job life separate no matter what the cost. They cannot mix. So she is torn. We also have Randy’s attempts to patch up his relationship with his daughter Stephanie played by Evan Rachel Wood.

There are other things that happen that I will not say. Randy’s attempt to live a life without wrestling because of something that happens is heartbreaking to watch collapse. It is hard to see someone who is willing to put themselves through so much just to feel loved by a crowd because they have nobody else. This is all done with such dimension and precision that made me feel so let into a character in a way that is rarely seen. I know that a lot of this parallels Mickey Rourke’s life and I cannot deny that this adds a layer of meaning to the film on top of everything but honestly the performance and film go very far beyond the whole Mickey Rourke comeback role thing. This is an incredible performance. Period. By the end you feel as if you completely know him and you feel so hard and so much for this flawed individual. I was left a sobbing mess by the end of the film and again this is with very little music involved. I know I always mention when something if effective without music but that is because so often we are manipulated by film score, great as it is, and I find it to be extremely commendable when a film can make me feel something profound without injecting that enhancer of emotions into the final product (don’t get me wrong though, I absolutely love love love film score). I do not really care who wins Best Actor out of the two front runners for the nomination and win. They are both absolutely incredible remarkable performances, but if I had to pick the winner…I would probably give it to Rourke.

While I know that Billy Walsh from “Entourage” is based off of Aronofsky and that frightens me to my core, I cannot deny the greatness of his film directing despite the apparent enormity of his ego (whatever, most directors have them). His hand held work, his confident and more mature storytelling ability has emerged. As great and unique as “Requiem for a Dream” is, I think this is the slightly better work. He slowly guides us through the boredom of Randy’s life outside of the ring. He lets us feel the pathetic nature of his relationship with Stephanie and Cassidy to a degree. He shows us Randy’s loneliness and his inability to function without wrestling. He does a really impressive job of letting us see Randy’s hope and enthusiasm for things when he thinks things can work out even without the wrestling. Randy’s choice near the end is predictable yes, but it is because Aronofsky has the guts to let Randy’s actions become predictable that makes his character all the more heartbreaking. He shows us the thought process and the methodical breakdown of Randy’s attempt at a life so even though we know where it is going this actually makes it harder to watch. Its predictability is emphasized by Aronofsky and the script, therefore actually makes the film stronger and even more powerful.

Marisa Tomei does so much with the role of Cassidy. This is her second year in a row giving a great performance in a supporting role in a film that requires her to be nude for a large percentage of the time. Whatever though because her body is absolutely stunning. She brings a lot to a role that could have been very one note if done by somebody incapable but she fits right in and became a character I really cared about. Evan Rachel Wood is great as well and even though I am not the biggest fan of hers I cannot deny she does a great job in her scenes which are some of the most moving in the film.

The score by Aronofsky regular Clint Mansell is perfect in its tone and its frequency in the film, not being in much of it at all but being there at exactly the right time. Bruce Springsteen’s song “The Wrestler” at the end of the film really ties everything up nicely and I am rooting for it for Best Song even though I have heard nothing else yet.

An aspect I also loved outside of everything else is the look inside of the wrestling world it provides. The scenes in which the wrestlers prepare and plan for the show were just as interesting as anything else in the movie.

So in conclusion I was extremely moved and uniformly impressed by “The Wrestler”. It is without a doubt one of the best films of 2008; it is a hard film to watch but a very emotionally rewarding one. Not really rewarding in a positive way but in the way that occurs when a film really gets you the way that shows you the power that film can have. The film will stick with me for a good long while I have no doubt and Mickey Rourke will do the same as I try to shake off the emotional ringer that he has put me through in is arguably the best performance of this year. I believe Randy the Ram exists. I believe the story I was told. While it is again sort of a contrived story that we have seen in other forms before, it is told in such an effective way with such an effective character study that it hardly matters. And besides, aren’t most of the other Oscar contenders of this year formulaic as well in one way or another, despite how good they also are? I guess the problem with the film besides that it is a little contrived is that I do not know whtat it would be without Mickey Rourke. Certainly a good film but not anything like what this film actually is. But nevertheless for me it was a powerful experience and right now that is what I care about.

See this film if you are looking for a raw and powerful cinematic experience with a lead performance that will move you to your core. Easily in the top 5 best films from 2008 that I have seen.

Review: "Slumdog Millionaire" Grade: B+

2009-01-03T15:35:00.000-08:00

"Slumdog Millionaire" (2008)

Grade: A-

Will I be upset if or should I say when “Slumdog Millionaire” wins Best Picture at this year’s Oscars? Not really. It is not undeserving. I have other preferences for this year’s winner but I can see how this film represents where we are right now with this country’s attitudes and since the Oscar usually likes to represent that with its Best Picture winner then this would be the film to reward.

This is another film where I would like to see it again to fully know what I think. I have been the victim of overhype this year. Almost everything I have seen when I go in expecting something remarkable has left me something either remarkable but personally I am not obsessed with it or underwhelming for some reason. I do not really think “Slumdog Millionaire” falls into this category as much as a few of the other films from this year that left me sort of underwhelmed. But in a small way it did. Yet I loved the story, thought it was beautifully told, felt drawn into the characters and their predicaments, etc. I really liked the creative way that the story was told with how he knew the answers to the question. The directing may make a visual pleasure for the audience of events that should not be visually pleasing to watch but I feel that there is an appropriate balance between a glossy visual overcoat of Mumbai life and a raw depiction of disturbing events. The question and answer device felt somewhat plausible which is good because I was afraid it would not.

The visuals are quite stunning. Danny Boyle does a fantastic job of really making everything pop but toning it down a bit for intense events and toning it up for exciting ones. It lent a very fresh feel to the film which makes it stand out with its distinctive style. This is quick editing that works. However I did have a couple of stylistic problems. One was too many hard angles. Some work very well and some were just too much and at times took me out of the film. Second was this technique that Boyle uses sometimes and I have no idea what the name of it is but he uses it when Jamal sees Latika waiting at the train station the first time. I think it can be used once or twice maybe but more than that and I feel like I am watching a music video.

The soundtrack and score are incredible. I was a huge fan of the music choices even though I think another M.I.A song would have worked better instead of “Paper Planes” just because it seems to be everywhere now even if it is still my favorite track by her. Nevertheless it was still good and the rest of the music added such life to everything.

The story itself is really captivating. Seeing Jamal’s life story is immensely satisfying and quite disturbing. I did not expect things to get as intense as they did but Boyle does not shy away from the reality of some of the issues that plague Mumbai and other parts of the world. Shooting in Mumbai also was an essential decision because it grounded everything in a strong reality while the stylistics gave the film a whimsical and lively quality. So that was a very powerful combination.

While everyone wants to jump up for joy at the end of the film I was happy but I did not have the reaction I think I was supposed to. Jamal and Latika’s relationship by the end did not grab me the way the rest of the story did. I very much cared about her because of the horrible life she has had to go through. I very much cared about him and wanted her to get out of her situation but as a couple I was not overly drawn to them. I think this was because while I loved their interactions as children, I did not feel that I had much stock in them as a couple later on because we do not get to know her at all. I know there really is not any room to develop her as a character but in the later segments when she is older, she really is just a beautiful woman who sort of stands around and has no personality. At least we do not get to see it and I get that it has all probably been suppressed through the years but still…I wanted them to get together definitely and I did like and care about them as a couple but by the end I did not want to stand up and cheer or have the reaction that I feel that I should have. So again I cared but I was not on the edge of my seat about the matter.

The performances are uniformly good. Everyone really does a great job of bringing heir characters to life. My two personal favorites are Anil Kapoor as the host of “Who Wants to be a Millionaire” and Irrfan Khan as the police inspector. As good as Dev Patel was in the film I really would prefer him not to get an Oscar Nomination in Supporting Actor as it looks like he is primed to. It is simply too packed this year.

The film reminded me of “City of God”, which personally I think is the better film but this is honestly a crowning achievement. I do not know what the flaws will be that people see in the film as the hype dies down and the time to rant and rave about whatever issues in the film there seems to be come about but right now I just know that despite a couple of reservations I really was taken in by the film. It has stuck with me and I actually have a strong urge to see it again; which is not a significant urge I have with a lot of the films I have seen this year so that is a really good thing. This is a great film and I feel more strongly about the more I think about it.

Review: "Revolutionary Road" Grade: B+/B

2009-01-02T21:40:00.000-08:00

"Revolutionary Road" (2008)
Grade: B+/B

First of all I realize that I am being easy on this and "Doubt" by giving them partly a B+. They really should have B's. But this is a combination vote of how much I enjoyed the films as well. Plus for all of the problems I have with both of the films', their best scenes are right at the top of the best of the year and there are whole chunks of scenes in both that blow my mind so that accounts for the B+ factor. Its successes count for a lot even if the ultimate overall success of the films for me are questionable.

“Revolutionary Road” is a tough film to review. I do not really know where I stand on it. I think I need to see it again to really decide. I will mostly talk about the film as an adaptation because it is how my other thoughts about the film can come about. As I read the reviews of folks who are extremely enthusiastic about the film I can see where they are coming from with their thoughts and sort of agree. Then when I read the reviews of the people who did not like the film I can also see where they are coming from. I very much liked the film but for me it just never really ascended into being a great film even though its last half hour to thirty five minutes is fantastic.

The adaptation to “Revolutionary Road” is very faithful to the book. Most of the dialogue is directly from the novel which was a new and rewarding as it allowed for scenes to be shown as almost literal translations to what I read which was so satisfying to see. One thing that is done is that the film lets us a bit more into April’s life. We see things from more of an equal perspective and even though she still comes off as cold and unlikable, the film is Frank and April’s film as opposed to Frank’s book. I liked this change very much even though the script and direction sort of drop the ball on Frank's development a bit. I feel that if Kate Winslet had not played April and an unknown actress was playing the role, then it would be more understandable to keep the book from Frank’s perspective but when the film is supposed to be a breakdown of a marriage with Kate Winslet starring, you know you are now going to have a character who has no point of view. I do not think this ruins anything depicted in the book because as I said before April still comes off as cold and unlikable but at least she becomes more sympathetic. Her life seems to have not gone the way she wanted it to. The unique and meaningful life she had dreamt of having never happened and she shows resentment towards her kids because of it and towards her husband because it makes the most sense for her to blame him. I do not think that by doing this we should have lessened what we understood about Frank but unfortunately because of the script’s inability to internalize Frank’s thoughts as they did in the book we are left with an equally perplexing understanding of Frank. Basically what is done is that they do more with April which makes her predicament clearer and does much to enhance the character but we never feel let into her psyche truly through the script; Winslet provides so much with her face though that she brings a lot more than what was there on the page. Then we have Frank whose character goes more undeveloped through again the scripts inability and Mendes’ unwillingness to show us a real struggle with Frank’s decisions. In the book he struggles with what to say, worrying about upsetting his wife after the play she is a part of. He ends up saying “Well that wasn’t exactly a triumph.” Instead of showing a struggle on his face as to what to say at all we simply see the end result of what he does say which ends up being insensitive. So while we have the same dialogue we do not have the struggle, we just get the line and since it is his first interaction with April in the present, he immediately comes off as insensitive.

Another instance is when Frank has an affair with Maureen the secretary. He does not know what to say after they have sex and he ends up saying “You were swell” and leaves her there in bed. Again this is from the novel if I recall but the internalization is not. I understand this is nearly impossible to convey but DiCaprio’s face is not properly used by the director during scenes like this because we are not given any chance to really see him before he says this, we do not get a moment when he is cautious. Even the way he goes about the affair comes off as something he does normally when in reality this was the first time he had done this. It is a big decision for Frank but we never see that. We do get a nice moment when he comes home from the affair to a surprise birthday party from his wife and kids. However they lose another opportunity to make Frank’s actions seem substantial to him when they do not have Frank try to tell April that night about the affair. They took so much from the novel word for word in terms of dialogue but they could not take a half a sentence? It would have inferred that Frank had not done that before if he had felt guilty enough to tell her about it that night but they do not do that.

Even though they did not flesh out these moments, there is something they cut out that I am ecstatic about. Frank carries on his affair with Maureen in both the film and the book but they do not show when Frank ends the relationship and when Maureen’s roommate confronts Frank about his intentions. He tells the roommate off and then laughs about it afterwards and laughs after he ends his affair with Maureen (even though he knows she is in love with him) to the point where he has to stop his car to calm down. It’s pretty much a horrible reaction to have and I am happy they cut it out.

Another thing I am happy that they cut out was all of the stuff with the plans for April to visit the psychiatrist. It is brought up and it is definitely in the film but it is not as substantial as it is in the book. Even in the film it came off as misplaced and dated psychiatric evaluation on Frank’s part that would have felt really unfounded in the film.

I did not appreciate the omission of the letter at the end of the film. I find it to be crucial but apparently the filmmakers did not.

Anyways, Frank is still underdeveloped in many ways and April is more developed than in the book but neither are fully fleshed out characters from the script, they meet in the middle with their development. Leonardo DiCaprio and Kate Winslet make their characters what they are and they are admittedly able to do so much with Frank and April through their faces. DiCaprio takes a while to get going but once we hit a certain point in the film he really nails it. He is remarkable in the last 35 minutes. His face as he eats breakfast near the end is heartbreaking as we realize that his longing for a different life really is not what he needs; he just needs April to be loving and content with where they are and that is enough for him. For April she cannot function in that life, she does not just need love from her husband; everything she needs she does not have and cannot have. She is incapable of thinking about her kids’ happiness and her husband’s happiness once it gets to a point where she cannot take it anymore. Winslet does not take any time getting going and gives an incredible performance here filled with expressions that speak volumes and delivering lines that cut so deep. These are two very brave performances that push further and further…and then further. Winslet’s face during pretty much every scene she is in is entrancing. I cannot explain how Winslet gave such a deep performance with April and yet the film manages somehow to make us merely distantly observant. It is a cold film that promotes self reflecting during and after the film which is not very fun.

Something that they kept which I loved and greatly contributed to the successful elements in the film was that they kept the scenes with Shep and Milly by themselves intact. We got to understand Shep’s predicament and to see them as a couple as well so when everything happens it becomes important for everyone involved. The scene when Shep explains to Milly that he thinks that Frank and April’s decision to move to Europe is immature is incredible and honestly could be the most substantial scene in the film for me. Milly inexplicably breaks down when she hears that he is against the move they are making and it is never explained why. But it is because the Wheeler’s decision forced them to think about their own lives and where they were at. When Milly hears that Shep thinks the idea is immature she is officially allowed to look down on it and to feel content with her suburban life again instead of being threatened with the idea that Shep and she are trapped as well. Her reassurance of their lives causes her to break down. It is a remarkable little scene that adds so so much to the final film.

Michael Shannon steals his scenes as John Givings easily giving one of the greatest book-to-screen performances ever. I have nothing but praise for him. Some of his lines and the way he delivers them are like the equivalent of knife going into you. He also has what for me was the most important and telling line in the book and film about how couples are able to recognize the emptiness but it takes real guts to recognize the hopelessness. I also need to point out pretty much everyone else. Kathy Bates is great. Zoe Kazan is excellent as Maureen completely capturing her persona in the book. I was very impressed by her. Lastly Milly and Shep played by Kathryn Hahn and David Harbour are soooo good here as well. The whole film features great acting.

The last 35 minutes of the film is pure gold pretty much. Even though we are never really let into the lives of these two the way we would like it is still an incredible final 35 minutes. The way Winslet is photographed as she dances with Shep is stunning. The blowout between Frank and April is insanely awesome and it took my breath away. I honestly cannot even explain it. DiCaprio’s blow up as he mixes sadness, anger and overwhelming frustration is a marvel to see. The last scene with John was painfully awkward and powerful. The breakfast scene is absolutely astounding. April’s course of events after Frank leaves is very moving. And everything after that not to give everything away is just so powerful even without the intense emotional involvement on the viewer’s part. And they keep the ending exactly the same as it is in the book which is not something they needed to do but they did and I am so happy they did. I could go on and on about each of these scenes but I will not.

Also a great core from the always fantastic Thomas Newman, my favorite film composer and incredible cinematography from once again Roger Deakins, the master.

All in all it was a mixed experience. Honestly I was pleased with all of it; none of it was bad at all. The scenes ranged from decent to incredible. The performances were the strongest part of the movie, fittingly so with everyone really giving it 110%. It is a film that leaves you in a weird mood as it is uncomfortably relatable at times even at my young age. Even though the film captures the dullness and repetitiveness and the eventual boredom and ordinary qualities that come with settling down and it really does a fantastic job of adapting the screenplay in terms of how faithful they are to the dialogue and story, I still felt distant from the film afterwards. I do not know if this was the intention but it was how I felt. I never felt sucked in completely with the characters even if I was sucked into certain scenes and to the end. I understand that Frank and April are not supposed to be very likable but something was lost in the translation from book to screen that made for a much more observant experience as opposed to a participatory one while some films are supposed to feel that way (mainly in some arthouse foreign films to broadly use the term) I do not know if that was the intention here. It made for a sort of confusing experience. Between this and the fact that I felt the script never pushed the characters to the next level and the direction was sometimes too unconcerned with developing Frank’s character, these are some flaws or at least the latter ones are since I still cannot figure out the intention of the distance you feel during it. But overall this is a worthy experience to have because it offers several strong aspects to it, I was interested throughout and the acting on display here is just tops; there are few films this year that match up to it in terms of the ensemble. I am still thinking about the film even though I saw it 3 days ago; it has stuck with me and that cannot be a bad thing right?

Review: "Doubt" (2008) Grade: B+/B

2009-01-02T19:22:00.001-08:00

Doubt (2008)
Grade: B

“Doubt” is not a perfect film. Let me just say that and get it out in to the open. I have issues with the adaptation of it. 25 minutes into the film and only the first sermon in the play has been told; nothing else is from the play. The additions do not even make sense. They are not scenes of dialogue really. I have no idea actually how they even take up all of that time. It is remarkable how much time passes at the beginning of this movie without actually having anything near significant or interesting happening. The movie is brought to a halt before it has begun. Director John Patrick Shanley seems to feel that the more you expand the play the more cinematic it gets. The problem with this is when the additions to the film become repetitive, redundant and sometimes outright poorly done. For instance, the credits to the film show us following a child named Jimmy who is going to be serving mass and we see him getting up and making his way to the church as the credits appear before us. Who is this kid? He is not a character; he has no purpose except to immediately broaden the film’s setting to outside the parish. It is ridiculous though as the beginning of the film to be something completely unrelated to anything in the story. It feels misplaced and forced as a way to immediately establish a cinematic quality about the story.

There are other kids like William London who for some strange reason have recurring parts in the film which I do not mind so much but when it seems like they stick out and are intruding in a way into the film it becomes distracting. I also believe that we saw a bit too much of Donald Miller the child whose relations with Father Flynn cause suspicion. I am glad we got to see a little of him and his scene with Flynn that is not in the book I had no problem with even though part of me does not think we should have seen any of their relationship. Then there is a scene with just him and Jimmy which simply should not be there at all. They either should have chosen the scene with him and Flynn and a couple of other shots or cut out the one scene and shown a select few of the glimpses of Donald. I am sorry but I do not want to see a lot of the kid because it takes away from everything. I do not like him actually being physically brought into the story. So these are my big complaints about the film; that the film takes forever to actually get started, the parish is opened up too much and we see too much of Donald Miller, the child in question.

My smaller complaints have to do with a couple of unsubtle directorial choices. I am not sure if John Patrick Shanley was the best person to direct the adaptation of his own play. He does a decent job but it could have been better and he would have been in a bit of trouble I feel if Roger Deakins was not the one behind the cinematography. Anyways, he uses a wind motif throughout the film that comes off as obvious as well as an outright lame attempt at analogy involving a cat catching a mouse being parallel with Sister Aloysius and Father Flynn. Sister Aloysius even points it out as if it were not obvious enough as it is. I also still hate that last line however Streep pulls it off giving it significantly more weight than when I simply read it.

So these are my complaints but overall I very much enjoyed “Doubt” because of the performances and because of how interesting I find the story to be. Shanley uses the framework of a nuns certainty about the relationship between a boy and a priest without any proof and challenges his audience to experience doubt for ourselves and to dissect what that means and how someone can be so certain and how unsolvable the predicament is. The performance that relies on all of this working rests on Philip Seymour Hoffman as Father Flynn. On the surface Meryl Streep and Viola Davis actually have showier role to play but in terms of the success of perhaps the most difficult task, Hoffman gets that job. He plays every scene both ways simultaneously. If you decide to look at one scene and think he is guilty you can read it that way with massive amounts of depth going on. Then look at the scene again as if he was innocent and he feels completely sincere in his denials. He also has genuine moments that could be read as being guilty and others with nothing but sincerity. He actually made me feel more confused than ever about what I felt Father Flynn and what his relationship with Donald Miller is. He filled me with more doubt than ever and since Shanley’s purpose is to have you experience doubt or certainty or at least something involving what you think about Father Flynn, Hoffman succeeds at making some people feel certainty and others doubt. Added to all of this he creates a complete character; one that believes in changing the parish with the times, a man who takes pride in being a man who has power in the church, who tries to inspire others but does not take any crap from anyone. He tries to connect but does he connect too much to Donald? He is a strong believer of changing with the times but is not about to give up his patriarchal position and fully believes in the hierarchy established in the church. He taks a pleasure in his position and enjoys the power of the men; he loves the idea of the male camaraderie and fully believes in the submissive position that the nuns hold in the church and that that is the way it should be. He is completely comfortable sitting in Sister Aloysius' chair when he enters her office, when Sister James serves him tea he does not see her as being nice but you can see he believes this to her duty. He seems to take pleasure in being a mix between someone that people look up to but also having the power to subtly intimidate others. He is very likable on the surface and does seem to genuinely want to be there for the boy no matter what the consequences are but under the surface he has some particularly negative qualities about him. If I had to pick I lean towards his innocence based on the fact that he tells the Sister to ask the boy herself. But again, after I saw it I was leaning towards guilt. This is the mastery of his performance.

Meryl Streep although in a very showy role really steps up her usual game to bring an engrossing performance that drags you into the film whether you like it or not. She displays a ferocious demeanor that actually made me want to side with her because she is the only one who is sure of anything. Her certainty and relentless action to take Father Flynn down seems to be the form her distaste for the hierarchy and lack of power that the nuns have has taken. Father Flynn represents everything she hates. He is well liked by most of the students and he holds and freedom and power within the church that she wants. She is the principal and holds a self instigated reputation for being cold and intimidating and yet she does not hold the power her position suggests because she is a nun. She seems to act out her disapproval for all of this by putting all of her power into taking Flynn down. It is a very interesting dynamic that these two have and makes you wonder how sure she actually is and how much is it is justifiably deep seeded resentment.

Amy Adams is going to go more under the radar for having the most subtle performance but she is not the weak link here by any means as she more than holds her own with the rest of the cast. Sister James represents the audience and our perspective in a way, at first wanting to be sincere in her suspicions but eventually regretting telling Sister Aloysius at all. She perfectly conveys the innocence and hopeful qualities of someone who is still quite new to much of the world and who just wants to do good by connecting to students. I liked the addition of seeing her teach in the classroom and trying to emulate Sister Aloysius’ teaching methods while not feeling it to be right in her heart. Adams is one of my favorite working actresses today and I cannot wait to see how her career unfolds.

Last but certainly not least is Viola Davis in a show-stopping, film-stealing performance that still sticks with me. Her one 8 minute scene or however long it is actually does manage to steal the film as everyone says. This is not an exaggeration. She does so much with her character in such a short amount of time that she could have starred in the film and I would have felt just as much development with her character. Meryl Streep barely registers on the radar during this scene; that is how good she is. Yes this scene is sort of the center of the play in many ways and yes it is a scene that is meant to have this sort of impact but that does not make it any less substantial that it does. The scene sent me into tears by simply hearing the words and seeing her face. There is no music manipulation here and we are given n openly raw performance that feels devoid of any sort of acting actually happening. I felt so thoroughly that she was a real mother from 1964 and not an actress playing this character. The line “Whatever it is, it’s just until June” sends shivers down my spine even now. This could be the most powerful scene in cinema in the year 2008 for me. And it is because of her.

There are several other fantastic scenes and this is why I think that while the film has its definite issues, some more harmful to the film than others, the big scenes that are the most important are done magnificently. The scene when Sister James and Sister Aloysius confront Father Flynn with their suspicions is filled with significant tension. The scene when Father Flynn gave his sermon about gossip and intolerance was inexplicable frightening as Father Flynn inflicted his intimidation through the form of a sermon that not so subtly addresses the nuns. The scene when Sister James and Father Flynn have their discussion is a subtle and touching one. The scene however that will be on my Top Scenes of 2008 and it will be very high is the one in which Father Flynn and Sister Aloysius really go at it when he finds out that she has spoken to Donald’s mother. This is one of the greatest actors ever and one of the greatest actresses ever going at it at the top of their game, pulling out all of the stops as they just put it all out there. This is a tour-de-force scene, one that left me breathless. It is inexplicably available on youtube as an extended clip that apple put up. It is about 6 minutes long even though the scene continues after the clip ends; this is essentially the climax of the film.

While I do not think this should be nominated for Best Picture at all, I do think this is a worthy film in many ways due to the across the board incredible performances, the film’s beauty is perfectly conveyed through Roger Deakins and the fact that overall I feel that the film is effective especially in the scenes that matter; these scenes are all stellar. The film is mired down a bit though from getting such a slow start, opening up the parish too much, showing too much of Donald Miller and Shanley’s unsubtle direction at times that likes to think itself more clever than it actually is. It is a mixed bag but one well worth seeing because its successes are more substantial than its faults.

Review: "Bolt" (2008) Grade: A-

2009-01-02T14:17:00.000-08:00

"Bolt" (2008) Grade: A-

I was not all that interested in Bolt going into it. I thought it looked cute and I knew it got surprisingly great reviews but it was not a film I was going to go out of my way to see. I am happy that my boyfriend suggested we go to see it on the same day as “Doubt”. I honestly do not know what to say about it. I have no problems with it except for the plausibility of the lengths that the producers go to to make Bolt think he is on the show. It does not rely on pop culture references to make it funny; it uses the characters and the story to find its comedy. It is touching, funny, entertaining, visually pleasing and is packed with good voice work, particularly by Suzie Essman who plays Mittens the Cat who does an absolutely fantastic job. I feel bad not saying more about it. One part had me inexplicably crying with laughter because I found it so funny but mostly the film is full of chuckles with several laughs. It just has a great story with great characters you really get attached to. The pigeons actually had me laughing out loud every time they spoke. Again this is not anywhere near a proper review because I do not really have anything to say about it except to go see it. The 3-D really enhances the experience as opposed to shoving the 3-D in our faces for a lot of showy self aware shots and spectacles. It simply enhances the visuals for a more satisfying experience. It represents what I want 3-D in film to be. Again just go see it. It is unfortunate that Wall-E, Kung Fu Panda and Waltz with Bashir are in the Animated Category because in another year this should really be nominated for Best Animated Film. It deserves it.

Review: "In Bruges" Grade: A-

2008-12-29T00:07:00.000-08:00

"In Bruges" (2008)

Grade: A-

“In Bruges” is such a surprise. When I saw the trailer I thought it looked like the sort of film in the vain of “Smokin Aces”. In other words, the kind of film I do not like despite the awesome Pixies usage in the trailer. It looked like a film that depended on fast cutting to exist.
The film ended up getting fantastic reviews, ended up on some top 10 lists including Richard Roeper’s and garnered 3 Golden Globe nominations. It is the director’s first film; his main work is in playwriting for which he has very much made a name for himself, writing “The Pillowman” which was nominated for Best Play at the Tony’s. His 2006 Short Film Six Shooter won him an Oscar.

“In Bruges” is a film that does not follow a conventional narrative. You do not really know where the pot is going much of the time. The 2 hit men are ordered by their boss to stay in Bruges after a hit goes wrong and Colin Farrell playing Ray accidently kills a child. Bruges represents Purgatory for these two as they meander about the place with Ken (Brendon Gleeson) enjoying himself and Ray being bored out of his mind while still trying to deal with the murder he committed. The film is not quickly cut at all in fact. In has a very average shot length, one actually below average to display the meandering about that the 2 characters do in the film. It is unpredictable; the humor in it is very dark and works very interestingly with the rest of the plot. Its humor weaves in and out without really caring whether or not is fits in with the rest of the film but it actually does very much. There are 3 strong characters by Colin Farrell, Brendon Gleeson and Ralph Fiennes as the antagonist Harry. Each of their relationships with each other is very interesting and again unconventional. There are many standout scenes. There is a beauty to Bruges, a place that I would love to now go. Its unabashedly un-PC dialogue was refreshing not because it was not offensive but because its purpose was to be matter of fact in the way some people talk and not to be unknowingly offensive like so many other movies do. Clemence Poesy looks fantastic and has such a seductive quality about her. She really serves no other purpose other than to just be “the girl” but so many countless other films do this that pointing it out in this one would hardly make it a unique flaw.

Colin Farrell is not someone I am typically a fan of but he gives his best performance out of what I have seen (Phone Booth, Alexander, Minority Report, Intermission) proving that he is an actor for a reason. I am very happy he is nominated for a Globe as is Brendon Gleeson who is fantastic as Ken. Ralph Fiennes is equally great here as Harry. Honesty these are three standout performances as three standout characters that have depth and individuality.

All in all this is a film that took me by surprise. I have it at number 7 for my greatest of the year only behind Man on Wire, Kung Fu Panda, Frost/Nixon, Snow Angels, Milk and Wall-E (I am actually more enthusiastic about In Bruges than Man on Wire on a subjective level though. It stands at number 9 whereas Man on Wire is at number 14). If I saw this again I think it would go higher on my favorite. It seems low but believe me it is very high. I actually have it above many other fills that are Oscar contenders simply because there are so few flaws, it is not driven by its screenplay mechanics, it has different and interesting characters, a weird blend of humor, beautifully photographed in Bruges and was a film that had its own unique feeling to it as it is a film that was simple a different experience than I am used to when I watch movies. It is refreshingly original. And these days that is about the best compliment you can give to a movie.

Review: "Man on Wire": B+

2008-12-28T23:43:00.000-08:00

Man on Wire (2008) (Documentary)

Grade: B+

Man on Wire is only the first documentary I have seen this year and it should be the winner of the Best Documentary Oscar of the precursors is any indication. This is a documentary whose primary objective is to essentially recreate August 7th 1974, during which Phillip Petit and his crew of people plan a heist like mission of illegally getting to the top of the Twin Towers and Phillip walking on a tightrope between the two buildings for a total of 45 minutes. Phillip’s result is beautiful and remarkable, creating a stunning moment in time.

The story of how this all came about is reconstructed for us using archive footage, home movies, interviews, reenactments. Reenactments can go horribly wrong but here it is an ingenious move, filling in the gaps of the story in which no footage is available and using it in a way that does not seem distracting and does not detract from the film but actually adds to it. I do not really know what to say about it. I really enjoyed it very much. There are other documentaries I personally enjoy more but this is a very creative and lively effort from James Marsh. Petit is a hypnotic storyteller his enthusiasm infectious. These are very interesting people and a frighteningly good recreation of an event that retains the urgency that most likely had taken place when it actually happened.

"Yes Man" Grade: C-

2008-12-28T21:45:00.000-08:00

"Yes Man" (2008)

Grade: C-

“Yes Man” is basically a poor person’s rehash of “Liar, Liar”, Jim Carrey’s very similar in concept 1997 film which is much better by the way. There is little to admire here. The script seems rushed, like something that was shoved into production without it being really flushed out. This is not an actively bad film; it is just forgettable and pointless which is just as bad. One of the major problems with the film is that while in “Liar, Liar”, Carrey cannot help but tell the truth and he is a lawyer so this places him in some very troublesome situations; a situation he cannot help. In “Yes Man” Carrey decided to follow the program of the yes man. He decides it. First of all it is ridiculous to think that someone can fundamentally change their ways by deciding to say yes to everything in a second. Second of all the things he says yes to are things he pretty much wants to do anyways. So there is no real conflict for the entire film except at the end when he gets stopped at an airport because his saying yes to everything leads to him being a suspected terrorist! I am not joking. And of course, Zooey Deschanel then finds out he just says yes to everything and has to consider whether or not he really wanted to do anything with her. Seriously, this is the movie. He says yes automatically even during times when he should not at all and yet it is not compulsive; it is a choice. This makes no sense at all. Also when he says no, bad things happen to him. So he actually does have to take that old woman on her offer to give him a blow job. Again, seriously, this is a scene in the movie. Zooey Deschanel plays the oh so free spirited love interest who teaches jogging photography lessons and has an experimental sort of rock band. Oooh how clever. She does the best she can with it and she looks great.

Honestly there were a few terrible scenes. One was when he gets into a drunken fight with the boyfriend of a girl who he randomly kissed without her permission. Am I supposed to be on his side because honestly it was a dumb thing to do. Guess what the boyfriend looks like? He’s tall and bulky and bald; he looks like he is from a motorcycle gang of sorts. How has this become the stereotype of the boyfriend who starts fights with people in bars? Then there is the old woman scene. Then there is the scene when he talks down a man who is about to kill himself by singing “Jumper” to him on a guitar which would have been fine because it was amusing and it is a song I nostalgically love and just plain love as well but then everyone else starts singing and soon the scene becomes retarded.

That being said I do like a few things about the film. Rhys Darby, the manager from “Flight of the Conchords” steals every scene he is in, genuinely being funny. Carrey, while never creating a distinct character for the film, does do the best he can with the jokes and there are several moments when I actually laughed out loud whether it be from his delivery or from something else he did. Terrence Stamp is very good as well in 2 scenes, his first being the best in the film. This was probably the only outright good scene in the entire thing. The “Harry Potter” party scene was very funny and there were definitely other moments and even scenes that I did not mind. I think the film seemed even worse to me because of the fresh new comedies coming out today that have just completely upped the game of the genre and what it can do. But still, this is a film that just is, and it is nothing more than funny during moments at best and utterly forgettable and bad at its worst.

Review: "The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" Grade: B+

2008-12-27T00:08:00.001-08:00

"The Curious Case of Benjamin Button" (2008)

Grade: B

Yes I cheat with my own grading system. Whatever. I do not feel right giving this a B based on my emotional reaction but a solid B+ feels a little too generous. I feel like it would be leaning toward a B+ more than a B but I am choosing the slash.

I'd like to see this again because I really feel like I need a second viewing to know what I think more definitely.

So I saw “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” on Christmas day and I do not really know my thoughts on it still. I know that I liked it very much. That I cried during about an hour of it altogether. I also know that this does not make it a masterpiece just because I was extremely moved by it. There are some concepts and images in the film that stay with you and disturb you and move you because they simplify life’s ideas through the concept. I think that is why I was so moved by it. It simplified life and death and amplified the meaning of what it is to live through its fantastical concept.

I was not blown away by the film though. It has stuck with me and since because of the uniqueness of the lack of conflict and antagonist, the concept and the performances. Brad Pitt is extremely impressive in this. He gives a performance of immense subtlety. You always believe what age he is. By the end you really feel like you know his character even though the script never really allows you to get inside of his head. I do not know if the digitalized parts of the performance will hurt him in the awards season. While it is him, technically I do not know how the Academy looks upon that sort of element. The CGI that is done with him is simultaneously amazing and distracting. What has been accomplished is quite remarkable, however we are simply not advanced enough in what can be accomplished through film for a feat like that to go by without the audience (or at least me) always understanding that I was watching CGI even during his younger scene. This does not mean though that it should not be a strong consideration for the Visual Effects award for the Oscar. Even though it is distracting, it is at the same time a visual feat.

Back to Brad Pitt’s performance; there is no yelling or crying or over the top scenes that he is to portray. This is all extremely subtle. He creates a character that is primarily observant, idealistic, innocent despite a few selfish (even though it is easy to understand where he is coming from) decisions. He spends much of the film really just watching others and experiencing life simply to experience it; to take every single opportunity presented to him. Again though, the script keeps him at arm’s length. Pitt’s performance brings depth to the character, but I do not believe the written words alone have done that. The entire cast is fantastic. Cate Blanchett is as usual fantastic here. There is a reason she is my favorite actress of all time (next to Louise Brooks). Her performance became stronger the more I think about it. Daisy is completely believable at every age. You really do believe every age that you see her at and can really see the evolution of a human being through her. Even though a lot of makeup and some digitalization I am sure was done to make her look younger, I felt like I was watching a 20 year old. I like that the script was not afraid to make Daisy unlikable. I never thought her unlikeable; I just saw her as an immature horny young woman who could not see anyone else’s feelings but her own. This may sound unlikable and it is annoying but it is also flawed in a very real way. Most of us men and women are like this at this age in some way. The screenwriter was simply not afraid to make her flawed in a way that might not be appealing to audiences. Blanchett’s scenes in the present or rather 2004 are incredibly effective as well. Taraji P. Henson may have been my favorite character in the movie. Yes she represents the African American stereotype of the wisdom filled black woman. However she really rises above this and her early scenes when she is young are stunning. This woman is stunning. I have been a fan of hers since I saw her in “Hustle and Flow” for which she really deserves a nomination. So I always love seeing her and her presence and radiance are a joy to watch. Jason Flemying is great as always. As is Tilda Swinton, Jarod Harris and Julia Ormond. I also thought Elle Fanning did a great job as young Daisy.

Some people have a problem with the framing device of using Katrina in New Orleans. I actually like it despite understanding the problems people had with it. I think it grounds the film in reality and makes it feel like something that actually happened as opposed to it being disconnected to the real world. It carried more resonance for me because of this.

My favorite part of the film is actually a part that I thought that I would be bored with. The scenes between Tilda Swinton and Brad Pitt are my favorites. I wanted their relationship to keep going. While it has no real long term consequences in the story, none of it really does. It happens to be the story of a life and you go through things that are important at the time and important to you even if they do not mean anything substantial in terms of where you are now. This is sort like the movie. If a fictional character’s life wanted to be depicted on film using no real antagonist or conflict, you need a special hook to make the film have an element that makes it worth being a story to tell if you are going to tell it in this fashion. So this film uses its concept to make its hook. It works. Nevertheless the Tilda Swinton section of the story who plays Elizabeth Abbott grabbed me the most in terms of being interested in everything that was going on. I also was very intrigued with the scenes between Benjamin and his father.

While the relationship between Benjamin and Daisy interested me a lot specifically at the beginning and the end, I felt like when they actually got together, it became underwhelming. I mean there are fantastic moments and I cared deeply for them. It just felt like the story and the narration had built up these two to be the end all be all of a couple, an eventual representative of a great couple in film history and really they just felt like any other couple. Their relationship did not carry the substance for me that I feel the film meant for it to carry. I am not undermining how happy the characters actually were within the story with each other, that is obviously all very sincere and I believed it. It just felt…underwhelming. I cannot describe it. When they finally get together it feels like it just happens because the story deemed it so at that point. Their montage though when they move into their house was the most drawn to them as a couple at that period in their life.

My favorite moment in the film is when Benjamin leaves Daisy and she wakes up when he is putting the letter on the dresser for her. Oh Lord was I sobbing. Best moment in the film.
I should also mention the look of the film. It is gorgeous. But not in the way some other films are for me. There is a lot of artistry going on and it is remarkable to look at. The way Pitt and Blanchett are shot are the highlights. They are treated like a god and goddess at their best moments.

I guess a problem I had was that I felt that Fincher was struggling against the sentimentality of the script; they seemed at odds at times. Sometimes he would win and sometimes he would lose. I did not like the segment in which Benjamin narrates how so many things needed to happen for this one event to happen and if any of them did not happen exactly as it did then the event he is describing would not have happened. It takes like 6 minutes for this segment to be narrated to us and this is not a new concept. The problem is that it feels like scriptwriter Eric Roth felt that this was very clever and would point out something to the audience that we never truly realized. It came off as forced and contrived. The end with its epilogue about how everyone has their own special niche with everyone saying what theirs was was awful. I felt like I was watching a commercial for living life or something. Truly a misstep. These are small complaints but I just feel that the film showed a lot more potential with certain scenes and themes and moments and was trumped a bit by an overall sentimentality that could have been toned down a bit while still keeping its presence. Even though it sticks with you and makes you think, it still felt like it could have been more substantial if I think about what Fincher could have done with it. It could have felt less like it was coasting. The film felt like it just coasted its way through. I understand that this is the way that life is but I still felt like it could have been much more consistently dense instead of coasting through the way it did at times.

It is strange because of how moved I was throughout and the great moments in the film and overall the story is very moving however for all of this it still felt a bit empty in a weird way and I cannot decipher it. It did not feel as solid as I would have liked. But I do not know. Maybe it is supposed to float and coast and not feel solid. I cannot tell. My emotions were governed by a musical score and a story that seemed dead set on getting people to cry as much as they could. It worked for me. I wish I could form more solid opinions on the film. I cannot tell really what I think about it and if the hesitancies I get from it are a good thing or a bad thing. But yes it did move me very much, it serves its purpose. I cried during much of it. It is worth seeing because it is a different kind of film that does not function within the same narrative constrictions that most Hollywood films do even though it does in its own slightly different ways. It is a lovely fantasy with an intriguing concept that makes us see things differently and address life and death in a far too disturbingly simple way (this is a compliment). Its performances by Pitt in particular, but everyone really elevate the film as well as the effects and the cinematography and many moments and/or scenes. I felt every minute of this 2 hour and 45 minute film. This is not really a complaint; it should not be shorter, but I did feel the length. “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button” is definitely worth seeing as it is unique in some ways and remarkable in others even though I cannot figure out why I am not blown away by it.

Review: Seven Pounds (2008) - Grade: B-

2008-12-23T12:35:00.001-08:00

Review: Seven Pounds (2008)

Grade: B-

“Seven Pounds” is a film tha is being marketed the wrong way. By marketing is around the fact that the film is about a secret which does not get revealed until the end of the film, it makes whatever the secret is underwhelming and ultimately not very hard to figure out because you go in ready to decipher the film. I understand that there needs to be some sort of marketing scheme to this film because they do have to keep the secret a secret and they have to get people to see the film using a technique other than the fact that Will Smith is in it. It is not a mainstream movie though. It makes no sense until the end if you do not know what is going on. Ben Thomas is not a relatable character because his actions and emotions are hard to understand without a context. You do not even really know what you are watching until the end.

People seem to hate this movie. I do not hate it. I am interested by the bad reviews. People are upset because they are manipulated but honestly I like being manipulated when it is this sort. Yes the film is built around the gimmick of seeing how cryptic the film can be throughout the film without giving it away. However Ebert ended his review by saying something to the effect of “Some people like to be emotionally manipulated. I do, when it’s done well.” I subscribe to this too at least with fiction films, not with documentaries. I cannot deny the fact that I was completely intrigued throughout the film even though I had pretty much figured out the basics by about an hour into it. It still made the reveal no less impactful to me. I do not know how well the film worked. Again it is built around a gimmick, not being able to really function as a film without it. The direction feels decent but nothing noteworthy; it lacked much of a distinct voice for a film that could have used one. The song choices that are in the film feel very out of place like a misguided attempt to make the film more mainstream than it is.

However there were some good things about it. For one Will Smith gives his best performance. He was incredible. He looks exactly the same but I was watching a different person. That was not Will Smith; he completely slips into his character and does not try to make the Ben more accessible. He plays each scene as his character would, not thinking about making the audience understand him. He is incredible to watch perform in this and I am still thinking about his performance. Rosario Dawson, also one of my favorite actresses, gives her best performance here as well. There scenes together make this movie completely worth watching in my opinion. Their chemistry and story is extremely moving and depressing. This is a huge part of the film and it works.

While the film has serious issues and it ultimately a failed attempt at an Oscar film, being nearly universally panned, I cannot stop thinking about the movie and was ultimately moved by the performances and the story even if it is a gimmick and a MAJOR downer. The fact is Will Smith is incredible in this. Yes it is very flawed but it stuck with me despite all of that by the performances and yes by the story. I am deciding to recognize the gimmick of it but to still like the film despite of all that.

Review: "Frost/Nixon" Grade: A-

2008-12-23T12:10:00.000-08:00

Frost/Nixon, the 2008 film based on the play by Peter Morgan, adapted by Morgan himself and directed by Ron Howard gets better the more I think about it. The film and play is an interpretation by Morgan of how the Frost interviews came about and of all the people involved. Nixon just wants to make some money and thinks that Frost is an easy interview to get around since his niche is being an entertainer and not a serious interviewer. Frost is simply looking for a way to boost his career and this seems to be the way to do it. He spends all of his money paying for the interview and Frost and his team (Sam Rockwell, Matthew MacFadyen and Oliver Platt) are helping him research and come up with interview questions and strategies. Frost brushes all of this off though as he is not taking the interviews as seriously as he should.
I am trying to write better reviews by doing them the way they are normally done but I am finding it so much harder than I thought it was so please cut me some slack over the awfulness and inaccuracies of that horribly misleading summary.

Basically a lot of this is standard stuff; a character not being very involved in something but in one moment begins to care and steps up to the plate just in time. The character who thinks he has everything under control but in the end is defeated. The fictionalization of an event giving more weight to a relationship than there probably was. It is all there. However it is done with such precision, such refreshing effect and with such great talent and source material involved that right now it is near the top of my films of 2008 and as I see many many more I do not expect it to change its position all that much. While not the masterpiece that “The Queen” is (also written by Peter Morgan), this is an extremely effective look into a time and into two individuals that crossed paths and changed each other’s lives.

Ron Howard needed a win. I like Ron Howard’s work or at least much of it. “Parenthood” is one of my favorite movies; it strikes the perfect balance of sentimentality and relevance. The best of his work does that. After “The Grinch” and “The DaVinci Code” and also resentment over the ridiculous over praise of “A Beautiful Mind” it was time that he made a strong return to form in the way of “Apollo 13”. Here he makes several key decisions that retain the power of the play. One is that he uses no score throughout the actual interviews which is so important to the impact of the film. He keeps the focus on the actors and the dialogue. He also racks the focus during many shots to the point where it becomes the stylistic motif of the film along with some very nice and subtle handheld work. The decision to keep both Michael Sheen and Frank Langella is essential to this film working. Otherwise it simply would have become a showcase for two actors who are not as well suited for the roles. I know that this is a film that was being geared towards the Oscars the moment is hit pre-production and it is primed to garner some resentment from those who think it is underrated but for me this truly was one of the best films I have seen in a while.

Frank Langella knocks it out of the park in the role that won him a Tony. He commands his scenes and brings a humanistic side to Nixon that does not by any means excuse his actions but simply develops him as a character, not necessarily as the real person. By the end he brought tears to my eyes. Michael Sheen however is just as good and really is the one in the end that the movie rests on because he has the most screen time even though for some strange reason he is in Best Supporting Actor. Sheen has the less showy role but brings just as much impact and relevance to David Frost as Frank Langella does to Richard Nixon. Seeing these two act together on screen is an absolute treat and worth seeing it for this reason alone. I have a crush on Michael Sheen by the way. I think he’s a dreamboat.

The rest of the cast is fantastic. I always love seeing Sam Rockwell since he is one of my favorite actors. Even though the importance of Reston is cut down considerably I still feel he was given a decent amount to do here. All of the scenes with him playing Reston, Oliver Platt and Matthew McFayden are so entertaining. Kevin Bacon does some great understated work and Rebecca Hall as I have said since “The Prestige” is one of my favorite actresses even if she has little to do here outside of being the girl.

My complaint about the film is how they adapted the narration that broke the fourth wall in the play. I feel like the easy way out was taken by making it mockumentary footage. It becomes distracting at parts and feels out of place. There were more effective ways to do this I feel. Instead of making me more involve with the movie it did the opposite and made me very much aware I was watching fiction instead of pulling me in. However it did not distract me as much as I thought it would in places and was not in a ton of the film. It was good that only the supporting characters contributed to this footage and there were a couple of moments when I was actually very glad we had the footage because it actually enhanced the moment. Overall though I felt it was a detrimental decision.

Overall though this is one of the strongest films I have seen in a long time. Filled with suspense and in the edge of your seat moments coming from an interview and not action scenes and two enriched character studies about two very interesting individuals and really really standout performances with assured direction from Ron Howard, “Frost/Nixon” is one of the best films of the year.

Favorite to Least Favorite Documentary!!

2008-12-22T00:32:00.000-08:00

Favorite to Least Favorite Documentary!! (Concert films count)

Hey I'm sorry that there are no pictures yet. I hate this site when it comes to uploading pics. And Microsoft Word will not let me upload pics either. I wish there were pics but alas no. Sorry. I will update this list as I continue to see documentaries. Enjoy!!

1. “7-Up” (1964)
I still have a long way to go with this documentary series but I can already tell you that this series will be the best thing I will ever watch in documentary form. When I finish I will simply place it as one documentary labeling it “The Up Series” the name it is widely known as. Seeing these children, the start of it all knowing you will get to see them grow up in front of you and getting to see how their lives develop adds a layer that impacts what the film experience is like. Right away there is an extreme noticing of the difference between American kids and British ones, mainly that these children are better spoken than I have been in my entire life. You can see the personalities in each and most of them are absolutely adorable. This is the beginning of a fascinating experiment that makes the audience question themselves and how we have developed as people, how much of our self was evident at this age. Since this is the start of it, there is no growth yet, I put it because I found it to be the most interesting 40 minutes I have seen in a documentary.

2. “Stop Making Sense” (1984)
Few shots so we can observe the musicians actually playing. Experimental lighting to make the show visually artistic. Sparse set design to put emphasis on the music. No audience shots to let the audience decide what they think. Toned down audience cheering so that the people watching the film can decide for themselves what to think. Oh and amazing music. Stop Making Sense is at the top pillar of great music films. Universally considered one of the best, some consider it the best concert film of all time. Completely taking what concert films were and reinventing what one could be, this film is wonderfully creative with a special emphasis on watching the musicians perform their music and a de-emphasis on anything that would distract someone from watching and hearing the music. David Byrne is endlessly fascinating to watch perform; a genius performer. Talking Heads and Jonathan Demme do not rely on tricks; they rely on the music.

3. “Planet Earth” (2007)
Watching this on Blu-Ray could be put on a list of the greatest experiences of my life. I am not joking. I cannot even watch it on regular TV because it is such a mindblow. Oh well, I guess I will have to wait in the years to come for a Blu-Ray player so I can watch it again. I honestly have nothing to say about this except that every 5 minutes you are flabbergasted by some image that defies what you thought could be real.

4. “High School” (1968)
This cinema-verite film drops us into a high school in 1968 as we watch and observe various classes and goings on. There are no people we are introduced to as characters. Nobody ever talks to the camera. It is meant to capture what high school is like accurately as if nobody intruded. There is never an acknowledgment of the camera. A few teachers appear in 2 scenes but other than that there is nobody to attach ourselves to; just a bunch of faces. It seems random at first but soon one realizes that Wiseman is suggesting ideas and sending message using only the camera. Mainly a critique on the stamping out of individualism in high school with some existentialist issues thrown into the mix. It works as a time capsule as well as we see an assembly on the birth control pill, condoms, we see a class being taught about proper female posture and fashion focusing on a woman’s duties it looks like, an English teacher who is young and idealistic teaching Simon and Garfunkel’s “The Dangling Conversation” in a poetry class. All of these seemingly random little scenes make up an addicting faceless portrait of high school in 1968.

5. “7 Plus Seven” (1970)
Ok so even though 7-Up is the start of it all and thus number 1, 7 Plus 7 proves the start of what will be the most fascinating documentary experience of my life. Seeing these kids at 14. It was incredible seeing that their once adorable traits have become not so adorable when they stick around to 14. Seeing the footage of them as 7 year olds in the film to give us reminders is essential. It blows my mind to see the traits of them as 7 still being evident in very subtle and not so subtle ways. These films are getting to the heart of how we develop as people. How much stays with us, how much we are changed by our experiences. Nothing like this has ever ever ever ever been done before. It is completely unique and says more about us as humans than anything I can think of.

6. “Don’t Look Back” (1967)
Bob Dylan is a douche. We know this. At least in the 1960’s he was. Oh boy he was. Some scenes are hard to get through as he berates poor people by answering people’s questions with another question. He rips one man apart in front of everyone for 10 excruciating minutes. More so what we get to see is what Bob Dylan’s life on tour was like. Seeing things from his perspective gives a completely different understanding to what it must be like to be famous and to be on tour. The unobtrusiveness of the camera helps this greatly. There are no interviews with him; it is a documentary that simply observes the going on of Bob Dylan’s life on tour. I wanted it to go on forever.

7. “Streetwise” (1984)
I have nothing to say about this that is new. It needs to be releases on DVD. It is an important film. One of kids living on the streets of Seattle in 1983. It ends with the funeral of one of the 2 main boys; he killed himself the day before his 17th birthday. Several of the people in the film have died; none are truly well off. Erin is my favorite. She is the main girl that is focused on. She is a 14 year old prostitute whose mother just insists that she is going through “a phase”; she isn’t worried. A look into a completely different world one that is unrelenting and again, endlessly fascinating.

8. “Salesman” (1969)
The fact that this is this low on the list just signifies how freaking incredible these other films are because I did not think it could get any better than this. I am sure when I see it again it will move up a little. All I can say about these films is the word fascinating. That is why these descriptions get to easily boring. Because I find the great documentaries to be fascinating. It is the only way to describe them and thus I am not giving each of them their own little special thing.

9. “Crumb” (1994)
Portraits about strange individuals are always a treat especially when it done right. Crumb is an engrossing and disturbing portrait of Robert Crumb and his family, particularly his siblings who are all more troubles than he is if that is possible. It is interesting on the levl in which his important artwork is explored, how his personality and life are inquired about and how his siblings, mother and dead father interact and/or how it gives a fuller portrait of Crumb the man. It is directed by Terry Zwigoff who later went on to direct “Ghost World” and “Art School Confidential”.

10. “Spellbound” (2002)
Kids who are unique and really into their habits and way of life including their activities and rigorous schedule are well fascinating! Oh Lord I need to stop using this word. Do not fret, as we go down the list things stop being fascinating. These kids are so different and fun to watch as they study and are excited and stressed (some more excited, some more stressed) about the spelling competition. We are not given a specific person to root for, each gets equal amounts of screen time it seems and we simply see the competition unravel before our eyes not knowing who will make a mistake at any given moment. I never knew a spelling competition could be this suspenseful but when you know a few of the kids at least a little bit it is impossible not to get sucked into this story.

11. “Capturing the Friedmans” (2003)
What makes this documentary and another one I will talk about in a minute different is that there is footage from years back that the documentary maker did not get but one of the sons got. One of the Friedman sons taped everything at home and so we have secret audio recordings and video sources of happenings that would not have been available to us otherwise. And yet we get no closer to having our questions answered. The more and more accounts we hear of whether or not brother Jesse and father Arnold molested young boys the more confused we become. It is certain that Arnold molested boys but we have no idea how many the witness reports and other accounts are all over the place. We have no idea by the end where Jesse stands in any of this. It becomes a mind jarring story of a family and their troubles and how many layers of information are involved in any sort of scandal. It does not exploit though or take a stance as Andrew Jarecki the filmmaker himself did not know whether he thought Jesse was innocent or not. Another interesting aspect of the film is the knowledge that Jarecki had simply been planning to make a documentary about David Friedman the brother who was a popular clown in New York at the time. When he learned about the connections to child sexual abuse in their family he switched subjects.

12. “Man with a Movie Camera” (1929)
This associational documentary film from the Soviet Montage period in Russia directed by Dziga Vertov somehow manages to keep me enthralled for a feature length film time while just showing fast cuts of various aspects of Soviet life and suggesting much with the sequence of events shown. Although there are a few staged events (as in virtually every documentary) such as the women getting out of bed and such and the fact that cameras could not go unhidden at that time, this still makes for essential viewing for any serious film buff. It is a testament to films that can get a meaning across by artfully editing an enormous series of images together. It is one of those films that show the true potential of the art form.

13. “Grizzly Man” (2005)
Once I see this again it will probably go higher. I started out really liking Timothy Treadwell and by the end of the film you are more and more aware of how disturbed he Is without ever getting a real full portrait of his mental issues which makes this all the more creepy honestly. His love for bears is unrelenting and touching especially the footage of him hanging out with the baby fox. Herzog does a masterful job of injecting his own voice into the story, telling us what he thinks at times when we seem to need an outsiders opinion on the matter without forcing us to think what he does. This has prompted me to see more documentaries that Herzog has done. “Encounters at the End of the World” is something I am really looking forward to.

14. “The King of Kong” (2007)
This film unfolds like a narrative. I felt like I was watching a mockumentary at times and not a documentary. This was really great in some ways and also a little detractive. I felt that Billy and Steve were pigeonholed into being the good guy and the bad guy in a conventional narrative manner. Once the filmmaker made the decision to make the good guy bad guy dichotomy, the film does everything it can to emphasize that giving Billy no neutral moments at all and everything is done to get us to hate him. It is easy to tell which events are very planned out such as the phone call with Billy and is cronie. We see both sides of that. While the conversation is real, it is planned so that we are able to see both sides of the conversation; it is in no way a caught moment. That is not a complaint though; just an observation since that does need to planned out to get that effect. But I honestly love love love love this movie. I love Steve Weibe. I love the Leonard Cohen usage. I’ve seen it twice and if this were a documentaries I most outright enjoy list, this would be higher. You get so involved in it. Watch yourself as you scream at the TV.

15. “The Devil and Daniel Johnston” (2006)
This is what got me into Daniel Johnston. He is the perfect subject for a documentary; unique, notable within the music world, deeply troubled and it does not hurt that he also recorded thoughts and videos throughout his life so that we get footage that is otherwise impossible to get. This is someone who is very troubled who just wants to express himself regardless of what his talents may or may not be. And he has the right to. And guess what? A lot of his music is extremely touching, moving and downright brilliant. “Hate Song”, “Sad Sac and Tarzan” and “True Love will Find You in the End” are three personal favorites. I honestly cannot think of a more interesting subject for a documentary and I wish it were higher on this list. It looks low but it is one of my absolute favorites.

16. “Koyaanisqatsi: Life Out of Balance” (1982)
Another associational film. The first of the trilogy by Godfrey Reggio. The famous score by Philip Glass does not disappoint at all. The first 45 minutes are brilliant with the last half delving into an unfortunate redundancy that does not switch it up or offer anything new outside of the last 5 minutes which returns the film to its former brilliance. I think a part of this redundancy stems from the fact that time lapse photography was extremely innovative at the time and now seeing as it has become a convention it does not hold the fascination for that long of a period of time as it must have 26 years ago. Necessary viewing regardless.

17. “The Celluloid Closet” (1995)
This is a really nice comprehensive look at homosexual depiction in film. It goes into the depiction of stereotypes (still a huge problem), what could go over the PCA’s heads, innovations in homosexual depiction in film; all of it is addressed. I only wish it was a newer film since so much has changed in 14 years it would be interesting to see the past 14 years chronicled in the film. Oh well.

18. “Thin” (2006)
HBO Documentary about 4 various women with eating disorders at the Renfrew Center in Flordia. I do not remember much about it but I remember being very interested and I remember just overall really enjoying it (maybe enjoying is not the right word). It was not easy to get through at times but it was a moving and informative experience that one day maybe I can see again for a refresher.

19. “Jesus Camp” (2006)
What I like about this film is that for the better part it just observes. It has come out in a time when the religious people are crazy stereotype is in full swing so it sort of lends itself to that which is a little iffy for me. Unfortunately I subscribe to believing this stereotype more than I would like and I think it is unfortunate that no level headed religious people seem to be portrayed in the media at all; it is a problem because there are so many of them out there that are not like that in the slightest and it is quite unfair. However this film really does just take a very disturbing hyper-religious Evangelical camp and shows it to us without really trying to sway us one way or the other. The funny thing about that is there is no question about which way to swing because the filmmaker knows his footage is disturbing enough to not actually need a ton of manipulation. This is frightening. This is disturbing and a great watch as long as the people watching it are just going to use it as another piece of evidence that all religious people are crazy and recognize it as an extreme (but growing) faction of the Christian faith. Yes these people are indeed crazy but it should not be used as a blanket assumption. People just watching it to scoff and feel superior are watching it for the wrong reasons; it is fascinating as a disturbing, unfortunate and haunting brainwashing of the minds of children.

20. “Bowling for Columbine” (2002)
Oh Michael Moore. You make some great points, create interesting and disturbing moments and have a niche for exposing something that we already knew but in a way that we had not seen before. But I just do not like you. This is a good film and the better of the two that I have seen from him but it is so in your face Michael Moore that it is hard to not look at it as a simultaneous showcase for himself.

21. “March of the Penguins” (2006)
“Planet Earth” sort of made this look like child’s play for me. But Morgan Freeman narrating the English version is inspired. Also the way a narrative and struggle is shown and created in the way the story is shaped is so appealing and again inspiring.

22. “The Battle over Citizen Kane” (1996) – Very informative documentary about the making of Citizen Kane and a parallel biography about William Randolph Hearst. Very interesting and informative but a little dull and slow moving.

23. “A Decade Under the Influence”
3 Hour Documentary by IFC Films about the 1970’s in film. While it is really interesting and they talk to some good people, I feel like this was too broad of a topic for 3 hours. The 70’s changed everything in film so hours felt like we barely scratched the surface of anything.

24. “This Film is Not Yet Rated” (2006)
I am split on this film. I have seen it twice because I really love all of the commentary from the filmmakers about their experiences with the MPAA and their thoughts about the hypocrisy of it. But I do not like the subplot that takes up almost half the film about director Kirby Dick and the investigator he hires to find out who the members of the MPAA are. There is an air of “look how clever we are” about the whole thing. And worst of all in the last 20 minutes Dick uses really shallow and childish tactics in order to make a point that is completely manipulative and condescending to the people involved and to the audience. So it is a mixed bag.

25. “Fast, Cheap and Out of Control” (1997)
I did not get the experience from this as I wanted because I was in a horrible mood, depressed and not in the mood to watch anything when I saw this but I wanted to get it back to Netflix so I watched it and I regret it because it was my first Errol Morris experience and I need to see it again because I was so depressed when I watched this, I do not remember anything from it.

26. “Battle of San Pietro” (1944)
This documentary by John Huston shot during WWII was something we watched in class looking at war documentaries of the 40’s used by newsreels commissioned by the government and done by really important directors. The chapter in Huston’s autobiography on the making of this movie has prompted me to read An Open Book at some point in the next month. The film itself is interesting obviously and very important and disturbing but it is not something I connect to very much.

27. “Fury of the Pacific” (1945)
Another WWII newsreel documentary. Another one that is interesting and important. Incredibly intriguing as an artifact and within the construct of film but not really my thing in terms of my personal interests.

28. “Fahrenheit 9/11” (2004)
Oh God where do I start? It was easy in 2004 to get caught up in the craze about this movie. Again Michael Moore has some good and valid points here and does create disturbing moments. However the way in which he goes about convincing his audience of his opinions is so in your face, so full of gimmicks, so filled with things taken out of context, so filled with Michael Moore loving to listen to himself narrate and be clever and oh so enlightened that I cannot respect it. I do not appreciate being blatantly fucked with. His valid points are overshadowed by another gimmick that soon emerges. If you are trying to get someone to see your point of view a point of view I might add that is not hard to convince anyone of, do not feel the need to uselessly force the issue upon us in ineffective ways. It is a piece of propaganda that could have been much more effective and subtle is Moore had just toned down the manipulations and gimmicks and shoving his own personality in our face than this could have been a lot more respectable and effective. Still some good moments here and there is effective stuff to be had but there is a lot wrong with this.

29. “Powaqqatsi: Life in Transformation” (1988)
Again great Philip Glass store, much of the music was later used in “The Truman Show”. Some effective stuff but mostly it just felt redundant and overlong. Not enough material to sustain a feature length film. Not really my thing.

30. “The Aristocrats”
This is for people who like bad jokes and want to lose some respect by all of the important comedians who for some reason unknown to humans find the concept of this joke to be funny. Bob Saget’s telling is extremely effective even though it’s so disturbing and not even funny at all but he does manage to accomplish what all of the other comedians are attempting to throughout the film. Sarah Silverman gives the best joke though; its inspired it is so damn good. Other than that though just a bore; an unfunny bore.

31. “Super Size Me” (2004)
Hey did you know that eating nothing but McDonald’s for 30 days is bad for you? I know it is shocking right? And did you know that MickeyD’s is horrible and evil? Yeah I know. Shocking! Morgan Spurlock’s pointless documentary teaches us that lots of people eat fast food and that it is gross and that eating nothing but McDonald’s for 30 days is bad. I just do not like this movie. Again this is all information we know. People that can handle that eat there and people who are rightfully disgusted by it to the point where they do not eat there won’t. Just read Fast Food Nation for something that explains that horrors of the fast food industry. Also, Spurlock is soooo annoying.

Trailer Post #1

2008-12-21T00:39:00.000-08:00

Trailer Post 1
Sorry everyone. It has been finals time and I have been doing nothing but work. I am almost done, I just have to write up my Final for Existentialism which I will do tomorrow. So I will be back to posting reviews soon. I saw Frost/Nixon which I will write a review of as soon as I have time. But to get back into the swing of things I am going to post my thoughts on the new trailers that have come out in the past couple of weeks. I plan on doing this every 2 weeks so keep a lookout for them.

“The Ugly Truth” starring Katherine Heigl and Gerard Butler – Yeah these are the types of films I typically do not care about so it’s not that it looks actively horrible but it just looks forgettable and uninteresting. D+

“Dance Flick” from the Wayans Brothers – I have no words for this. F

“Wendy and Lucy” starring Michelle Williams – This is something I am interested in because of Michelle Williams. She looks great in this. I also thought a lot of the shots in the trailer were remarkable and the choice to not have any music during the trailer was also inspired. I am usually not very motivated to see a film with a plot this simple even though I want to be but this looks like a good start for watching films with simple plots. B

“Race to Witch Mountain” starring Dwayne Johnson, AnnaSophia Robb and Carla Gugino – I’ve always really liked AnnaSophia Robb but probably not enough to watch this. Although if it is on HBO one day I’ll watch it. C

“Adventureland” starring Jesse Eisenberg, Kristen Stewart, Ryan Reynolds – This looks funny but the reason I am excited about this is that the older son from The Squid and the Whale stars and he is just such a good actor and I am excited to see him getting high profile work like this. I am not big on Ryan Reynolds in comedies but maybe he will be good in this. Good case though and anything with Bill Hader earns points. B

“Delgo” with the voices of Freddie Prinze Jr., Jennifer Love Hewitt and Chris Kattan – So this was the biggest flop of the year and I can see why. I cannot believe this exists. F

“Nothing But the Truth” starring Kate Beckinsale, Matt Dillon and Vera Farmiga – Good trailer with what looks like I really nice ensemble. It is nice to see Beckinsale showcasing the talent she has that has been squandered on not good work. She’s had a great year and she looks like she is really good in this. B+

“Knowing” starring Nicolas Cage – Ok here is why I am interested in this. It is directed by Alex Proyas who did The Crow and Dark City. He has an eye for cinema. He is not a guarantee hit but he is still a good sign. Also Rose Byrne: I really like her. Third it just looks interesting. Yes it very well could be standard but even if it is it is still the type of film I like even if it is not good so either way I win. But it’s still nice to have an ambitious director behind this. Nic Cage needs a hit desperately. B+

“Terminator: Salvation” starring Christian Bale – I find it strange that Bale is in this because Batman is so big budget it is very odd that he is playing another character as famous as John Connor. Honestly he looks bland in this. He sounds like he is coasting and that he is doing a half assed version of his Batman voice. Honestly I have never been that connected to the Terminator stories and even though I need to revisit the first two films this trailer does not make me have any interest in seeing how the story continues. C-

“Fired Up!” Starring people I could not give a shit about – Oh my Lord this is nauseating. I recognized the main guy half way in as Wes on Heroes who I found to be the most horribly obnoxious loser ever. And the guy who plays his friend is horribly obnoxious as well. And guess what? It’s about them trying to get women by going to cheerleader camp. Why anyone would ever want to watch a movie about these people is so far beyond my comprehension that it would make me lose basically all respect to anyone who would think about wasting their time on this shit. F

“New in Town” starring Renee Zellweger – The movie is called New in Town. And has Harry Connick Jr as the male lead. Uuuuuggggh. D+

“I Love You, Man” – starring Jason Segel, Paul Rudd and Rashida Jones. First of all Jason Segel looks fantastic in this. H is quickly becoming one of my favorites. Second of all it’s Paul Rudd. It’s also Rashida Jones. Third of all it looks really funny. Fourth of all they use “Here Comes Your Man” in the trailer. I am excited for this. B+

“Night at the Museum: Battle at the Smithsonian” starring Ben Stiller, Amy Adams and a ton of other people. So I am not going to lie; I enjoyed Night at the Museum. Anna and I saw it right after Children of Men and it was such a pick me up after the brilliant depress fest that was that movie (I still think it’s the best film of 2006). So naturally I want to see this. Judge if you will. B

Gun Crazy (1950): Grade: A-

2008-12-12T23:26:00.001-08:00

Review:(Really short)

Gun Crazy (1950)

Grade: A-

Gun Crazy:
Grade: A-

COMING SOON! A LIST!!! FAVORITE TO LEAST FAVORITE DOCUMENTARY!!!!!!!!!! WITH REASONS!!!! WILL BE UP WITHIN A WEEK!!!

Sorry these reviews suck. The films are not as fresh in my head. It is finals time. I hope to have reviews that are at least a bit longer.

Coolest movie ever? One of the most beautiful films I have ever seen with its innovative and creative use of the camera through the cinematography. John Dall and Peggy Cummings are sizzling with chemistry and the perfect combination of old style film acting and a layer of refreshing quality and naturalism. It gets a little lost I felt in the middle and became a little less interesting but it’s a minor complaint compared to the fucking awesomeness on display here. These are horrible terms to be using especially since I overuse them in the first place but man this was so damn good. I thought I would like this but this is something I want to own, rewatch, analyze and spend significant amounts of time dissecting.

Gentlemen's Agreement (1947): B-

2008-12-12T23:23:00.000-08:00

Review:

Gentlemen’s Agreement (1947):
Grade: B-

Again this won’t be long. I was interested in this film; however I just was not crazy about it. I felt that the romance between Gregory Peck and Dorothy McGuire felt like it was going in circles. It felt odd to me that Peck’s character was so amazed by the prejudices happening it was as if he had not noticed before. The film also seems to put an emphasis on the Jews being the same as the Catholics and Protestants; as in you cannot tell the difference unless you are told and that is why it is wrong. But what about people who do look different; is it okay to discriminate them? The film felt like it was not emphasizing that aspect enough. Peck was great but I felt that the most interesting aspects of the film were the characters played by Celeste Holm, John Garfield and Ann Revere. Celeste Holm is one of my favorite classic actresses and she won an Oscar here. John Garfield played Peck’s buddy and Ann Revere played Peck’s mother. Each of them was fantastic and their scenes and characters I actually found more interesting than the main conflicts. Overall an interesting film, definitely effective on several levels but it just feels like it does not carry the punch that it must have when the film came out.

7-Up and 7 Plus 7: Grade: A+

2008-12-12T23:19:00.000-08:00

7-Up (1964) and 7 Plus Seven (1970)
Grade: A+

This is not going to be a long review because I honestly have nothing to say about it. It started out as a sociological experiment to explore the class differences and how a group of children are effected throughout their lives by it but it ended up becoming much more important than that and had gone beyond this idea. Michael Apted realized this eventually and saw that this experiment became a series of documents about how people develop, how we change, who we are. It does not get any bigger than that. I find it fascinating how doomed the three lower class girls seem to be in terms of just resigning themselves over to an early marriage and not really doing anything with their lives because it looks as if they have been brought up to understand that there are few options for lower class women. I have seen some of 21 so I am being a little biased towards my knowledge of that one. John is fascinating; I don’t like him at all but I find him to be absolutely fascinating. Neil is my favorite. Although I very much like Bruce as well. Suzie is my favorite of the girls because she is just the most interesting to me. Again I don’t know what to say about it except fascinating. It is not something you can speak during. Absolute attention must be paid to these films in order to get the true experience of marveling at the growth and subtleties in character. Another thing is the attitude the children have towards the series. There are just so many aspects to marvel at here.

Golden Globe Reactions

2008-12-12T22:34:00.000-08:00

Wow. Some really unexpected things happened this morning. First this was
apparently an article written to openly rip the Golden Globes apart and
expose them for what they are.

http://articles.latimes.com/2008/jan/11/opinion/oe-waxman11

Wow. This is insane. I feel sick supporting stuff like this. And just goes
along to prove my point that all of this is a lot of nonsense. Fun
nonsense but nonsense nonetheless. So my reactions?

Well the biggest news to talk about is the snubbing of Milk and The Dark
Knight outside of Sean Penn and Heath Ledger. I am not really too upset
about The Dark Knight because honestly, it's great, it has some excellent
scenes, incredible acting and an important and unique blending of genres that remarkable, but I think people are overlooking the flaws of the film, of which there
are several. While I think it is a fantastic film and easily the best superhero
film I have ever seen(not the best comic book film, that goes to A History
of Violence, Ghost World, Persepolis and Oldboy) I still think it falls a
bit short of being Best Picture material despite all that it accomplishes. It’s hard because I do think it’s great but between the absolute overhype of the film being the best thing since sliced bread and then add to it the problems I did have with it upon first viewing, it is hard to completely get behind the film despite it greatness. I won’t be upset obviously if it gets a Best Picture nod. Honestly if it does not get nominated we are never going to hear the end of it so it might as well be. By the way, the Blu-Ray of it is a fucking mind blow. Coolest thing I’ve ever seen. I’d like to watch it again sometime soon. I hate that there is no time.

Milk on the other hand is a very strange omission, not a deserving one by
any means. It seems like it would have been a Globes film but apparently
not. It is sort of annoying because now I have no idea where the film
stands for the Oscars. I think it will still get in because based on the
article above these people are morons but for all of their moronic traits,
they did recognize a few people that makes me very happy and that I hope
get a boost for the Oscars because of it.

My big joy of the morning was Ralph Fiennes being nominated for "The
Duchess". The fact that they nominated The Reader for so many awards and
that he was up for that as well and they decided to go with his
performance from "The Duchess" which had completely dropped off of the
radar is incredible for me. His performance changed what the film was, it
changed the dynamics between the relationships and he restructured the
role through his performance by adding so much depth that was simply not
in the dialogue alone. It could have been played so differently. To me, it
is the best Supporting Actor performance of the year and I do not
anticipate anything going above it, so to see him be recognized for a
performance that had dropped off the radar completely, especially
considering he was campaigning for "The Reader" because the film is
getting better reception is fantastic.

Although they did nominate Tom Cruise in Tropic Thunder so I do not know
how much people are going to take this category seriously. I think it is hilarious that he was nominated even if it is not deserved. He was great though.

There are certain nominations that I am happy about even though I have not seen the films. One is Rebecca Hall for Vicky Cristina Barcelona. This is an actress I have been following since “The Prestige”. I have her on my actresses list despite having only seen her in one thing. So it is nice to see her getting some recognition because I know a lot of people were talking about her presence in the film. Another is the attention for In Bruges. The trailer did not really impress me despite the song usage of the Pixies in the trailer. Then it got pretty fantastic reviews, people were very surprised by how much they liked it and it dropped off the Earth because of its February release. Nobody was talking about it anymore but now I got some nominations and I am happy for it. I’d like to see it. It has even popped up on a couple of Top 10 lists if I am not mistaken.

James Franco for Pineapple Express makes me ecstatic. I am excited for Burn After Reading getting in there as well. Disappointed about no Tropic Thunder. Guess they just did not want to face the truth that the film had. Interesting that they did not go with Melissa Leo for Frozen River. I predicted they weren’t but she is going to need a boost to get in there. It is also interesting that they omitted Rachel Getting Married for Screenplay and Supporting Actresses. Weird considering Lumet could win in that category.

As for TV I am happy to see shows like Desperate Housewives, Boston Legal and Grey’s Anatomy omitted to make room for some different shows. But there’s no Lost so what the fuck is the point of even talking about it.

So that’s all for now. I am going to attempt to churn out some reviews really quickly so I do not get too far behind with this shit. Tomorrow I am supposed to play with a puppy for a little bit and hopefully spend at least 8 hours at the library and do work.

Golden Globe Predictions

2008-12-10T21:20:00.000-08:00

Sorry everyone I have seen some movies but I do not have the time to review them because it is finals period and my free time has gone to this. I saw 7-Up, 7 Plus 7, Gentlemen's Agreement and Gun Crazy. I will have reviews up eventually. But not right now.

Here are my Golden Globe Predictions. What I think will be nominated not what I want. I have no strategy; I'm just doing it.

Best Drama:
Milk
Frost/Nixon,
Revolutionary Road
The Dark Knight
Slumdog Millionaire

Best Comedy/Musical:
Happy-Go-Lucky
Vicky Cristina Barcelona
Mamma Mia
Sex and the City
Tropic Thunder

Best Actor, Drama
Frank Langella, - Frost/Nixon
Sean Penn - Milk
Brad Pitt - Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Mickey Rourke - The Wrestler
Leonardo DiCaprio - Revolutionary Road

Best Actress, Drama:
Kate Winslet - Revolutionary Road
Meryl Streep - Doubt
Angelina Jolie - Changeling
Anne Hathaway - Rachel Getting Married
Kristen Scott Thomas - I've Loved You So Long

Best Actor, Comedy:
Adrian Brody - Cadillac Records
Philip Seymour Hoffman - Synecdoche, New York
Jason Segel - Forgetting Sarah Marshall
Ricky Gervais - Ghost Town
Dustin Hoffman - Last Chance Harvey

Best Actress, Comedy:
Sally Hawkins - Happy-Go-Lucky
Meryl Streep - Mamma Mia!
Elizabeth Banks - Zack and Miri Make a Porno
Sarah Jessica Parker - Sex and the City: The Movie
Samantha Morton - Synecdoche, New York

Best Supporting Actor:
James Franco - Milk
Josh Brolin - Milk
Heath Ledger - The Dark Knight
Philip Seymour Hoffman - Doubt
Robert Downey Jr. - Tropic Thunder

Supporting Actress:
Penelope Cruz - Vicky Cristina Barcelona
Taraji P. Henson - Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Rosemary DeWitt - Rachel Getting Married
Viola Davis - Doubt
Kate Winslet - The Reader

Best Director:
Gus Van Sant - Milk
David Fincher - Curious Case of Benjamin Button
Christopher Nolan - The Dark Knight
Danny Boyle - Slumdog Millionaire
Jonathan Demme - Rachel Getting Married

Screenplay:
Milk
Slumdog Millionaire
The Dark Knight
Rachel Getting Married
Vicky Cristina Barcelona

Foreign Film:
Gommorah
Let the Right One In
I’ve Loved You So Long
Waltz with Bashir
The Class

Best Animated Film:
Waltz with Bashir
Wall-E
Kung Fu Panda

Awards Season Update!!

2008-12-10T20:33:00.000-08:00

New York Film Critics:

Best Picture - Milk

Best Director - Mike Leigh (Happy-Go-Lucky)

Best Actor - Sean Penn (Milk)

Best Actress - Sally Hawkins (Happy-Go-Lucky)

Best Supporting Actor - Josh Brolin (Milk)

Best Supporting Actress - Penelope Cruz (Vicky Cristina Barcelona)

Best Screenplay - Jenny Lumet (Rachel Getting Married)

Best Cinematographer - Anthony Dod Mantle (Slumdog Millionaire)

Best Foreign Film - 4 Months, 3 Weeks and 2 Days

Best Animated Film - WALL-E

Best First Film - Courtney Hunt (Frozen River)

Best Documentary - Man on Wire

So they clearly went down the Milk route. Very cool. I feel awful commenting on this awards season when I have seen nothing. I am allowed to have very few opinions. I had heard that the NYFC was not overly pumped about The Dark Knight. So this gives Milk a bit of a boost which is greateven though it is a lock at this point for Picture. It gives Sean Penn aboost though which is good. He does not need it either but in terms ofmaking the stakes higher between him and Mickey Rourke, he does need togather up some momentum for the possible win. So this is good.

L.A Film Critics:

Picture: “Wall-E”
Runner-up: “The Dark Knight”

Director: Danny Boyle, “Slumdog Millionaire”
Runner-up: Christopher Nolan, “The Dark Knight”

Actor: Sean Penn, “Milk”
Runner-up: Mickey Rourke, “The Wrestler”

Actress: Sally Hawkins, “Happy-Go-Lucky”
Runner-up: Melissa Leo, “Frozen River”

Supporting actor: Heath Ledger, “The Dark Knight”
Runner-up: Eddie Marsan, “Happy-Go-Lucky”

Supporting actress: Penelope Cruz, “Vicky Cristina Barcelona” and “Elegy”
Runner-up: Viola Davis, “Doubt”

Screenplay: Mike Leigh, “Happy-Go-Lucky”
Runner-up: Charlie Kaufman, “Synecdoche, New York”

Foreign-language film: “Still Life”
Runner-up: “The Class”

Documentary: “Man on Wire”
Runner-up: “Waltz With Bashir”

Animation: “Waltz With Bashir”

Cinematography: Yu Lik Wai, “Still Life”
Runner-up: Anthony Dod Mantle, “Slumdog Millionaire”

Production design: Mark Friedberg, “Synecdoche, New York”
Runner-up: Nathan Crowley, “The Dark Knight”

Music/score: A.R. Rahman, “Slumdog Millionaire”
Runner-up: Alexandre Desplat, “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”

New Generation: Steve McQueen, “Hunger”

Douglas E. Edwards independent/experimental film/video: James Benning,“RR” and “Casting a Glance”

Unfortunately the L.A Film Critics rewarding Wall-E Best Picture means nothing. They like to pick different things. They like to take a chance on different films that they feel will not get the credit it deserves when itcomes to the Oscars. Thus they pick Wall-E and do their part to spead theword about the gravity of the film. Looks like the L.A Film Critics are mykind of people. They picked Wonder Boys as a runner up for Best Picture in 2000. Mulholland Drive for RU in 2001 with David Lynch winning Director(fuck you Oscars) and the list goes on with interesting choices of performances and other such stuff that takes a chance to recognize people they know will not be recognized.

I think it's funny that Sasha Stone thought it was dumb to reward Wall-E (not because she does not like the film) because she feels that they were trying too hard to steer away from typical Oscar picks. I find it funny that trying not to go with the flow of the Oscars is somehow wrong. The Oscars as much as I love them have no real meaning in the end. Everyone gets that its all politics. Yes the Oscar's picks always contain some of the years best work but it is never a fair competition and there are always films that are considered to be some of the best that never get due attention because they aren't big enough or they come from other countries. Or Lord help us if it's fucking animated. So while I do not think that one should award something Best Picture just to break away from the mainstream, the fact of the matter is, the best film usually is not from the mainstream Oscar films. I believe that like twice out of the last 8 years the film that I thought was the best of the decade was not even nominated. And no these are not crappy movies, in every case the film got some of the best reviews of the year. But the Oscars by this time latch on to a select few, most of which are probably great but it does not mean that lots of other equally impressive works get the shaft. I may latch on to Awards Season like mad; it motivates me to see a ton of movies and its just plain fun. But I never take anything they have to say very seriously. I am happy to see things that I want to win, win. But in the end they are ridiculous. It's just a game So which is worse Sasha; depending on campaigning and money and big names to win Oscars along with the quality, or simply trying to look more at the work and happening to find something different. Maybe they weren't going out of their way to do that. Maybe they were just trying to be fair award givers.

I also find it amusing that Stone cannot understand the hype surrounding Robert Downey Jr. in Tropic Thunder. To each her or his own as they say.

Now for Peter Travers Top 10 of the Year:

1. Milk
2. Slumdog Millionaire
3. The Dark Knight
4. Frost/Nixon
5. WALL-E
6. Revolutionary Road
7. The Visitor
8. Doubt
9. Rachel Getting Married
10. Man on Wire

It is weird that Wall-E is number 5 since he gave it 4 stars. But I guess as time passes certain movies stick a little more. Cool for Milk. I need to see more movies! I've seen nothing! I cannot comment on this race at all this year!!

Oscar Update

2008-12-09T19:01:00.000-08:00

So it is the time of year leading upto the SAG and Golden Globe Nominations, as Awards are announced and critics Top 10's keep popping up everywhere. I hate how behind I am in everything this year involving the films. I've seen like nothing. This winter vacation I plan on watching tons of stuff. Even stuff I'm mildly interested in, foreign films I can find and documentaries to. I'd like to feel that I have the right to voice my opinion about the Oscars. I'd like to feel that I've seen great things, mediocre films and my fair share of crap. The Choices so far for these awards have been interesting and while they are indicating a lot it seems like there are still a few films that have no idea where they stand within the race.
Something that makes me very happy is the abundance of Wall-E love that has managed to break through the summer season and be at or near the top of virtually everyone's Top 10 list. This makes me very happy since I am seriously campaigning for a Best Picture nod for this film. Ratatouille managed to be at or near the top of everyone's Best of lists for 2007 but I do not recall the film winning or being nominated for any big awards outside of the Animated Film Category. Wall-E has leaped over this hill it seems because it is being nominated along with all of the other big films of the year. It has WON the L.A FIlm Critics Best Picture of the Year, and is nominated for Best Picture from the St. Louis Film Critics Association and the Critics Choice Awards. This means there might be a chance. Nobody is talking about it as a serious possibility but if this keeps up they are going to have to.
I was surprised by the Independent SPirit Awards Nominations I was expecting Milk to swipe. It's upsetting but it is nice to see films being recognized in a way that is so much more about the work than the Oscars are, even though I'm sure Milk deserved to be in there.

Best Picture right now looks like Slumdog, Milk and Curious Case as locks with The Dark Knight as a very strong possibility along with Frost/Nixon, Revolutionary Road and Rachel Getting Married as possibilites too. And of course Wall-E. I am counting Doubt out right now due to the sort of mixed reviews. It's award nominations will come in the acting categories.
Best Actor looks like its a race between Mickey Rourke and Sean Penn with Clint Eastwood as a dark horse. I suspect that he will pick up more steam when the film comes out. Frank Langella is a strong competitor as well. This leaves one spot open. The three biggest contenders right now are Richard Jenkins for the Visitor, Leonardo DiCaprio for Revolutionary Road and Brad Pitt for Curious Case of Benjamin Button. This is one freaking packed race.
Best Actress seems to have Kristen Scott Thomas, Anne Hathaway and Kate WInslet as a lock although the films absense in the Critics Choice Awards is curious. Some would say Meryl Streep is the biggest lock right now but I am reserving that title to her for a bit because a few had problems with her performance and we still need to see what happens to this mixed reception. I am fascinated by the whole Melissa Leo thing. She probably is a lock. Others would say They could snub her since it is a small film and we know how the Oscars deal with small films that have no names behind them. If she is nominated though, she could win. Cate Blanchett, Angelina Jolie and Sally Hawkins are strong possibilities as well. I desperately want Kiera Knightley in but her chances are nil at this point. It’s a strong year for the females as well.
Supporting Actor is the most ridiculous race of them all.

Even though Heath Ledger is expected to win the other 4 spots have many strong contenders vying for a nomination. With none of them being consistent locks. We have Josh Brolin, James Franco, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Michael Sheen, Robert Downey Jr., Eddie Marsan and Michael Shannon. Emile Hirsch and Ralph Fiennes for The Duchess are two that I am hoping for. It sucks that Fiennes is not getting any recognition considering I think it’s the best Supporting Actor performance I have seen this year. I have 6 supporting actor performances that fall into my top 10 for the year so far so that should say something.
Supporting Actress is wide open and easily the least competitive performance of the bunch. Penelope Cruz for Vicky Cristina Barcelina, Rosemarie DeWitt for Rachel Getting Married and Viola Davis for Doubt are the 3 frontrunners with Kate Winslet for the Reader, Taraji P Henson for Curious Case and Debra Winger for Rachel Getting Married as other very very strong possibilities.

There you have it everyone. As time goes on I will post updates on the race that goes into other categories besides Picture and the Acting Categories. In the meantime enjoy the evening!

Movie Review: Milk: A/A-

2008-12-07T23:58:00.000-08:00

"Milk" (2008)
Grade: A/A-

“Milk”, directed by Gus Van Sant, is a film that is unarguably important. Few films can reach the level of inspiration and emotion that this one does. It is impossible not to be moved at your core as you watch it, whether it is through the scenes that focus on Harvey’s success as a politician and his drive towards the gay movement or the heartbreaking moments during and following his assassination. This is not a film without flaws but compared to the film’s overall success and its astounding message, relevance and importance, "Milk" is a rare film that is a special contribution to film.

“Milk” follows the last eight years of his life, starting with his meeting Scott Smith who would be his longtime partner and Harvey’s move to San Francisco that would be where his motivation to work in politics emerges. The films framing device consists of Harvey sitting at his kitchen table as he recounts these years with a tape recorder in case he is eventually assassinated. At first this device felt a little too obvious and forced to me but eventually as its use balanced out nicely with the film, I ended up liking it. It did a nice job of compressing information in a concise way. Once things got rolling it did not stick out however it did a bit in the beginning, like a cliché of the biopic. Van Sant manages to operate within the conventions of the biopic and makes the film rise above most in the genre by doing things that I will talk about in a bit.

I need to address the other outstanding elements of the film that qualify as taking the film a step further into greatness. While these are not quite as revelatory as the 2 most important components that are coming up, there are aspects of the film that critically help make this film as good as it is. The first is Gus Van Sant’s directing. The only film that I think will have a shot of impressing me more than this will be David Fincher for “The Curious Case of Benjamin Button”. As of right now I am rooting for Van Sant. It is remarkable how he works within a conventional narrative and adds his own experimental touches to the mix. It makes for a truly enriching experience. Take the scene soon after the start of the film when Scott and Harvey go to his place to have sex. The series of shots are extreme close ups, point of view shots, profile shots all going in and out of focus. It is one of the most interesting scenes I’ve seen in a long time and it is just one example of the magnificently eclectic use of engaging yet just subtle enough techniques that make his directing the best this year that I have seen.

I must point out a few performances that help take the film to the next level. Nearly everyone was fantastic here. James Franco gives a simply wonderful performance as Scott Smith. His smile is infectious; right away it becomes instantaneously understandable why Harvey picks him out. His performance is subtle and effective and his on screen chemistry with Sean Penn is really truly fantastic. It is nice to see him get a chance to finally shine with the films he has had this year. Alison Pil who plays the only girl in the film, aside from the Anita Bryant footage is great here too. She fits right in with everyone, easily holding her own. She is someone who I have liked for a while and she is so young yet comes off as very mature. It is great to see her in such a prominent role in such an important film. Joseph Cross as Dick Pabich needs a shout out as well. He has a small but very effective performance.

I know there is a lot of talk about who from this film will get into the Supporting Actor race. We have two candidates: Josh Brolin and James Franco with Emile Hirsch as an underdog choice. While I think James Franco did a great job and if he gets nominated I will not in any way be upset (even though I think "Pineapple Express" is the better performance) I really want Brolin and Hirsch to be the ones getting nominated. I will get to Brolin in a minute. Here is my case for Emile Hirsch. Yes, he does not have the dramatic privilege of being Milk’s lover or his killer. The contribution of the character of Cleve Jones to the story is less than these other two. But guess what he manages to do? He steals every single fucking scene he is in. I am not joking. He literally commands every second he is on screen. He creates such a memorable and distinct character; one that while he does not contribute as much story wise as these other two, adds such a unique element to the film with his presence. Just keep in mind that when I say that he steals every scene, Sean Penn is in these scenes people. But if there were more than one person in the shot and Hirsch was one of them, I was looking at him probably about 80% of the time, even if Penn was in the shot as well. I do not know how he pulled this off. I just know that I smiled so many times during this movie because of him and the sheer force of his talent continues to amaze me. The way I understand it, even though I have not seen "Into the Wild" is that Hirsch was snubbed. So I implore you, nominate him this year. He fucking rocked this movie.

Josh Brolin and the entire construction of the Dan White character was for me the most fascinating aspect of the film outside of Harvey. I need this man to be nominated. Along with Franco, Brolin is another actor who has had an amazing year and last year for that matter) His work was so fucking subtle and astounding during certain scenes. It is not just him though. I completely commend Dustin Lance Black for how this character is written, how much time he gets, how the film shows little moments that are just with him yet never gives White his own story. It is brilliant and by a considerable amount, the most successful aspect of the screenplay for me. The scene outside of the party when White approaches Milk drunk is a perfect blend of the whole “I want to laugh because some of this is funny but wait a second this is really fucked up” conundrum that sometimes arises in film. How much White says and how much he suppresses is shown so well by Brolin as he portrays a man who’s caught in an uncomfortable situation for him and who tries and fails to function within the circumstances as it clearly brings personal issues to the table for him that he has been trying to suppress. The working relationship between Milk and White was endlessly interesting and "Milk" manages to create a fascinating mini character study of Dan White through its pitch perfect use of screen time, nuanced but unforced moments, and disturbingly subtle work by Josh Brolin. He just won the National Board of Review award for Best Supporting Actor. Fuck, he deserves it. This Supporting Actor Race is so absurd I do not even know what to do with it.
The blend between Milk’s personal and political life is really well done here I think. I would have liked to see a bit more on his personal life, maybe 10 more minutes but for the most part I really appreciated how they address both in most of the scenes in some way. I also enjoy that they do not make Milk into a perfect being. I find him to be quite flawed. I was completely on the side of Scott when he singled out Dick to call his father and tell him he was gay. It was while well meaning it was also naïve and hypocritical. He has considerable flaws, he is not a saint, he was a human which makes the story more relatable to portray him as such and more inspirational because he it is a person who could accomplish this.

Ok so now for my complaints. While I thought Diego Luna did a good job as Jack Lira, this whole story felt out of place and completely underdeveloped. I do not know what could have been done. His character was annoying and I felt it was very unclear as to why he killed himself outside of him being very needy and clearly lonely. I feel like if this character was going to be introduced then at least we should get a better understanding as to what his character’s deal was. I am glad we got the line that Harvey has when he is talking to Scott about why he is with Jack. We needed it. I know he is supposed to be annoying on some level because of Cleve’s and Ann’s reactions to whenever his name is mentioned. However it just felt out of place. However despite all of this I will say that his presence was worth it for three reasons. One was his line about “I am more important than poop” which while it was their last phone conversation and I was the only one who found this funny, the line combined with Luna’s accent made this hilarious to me. More funny than I probably should have found it. Second was for the scene in which Harvey finds Lira and third is for the scene after it when he says “I could come home at 6 instead of 6:15”. These moments made Lira’s presence more than worth it even though I still think it is a messy part of the film.

I also feel that Scott Smith is a smidge underwritten. I would have actually liked to see a bit more with him as I felt that his leaving was pretty anticlimactic considering how long they had been together. The scenes involving the kid in the wheelchair should have come off as moving but for me they came off as forced and sort of hokey not to mention obvious. Of course Penn plays it perfectly, but I felt that the actor in the wheelchair was outright awful and these are the only scenes that actually took me out of the movie despite Penn steering it away from ridiculousness. Danny Elfman’s score at times worked beautifully and stunningly for that matter but there were a few times I felt it was trying to be a little too inspirational.

Now for the two aspects of the film that project "Milk" into that special unique category of films that contain an element or elements so unique that they will stand the test of time. The first it almost goes without saying is Sean Penn’s performance. I do not even know what to say about it except that it moved me to my absolute core. He reached out and grabbed my soul. His transformation into this man has to be seen to be believed. I have never seen anything quite like before. It is as good as Daniel Day Lewis’s performance last year in “There Will Be Blood”; it could be better. I am not sure. He is funny, charming, motivated, stubborn and intensely heartbreaking. There is so much subtlety going on under the very apparent transformation of Penn right from the start that it is not hard to imagine finding a whole new batch of moments each time one watches it. There are moments that destroyed me within a few seconds. His face as he watches Dan White drunkenly rant to him. His reaction to Proposition 6 not passing. Finding Jack and the scene afterwards. His speech after he gets the postcard that threatens a bullet to him the minute he stands on the stage. The scene when he dies. There are so many little moments I cannot even begin to remember them. I would equate his performance to that of a small miracle. I know Mickey Rourke seems to be the front runner right now and his performance looks to be remarkable as well if the trailer and the reviews are any indication and he has real life parallels on his side. I do not want to be against this performance in any way because it looks really moving but fuck… I really want Sean Penn to get it. Although it looks as though if Rourke wins, then Penn won’t be losing out to a performance just a lot of hype. Then there is Clint. Fuck. I wish this was not such a competitive year for Actor. It is the best performance in a film I have seen this year and I will be surprised if anything can top it honestly.

The second aspect of the film that completely elevates it is the genius decision to seamlessly incorporate archival footage of real events within the fiction of the film. This makes everything so much more authentic feeling, infinitely more moving and absolutely awe inspiring in certain moments. The images of the 30,000 people with lit candles walking in tribute to Harvey’s death was an image so moving, an image that fictional film could not produce. It sent me into near hysterics. It took all of my effort to keep from having an explosion of audible sobbing. The archival images open the film and close it, the film uses a lot of it and it could have been bad but it was so incredible. The actual Anita Bryant footage is again infinitely more effective than casting someone to play Anita Bryant. This archival footage is absolutely crucial to this film being successful to the degree it is. I do not know if it was Van Sant or Black who came up with this but it is part of the direction and is another reason why I am advocating for Van Sant for director. Even though I have seen like nothing else. I will not say he deserves it because I have not seen so much but I want it for him and its one of the best directorial efforts I’ve seen. I think it is his best directed film but I do believe "Elephant" works more completely as a film so I’d say that is still his best. Although it is close between that and "My Own Private Idaho".

In conclusion to this long winded and extreme interview, go see "Milk". It is one that will stay with you, one of the most completely fulfilling, inspirational, moving and satisfying experiences I’ve had at the movies. It has its flaws but what this film accomplishes is something remarkable, something that few can. With brilliant direction and a slew of incredible performances most notably by Josh Brolin, scene stealing Emile Hirsch and obviously Sean Penn in a performance that hits you in the gut and takes you for a ride you are not even close to ready for. "Milk" is in ways, astonishing. The rest of the audience, my boyfriend and myself united and experienced something profound together and when something like that happens it stays with you. "Milk" will stay with me.

Streetwise (1984) - Grade: A

2008-12-05T14:08:00.001-08:00

Streetwise (1984)
Documentary
Grade: A

“Streetwise” is a film that I watched for my Intro to Screen Arts class. It is a documentary from 1984 that chronicles the lives of kids living on the streets of Seattle. It is a film that reminds me that I need to see more documentaries because this was completely heartbreaking and fascinating.

While the film never outright blames parents for being the cause of the childrens problems through their various situations, it might as well have because it becomes very clear of the parenting issues that these children have had to deal with. Some do not know their parents. Some have parents but ran away from them. Some have parents that we see in the film who clearly care about their children which makes it all the more shocking as to some of the things these parents say. Erin (14), also known as Tiny, and her mother spend a lot of time together. She is married to a man named Tom who is currently in jail if I understood correctly and had broken her mother’s leg. Erin does not like Tom but the mother seems to attribute it to the concept of children never liking a stepfather figure as opposed to the oh so shocking revelation that maybe this guy is a prick. We never see him. I do not remember what he was in jail for but I know they were still together. The woman is an alcoholic and knows her daughter is a prostitute. She is not all that upset by it and claims it is just Erin going through “a phase”. Whaaaaaa? I’m not joking; she said this. Then we have another girl whose name I cannot remember talking about why she does not like her stepfather; he raped her multiple times. The daughter says she told her mother, who does not remember it and defends her husband by saying “he does not do it anymore”. Something that amazed me with this film is how open the kids are. These girls talk about being raped as if it were a minor inconvenience. It is such a normal part of life that it is simply accepted. You move on from it. Erin is talking to Kim about the dangers of prostituting saying you can get beat up and raped and it is passed off in a way that sounds like any other conversation.

Ratt is a kid who was sick of being in the middle of his parents divorce and ran away to Seattle. Dewayne is a kid whose father is in jail who he visits. While his father clearly cares about him, again he does not really know how to be a parent and unfortunately as Dewayne’s father himself puts it “unfortunately I’m all you have”. There are other people we meet but Dewayne, Ratt and Erin are the three main kids if I had to pick them. While one wonders how much is manipulated I would imagine that events remain more than moderately unstaged. This felt authentic to me.

There are several very disturbing moments one involving Erin getting into a car with an old man and her head disappearing immediately as he drove off, clearly meaning she has begun to go down on him as soon as he starts driving. Another involved Kim’s explaining how she got into prostitution, because she went to Seattle to bring a friend back when she had learned she was whoring and then the friend told her how easy and fun it was and how much money you made doing it and then she slowly began to try it. The idea that an adolescent girl could manage to convince herself that what she is doing is fun horrifies me. A particularly disturbing moment comes when Ratt and his adult friend raid “their dumpster” and explain how easy it is to tell how long food has been there because they have one particular dumpster that they check everyday and we see them eating already eaten chicken legs out of the bag. These kids somehow manage to keep everything at bay. Which is something that quite possibly disturbed me the most. These kids seemed to act basically like other kids their age outside of everything they did. They are so accustomed to this lifestyle that they can carry on and be relatively ok and smile and laugh. While I am happy that they manage to find little bits of happiness it amazes me that a child can get to a point where they become that accustomed to a certain life. This goes along with the comment I made about how disturbing it was to see the girls talking about what has happened to them in a way that if you hadn’t known what they were talking about would have assumed that they were talking about how their day at school was.

The most disturbing moment however was that sometime during the shooting of the film, 16 year old Dewayne hung himself. At the very near end point of the film we learn that he has committed suicide and we see his funeral. About 6 people were there including his father and adults he had worked with through social services. It goes without saying that this was devastating. We had gotten to know this kids throughout the film and all of a sudden we see a coffin and learn what happened. This event really exemplifies the nature of the film. That and the fact that other kids in the film died in unfavorable circumstances. Erin is still alive however, she has a husband with 9 kids (by several different men) and has apparently recently cleaned up. I do not know if this is still true. Ratt I guess drives a truck and spent some time in prison. One moment of the film that really moved me was when Ratt visits Erin to say goodbye because he is leaving Seattle on Sunday and she won’t be out of jail or wherever she was until Monday. She jokes around for a bit but then starts to cry and he does not understand why she is crying. She says “You should know by now”. He still does not get the hint and says “ I gotta go” and they hug for a while and he leaves without really understanding her feelings towards him. We see her on the bed crying after he has gone. Ratt is 16 but looks 12 by the way (at the most).

“Streetwise” transported me to another world for 90 minutes and showed me a completely different way of living that felt authentic and unfettered with and that made its point by not interfering with things and letting us see the way things are with our own eyes. An extremely moving film.