criticinema

Inglourious Basterds

2009-08-20T23:14:00.013-05:00

DAN - I've respected Quentin Tarantino's films in the past, but I've never considered myself a "fan." My personal DVD collection includes Reservoir Dogs and both Kill Bill volumes, each of which I've only watched a couple of times. Inglourious Basterds, however, lifted my appreciation for this filmmaker to a new level.

The word "visionary" is often associated with Tarantino. It might be ironic that he's often accused of ripping off other filmmakers, though he refers to his throwbacks as "homages." Either way, part of my newfound admiration for Tarantino comes from the niche he's created for himself. He made a name for himself in the early '90s with a string of innovative movies, and he's now known for his ability to write engaging dialogue - many consider him to be the best. Much of what I love about his newest film rests in what the characters say and how they say it.

Inglourious Basterds is more than just a showcase for violence. The bloody scenes are actually pretty scarce, though they can get pretty heavy handed. It's the dialogue in Basterds that stood out most to me. Tarantino knows how to craft multi-layered characters and put them in heart-pounding situations. It's like a fuse has been lit, and we're just waiting for the dynamite to explode. Several scenes in Basterds are works of art, thanks to both Tarantino's dialogue and the actors who deliver it.

Basterds features a slew of actors I've never heard of, and they're all fascinating to watch in their roles. Mélanie Laurent, Daniel Brühl, and especially Christoph Waltz are a pleasure to watch in this film. Waltz won the Best Actor award at Cannes this year for his turn as Colonel Hans Landa, who might be the most captivating character I've seen on the big screen this year.

I don't often notice the sound design in movies, but whoever worked on Basterds did a bang-up job. The sound in this film complimented the visuals in a way that provided a level of energy, adding to the tense nature of certain scenes. The sound design and cinematography worked together to create beautiful, startling, and terrifying moments throughout the film, all of which were welcome surprises.

I can't say Tarantino's films are for everyone. If you've seen any of his work, you already know this. If you're looking for an intense ride with an experienced, trailblazing director at the helm, this might be it. Tarantino is at the top of his game here, and for the first time this year, I feel like I need to see a movie twice in the theatre.

(500) Days of Summer

2009-08-07T23:48:00.008-05:00

DAN - Director Marc Webb enters the public eye with (500) Days of Summer, an unorthodox story about love. The promotional material for this film made a point of avoiding the term “love story,” and rightfully so. Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays a man scorned by the woman he loved (played by Zooey Deschanel). The film recounts the course of our protagonist’s relationship as he attempts to understand what went wrong.

When I first saw the teaser trailer for this movie, I fell in love. The cast, the cinematography, the locations, the narration, and especially the music plucked my heartstrings in just the right way. I even visited the Civic Center fountain in downtown Los Angeles because of its appearance in the trailer. I was looking forward to this movie.

The final product barely met my expectations, which were decidedly high. I wasn’t emotionally involved in the story at any point, but I was thoroughly entertained. Webb and his writers (Scott Neustadter and Michael H. Weber) have made a satisfyingly original movie, but I can’t say it had a lasting impact on me.

Gordon-Levitt and Deschanel provide decent performances, though their vacant expressions seem to suggest a lack of commitment to the roles. As I said, this film left me for the most part emotionally untouched.

I fear I might be harping too much on the negative side of a film that I actually enjoyed. Webb uses a variety of refreshing metaphorical lenses to project his vision onto the screen. Perhaps the best part of this film is Webb’s innovative use of the medium as he explores the worlds of architecture, music, cinema, and true-to-life drama. There are a number of sequences that capture the energy of that initial trailer, and they lift this movie high above any thoughtless blockbuster.

In a somewhat unrelated note, it may be worth mentioning that I saw this movie in the same theater as Roger Ebert, whose review can be found here. Unlike him, I chose to keep the title’s punctuation intact.

Brüno

2009-07-09T15:40:00.005-05:00

DAN - Brüno is Sacha Baron Cohen’s latest vehicle, a follow-up to his 2006 crowd pleaser of the same genre, Borat. The film is presented in a pseudo documentary manner, following the character of Bruno as he travels the world, seeking to overcome his recent troubles and find worldwide fame. Hilarity ensues... with a vengeance.

This is without a doubt the most raucous, awkward, sometimes frightening comedy I’ve seen since I can remember. I can’t help but be amazed by Cohen after seeing this movie - the man has guts. He repeatedly puts himself in horrible situations for the sake of comedy, and he makes the best of it.

Brüno is the most flamboyantly gay character I’ve ever seen committed to film, yet he somehow manages to be unoffensive toward homosexuals. It’s the reactions of other people (non-actors) in the movie that provide the film’s best moments, and Brüno is the instigator. Like Borat, this film features unsuspecting victims from around the world (but mostly in the United States).

Brüno encounters professional gay converters, macho huntsmen, a stadium full of angry, drunk rioters, and a sadist with a penchant for whipping the hell out of her cohorts. That’s barely the tip of the iceberg. Cohen was literally at risk of losing his life several times in the making of this film, but we can all laugh about it now because (spoiler alert!) he survived.

I wish I could keep going. There’s so much to love about this movie, but I wouldn’t want to ruin it by saying too much too soon. I’ll say one more thing: if you plan on buying a ticket for Brüno in the coming weeks, be prepared to witness personification through mind-bending male frontal nudity.

Admit it. Now you’re curious.

Cohen has cemented his place as one of the world’s top entertainers, and it hasn’t come easy for him. It’s the chances he takes that make Borat and Brüno so captivating and worthwhile. As much as I enjoyed this movie, I can’t necessarily recommend it for everyone. If you haven’t caught on yet, this is a pretty twisted movie. But for the right sense of humor, this is a gold mine. Just be careful - you might laugh your “auschwitz” off.

Up

2009-06-18T09:18:00.004-05:00

DAN - Pixar has released a total of ten movies since the debut of Toy Story in 1995, and not one of them has been disappointing. The studio has stated numerous times that their primary concern is strong storytelling, which has worked well in their favor. Up is a character-driven story about an elderly widower who, along with an accidental stowaway boy scout, makes a long-awaited journey to South America.

Another highlight of Pixar Animation is, well... Pixar animation. The animators at Pixar are somehow able to breathe life into the characters’ motions like no other modern animation studio. I can’t think of any other movies that employ nonverbal humor so well. The animal characters in Up (Dug the dog and Kevin the... bird thing) are shining examples of how Pixar animators inject personality into their work.

While Up’s story may not be Pixar’s strongest to date, it still packs some emotional punches. Specifically, there’s a beautiful montage in the film’s first reel that just might leave you in tears. All of the featured characters experience some sort of drastic change during the film, providing for some strong points of conflict.

Pixar is currently releasing one new film each year, and each film is followed by whispers of a Best Picture nod. I doubt Up will reach such status, as its not the best film in Pixar’s collection, but this film is still lightyears above most movies in theaters these days.

Away We Go

2009-05-30T22:45:00.003-05:00

DAN - Away We Go is the newest film from acclaimed director Sam Mendes (American Beauty, Revolutionary Road). The film opens on an unmarried couple, played by John Krasinski and Maya Rudolph, at the moment of discovering an unexpected pregnancy. The pair sets off on a cross-country trip with the hope of finding a place to start their new family.

I’ve always been pleasantly surprised by Mendes’ films. Road to Perdition has been one of my favorites since its release in 2002; I remember convincing my dad to let me see it, assuring him that I would be able to extract meaning beyond the violence. Mendes has a knack for examining relationships and the barriers that often tear them apart. Away We Go is a departure from the director's regular fare, and though it pains me to say so, I was disappointed.

This is Mendes’ least innovative film. It’s an amalgamation of the current trend of quirky indie movies that feel more hip than genuine. Mellow acoustic songs accompany people staring ahead with somber expressions hanging lazily over their eyes, as in any other film of the genre. I was sick of it before Juno, and I find it depressing to see an Oscar-caliber director follow suit.

Fortunately, a disappointment from Sam Mendes can still be a decent movie. Being a comedy, this film provides at least a few good laughs, including what might be the funniest line I’ve heard from a child.

Away We Go is ultimately a heartwarming film, but I’m personally tired of this style of filmmaking. Everything about this movie is so underplayed that I wonder how well it will be remembered in years to come. For now, this is a fun little film, but it could have (and should have) been something more.

The Reader

2009-02-24T22:39:00.000-06:00

STEVE - Director Stephen Daldry presents an emotional roller coaster of a movie in his Oscar nominated film The Reader.

The story is about Michael Berg (Ralph Fiennes). The film begins in 1995 with a fifty-two-year-old Michael (Ralph Fiennes) coldly turning away his previous one night stand and then quickly flashes back to 1958.

As a fifteen-year-old Michael (David Kross) became entangled in a sexual affair with a mid-thirties Hanna Schmitz (Kate Winslet) who has only one rule. Read first, sex after. And with this he returns day after day reading her Homer, Tolstoy, and Shakespeare, and then sleeping with her.

Their relationship quickly develops from an erotic to love affair (for Michael at least), until one day he returns to find that Hanna has mysteriously disappeared. Crushed, Michael forever carries the pain Hanna has inflicted on him until 8 years later, when in law school, he attends a Nazi war crime trail with Hanna on the stand. Michael quickly discovers evidence that could possible save Hanna from a life in prison or worse, but can’t decide what to do with the information. His past still haunts him as much as Hanna’s past haunts her. It’s Michael’s ultimate decision that forever changes not only Hanna’s life, but his.

David Hare weaves multiple themes and subject matter into his adapted screenplay. On one level you have a deeply passionate (and somewhat disturbing) “love” affair. Here we see the joys and deep pains of intimacy, including life-lasting damage that can be inflicted in intimate moments.

On a separate level we see a young generation attempting to understand and process the sins of previous generations. Why their parents and grandparents sat idly by while millions were murdered. Why they live in such a dark shadow. It’s these complex ideas and more that pushes the film into the Oscar category of Best Picture.

However, it’s with the films many themes and implications that will hinder the movie from winning the category. The screenplay just becomes too weighted, and by the end of the film loses some of its zeal and vision in the background.

There are so many wonderful things to say about this movie, giving it plenty of reasons for it to have its well earned five Oscar nominations, including Best Picture. Yet, it sadly falls short of becoming a great cinematic classic. Here’s to next years Holocaust movie.

Synecdoche, New York

2009-01-29T23:48:00.003-06:00

DAN - Charlie Kaufman has written some of the most innovative screenplays of the last decade, including Being John Malkovich, Adaptation., and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind. His newest film marks his directorial debut.

Synecdoche, New York is about Caden Cotard (Philip Seymour Hoffman), an ambitious director who undertakes the world’s largest live theatre production: recreating the daily lives of thousands of people in New York City. Cotard uses this world within a world to make sense of his personal troubles, all of which revolve around broken love.

This film is packed with hidden meanings, symbolism, and intense introspection. The narrative is non-linear to a point where the story might be overwhelmed by its own convolution. I can’t say that I fully understand this movie. In fact, I’m certain that a good portion of it flew right over my head. But I love this film. It’s one that demands repeat viewings.

Cotard is a character with whom I can easily relate, though his narcissism is much more apparent. He uses theatre as a means of analyzing his own life, hiring actors to give lifelike portrayals of himself and those around him. Cotard’s dedication to his art doesn’t make his personal life easy, but his faux reality provides him with an escape from such problems.

I can’t write enough about this movie. I haven’t even mentioned the cast, which consists of nothing but talented people. If you’re unfamiliar with Charlie Kaufman’s work, I strongly suggest you make an effort to change that.

The Wrestler

2009-01-23T02:35:00.003-06:00

DAN - Darren Aronofsky is one of the most visionary directors of this era. His previous films, Pi, Requiem for a Dream, and The Fountain, have become modern cult classics. The Wrestler is the least psychedelic of Aronofsky’s films, but it is perhaps the most emotionally profound.

The film follows Randy “The Ram” Robinson, a professional wrestler who is past his prime but unwilling to end his career. When our protagonist experiences health trouble, he turns his efforts to finding romance and mending a broken relationship with his daughter.

The Wrestler is a raw movie. Aronofsky isn’t afraid to let the handheld camera linger on his characters in quiet moments, allowing the audience to realistically experience the world of the film. This movie’s rough edges reflect The Ram’s lifestyle, both in and outside of the ring.

Randy is self-abusive both physically and mentally. He puts his body through hell for the sole purpose of entertaining his audience. His personal relationships are on the ropes and his heart takes a beating (ah, the puns). The Ram is like a less fortunate version of Rocky Balboa, but he has equally high hopes.

The Wrestler is one of the best movies I’ve seen in the past year. It’s a shame that the film only garnered two Oscar nominations, but they are well deserved. This film is worth seeing if only for Mickey Rourke’s career-reviving performance.

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

2008-12-02T16:35:00.005-06:00

DAN - “The Edge... there is no honest way to explain it because the only people who really know where it is are the ones who have gone over.” This quote from the late Dr. Hunter S. Thompson is a suitable introduction to the man himself. Gonzo is a documentary about Thompson, a rogue journalist and author who gained notoriety throughout the ‘60s and ‘70s.

The film’s title comes from the term “gonzo journalism,” which was used to describe Thompson’s eccentric style of reporting. Oscar-winning documentarian Alex Gibney composed this film from archive footage and interviews with those who knew Thompson.

Those of you who are familiar with Thompson’s book Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas (or the film adaptation starring Johnny Depp) are aware of the doctor’s other-worldly nature. The unashamed pot smoker once ran for sheriff of Aspen, Colorado and was highly involved (no pun intended) in politics for the majority of his life.

A large portion of Gonzo focuses on Thompson’s role in the presidential election of 1972. The reporter adamantly supported George McGovern, who lost to Nixon. This was one of the most intriguing segments of the film for me, as I observed parallels with America’s more recent elections.

A two-hour retrospection is hardly enough to capture the essence of a character like Hunter S. Thompson. The author once said, “...the public version of the news or whatever event, is never really what happened.” This documentary can only go so deep into Thompson's psyche; it’s more like a beginner’s guide to the man.

Changeling

2008-11-28T19:03:00.004-06:00

STEVE - Clint Eastwood’s latest film stars Angelina Jolie as Christine Collins, mother of young Walter Collins who goes missing in the city of L.A. in 1928. Her life takes a tumultuous turn when after months of searching the L.A. Police claim to have found her lost son. It is only when mother and son reunite that Collins realizes that the child is not her own.

There is no doubt that Clint Eastwood is a master behind the camera. He has stylized his film to near perfection with his common use of cold colors and bleak tones, and is this film bleak. Eastwood carries the audience on an emotional rollercoaster causing us to feel anguish for Ms. Collins, hatred for the corrupt L.A. Police Department, and a tingle of horror at the eventual outcome.

Eastwood directs a fine movie, but unfortunately falls short of the mark that is expected of him. The film is saturated with over-the-top performances that play down the intensity and drama of each scene. It’s unfortunate as Michael Kelly gives one the most understated performances of the film as the only non-corruptible cop in L.A.

As a director, Eastwood’s favorite themes deal with issues of evil, the bad things that happen to decent people. As I was watching this movie, mad at the unfairness and poor treatment that Ms. Jolie’s character was experiencing as she was lied too, treated as inferior, and then tossed away in a psychiatric ward with no just cause, I couldn’t help but ask the question, why is this happening? Why are these people treating her this way?

And I couldn’t help but wonder if answering those questions might not have been a more interesting tale to tell than the one I was watching. No doubt the tale of Ms. Collins and her son was a true account that needed to be told. Audiences should always be reminded that a governing system which goes unchecked can have terrible consequences on us all. But the tale wasn’t as capturing nor at the same level of greatness as other Eastwood films dealing with similar issues such as Forgiven, Mystic River, or Million Dollar Baby.

Quantum of Solace

2008-11-18T22:49:00.006-06:00

DAN - The latest James Bond film comes from Marc Forster, director of such films as Stranger Than Fiction and The Kite Runner. The story is a direct continuation of Casino Royale, which is unique for a Bond film.

I did not grow up on 007. I started regularly watching the franchise when Pierce Brosnan stepped into the role, and I’ve only seen a handful of the classic films. I, like many, was thrilled by Casino Royale when it came out two years ago. It fit the mold of a Bond film while simultaneously breathing new life into the series.

Solace isn’t as innovative as Royale; instead it seems to rely on the success of its predecessor to hold the audience’s interest. In that sense, I find it difficult to think of this as a stand-alone movie. It’s more like an afterthought of the previous film. And I like it.

The action sequences worked for me, but you’ll hear a lot of people complaining about them. I don’t need to see every punch and crash from a distance in order to follow what’s going on; in fact, that would be a little too disconnected for me. I like to feel each jolt as if I were in the middle of the action.

The main villain and his Chinatown scheme weren’t entirely memorable for me, but they served their purpose in allowing Bond to purge himself of lingering ghosts. He’s still a “blunt instrument,” but he’s on his way to becoming the suave spy we’ve come to recognize. This is the story of a man with a thirst for revenge. He simultaneously redeems and loses himself by fighting through the (literal) fires of hell.

__________________________

STEVE - For 46 years and 22 movies, audiences have attended regularly to see Ian Fleming’s iconic British spy. James Bond was a household name long before Michael Phelps was treading water. He was fighting Russians during the cold war. Ridding the world of cheesy villains through the 80’s and 90’s, and has been seducing women and drinking shaken martinis to the present, all the while evolving but still keeping the charm, wit, and rapport that is James Bond.

However, after 46 years it would appear that neither the producers nor director of the latest Bond outing have seen a James Bond film. Because I can tell you that this is not a James Bond movie. Where are the gadgets, the drinks, and cool cars? Q and Miss Moneypenny?

There are Bond girls, two, as are typical of all good Bond films, the first he quickly seduces and then tosses to the side. The other, however, gets away without even a hint of debauchery? What? How is this possible?

Every good girl knows that if James Bond offers to share his bed with you… then you take that opportunity. Sleeping with James Bond is the one exception to the rule when in comes to intercourse with strange men Okay… maybe that was a bit of an exaggeration. But nonetheless, things that are meant to happen in a Bond film, staples of the Bond convention, are tossed aside without thought or concern. No shaken Martini, no famous, “Bond, James Bond.” Not even a dry subtle quip or pun.

I grew up with James Bond. Watching old Bond movies with Dad over the holidays while stuck at Grandma’s is holiday tradition. I know what a James Bond movie is. This is not a James Bond movie.

This is a sad and tormented James Bond. Not that I have an issue with that, but A.O. Scott of The New York Times brings up an interesting point, “Is revenge the only possible motive for large-scale movie heroism these days? Does every hero, whether Batman or Jason Bourne, need to be so sad?” Indeed every hero needs something to push them while fighting bad guys, but does James need to be sad? Does he need to have revenge? I say no, Bond is better than that.

Overall, this movie is nothing more than a very mediocre, poorly edited, poorly shot action movie that had potential, but fell short of the mark. I still believe that Daniel Craig is the best Bond to date, rivaling if not overcoming the epic Sean Connery. Unfortunately, this movie suffers from being a little too Jason Bourne than James Bond.

Elegy

2008-11-16T17:42:00.004-06:00

DAN - Isabel Coixet’s most recent film is based on a novel by Philip Roth. Roth has been known to write stories that feature sexually promiscuous characters, and this one is no exception. Elegy is the story of David Kepesh, a professor who becomes infatuated with Consuela, a student in one of his classes.

The film features Sir Ben Kingsley and Penélope Cruz as the two central characters. These roles require heartfelt performances from the actors, and they are successful for the most part. At times Kingsley seems detached from his character. He tends to stare blankly, which forced me to remember that I was sitting in a theatre, watching a movie. Dennis Hopper plays a supporting role in this film that, in my opinion, is one of the most authentic of his career. Patricia Clarkson and Peter Sarsgaard round out this noteworthy cast.

At first glance, the story may seem somewhat shallow. The relationship that develops between Kepesh and Consuela is immensely physical. Kepesh is accustomed to having flings with a number of women, but through the course of the film, he and Consuela experience a great deal of change.

At this film’s center are themes of fear, change, and loss. Kepesh becomes enraptured by his mistress, and he fears that she will eventually realize their age difference and lose interest in him. At the same time, Consuela wants their relationship to last, but her lover’s fears are apparent to her.

The characters’ motives are never made entirely clear, which allows for some healthy speculation. It’s worth noting that the novel on which this film is based is entitled The Dying Animal. It’s not made clear to whom this title refers, but I would suggest that the “animal” is Kepesh, whose behavior is somewhat animalistic. The transformation of Kepesh in this film is preceded by this quote from Hopper’s character: “We’re so dazzled by the outside that we never make it inside.” Consuela provides him with a second chance at something more than a physical romance.

I saw Elegy in a screening at the Canton Palace Theatre. Each Thursday, the Palace shows films that wouldn’t normally appear in mainstream theatres, and they always make for great conversation. If you live in the Canton area, I encourage you to visit cantonpalacetheatre.org to see what’s playing next.

Zack and Miri Make a Porno

2008-11-13T16:51:00.003-06:00

Editor's Note: This review was originally written for Malone University's student newspaper. Steve didn't bother to write a non-Malone centric version for criticinema.

STEVE - As I was sitting in the theater, watching Zack and Miri make a (word I can’t repeat at Malone) I quickly began to wonder, “How I will I review a movie like this for Malone?” With words like “Bleep” and “Bleep” and other “Bleeps” I questioned if such a “Bleeping” review could be written without being “Bleeped.”

I should begin this review with the world’s largest disclaimer. Zack and Miri make a (word I can’t repeat at Malone) does indeed involve Zack and Miri making a (word I can’t repeat at Malone), so viewer be warned. This movie stretches the bounds of the MPAA R rating, leaving little left unseen, including the stretch marks.

Of course it’s hard to imagine anything less from writer director Kevin Smith (Clerks, Dogma, Clerks 2). His films have always pushed the limits of sex on screen in terms of its lewdness and sheer shrewdness. Where Judd Apatow mixes smut with charm, Smith mixes sex with…well… anything and everything. However, Smith’s potty-mouth freshman humor that he heavily incorporates into each of his films does aid in creating some of the most heart warming moments on screen.

The plot is simple, and could easily be found in any fare of romance. Zack (Seth Rogen) and Miri (Elizabeth Banks) are best friends. They went to high school together, they live together, hang out together, do every thing together… except have sex together. So when their water and electricity gets shut off, and they have no money left to pay the bills, they do what no dignified person would do. They make a… well you know. And when it comes time to do the dirty deed, instead of having sex, they do what any couple who have been together that long do, they make love.

Like I said, the story is as conventional and formulaic as they come, but Smith puts on his own unique spin that makes it become something special. Smith is a poet of vulgarity. His dialogue is as masterful as it is shocking. And the performances of his dialogue are exceptional. It should be pointed out that Craig Robison (Darryl from The Office) is especially hilarious.

All said and done, I have never seen as shocking nor raunchy a movie as Zack and Miri Make a (word I can not… aw screw it) Porno. It’s rude and crude and social unacceptable. But beneath the offensive coarseness and bad manners lies a witty story about two people being in love.

W.

2008-11-05T10:47:00.004-06:00

DAN - Academy Award winner Oliver Stone’s latest film chronicles a fictionalized version of the life and times of George W. Bush. Though the story is based on actual events, many scenes and conversations are created to support Stone’s comedic vision of the president.

I’ve never been a fan of Oliver Stone. Alexander was painfully long and boring, and World Trade Center seemed like an attempt to take advantage of a crisis for personal gain. W. is a politically charged film, and I get the feeling that Stone created it for the primary purpose of drawing in crowds.

Having said that, this movie is all right. Although Stone makes it clear that he does not approve of President Bush, this is a film that can be enjoyed by democrats and [open minded] republicans alike.

Josh Brolin (Goonies, No Country for Old Men) delivers a surprisingly effective impression of Bush. He succeeds in going beyond the typical caricature, providing a character that feels human. I found myself sympathizing with this variant of Bush, which I’m sure is also due to the screenplay by Stanley Weiser.

The rest of the ensemble cast is impressive, consisting of James Cromwell, Richard Dreyfuss, Thandie Newton, Jeffrey Wright, Ellen Burstyn, and plenty more. Each performance is funny and unique, emphasizing the strange variety of characters that have been a part of this administration.

The most powerful and thought-provoking moment in this film takes place after the credits. The very last image we see is a symbol of the crucifix morphing into a “W.” Stone is a self-proclaimed Buddhist, so I’m not sure if this is a jab at Bush or Christianity.

Other than that, this is a pretty basic movie, serving as a retrospective of sorts. I’m interested in seeing how people will perceive this film in the future; will it be the definitive representation of Bush’s presidency? I hope not.

__________________________

STEVE - When I first heard that controversial filmmaker Oliver Stone was tackling a project about our current president I was (to say the least) shocked, appalled and very intrigued. A fictional biography on a living, still in office president… you don’t say?

Of course a film dealing with a major political figure, conveniently coming out around the time of presidential elections is sure to have political undertones, which this movie does about a third of the way into the film. However, this doesn’t keep W. from being a riveting and engrossing drama about the man in the White House.

The film focuses on the life of President Bush (the second one), and not so much on his political decisions, which was a wise choice by the filmmakers that easily paid off do to actor Josh Brolin. Brolin is intoxicatingly funny, gripping, and riveting as George W. Bush and I wouldn’t be the least surprised if he received an Oscar nomination for his performance. Equally as enjoyable was James Cromwell who was brilliant as Bush Sr.

Director Oliver Stone made excellent casting selections. Not only do his actors look and sound similar to their real life counterparts, but each actor brings to the table engrossing performances that drive the momentum of the story. The movie works for this very reason.

Great performances and a riving script that surprisingly tells it as it is makes W. a must see.

Tell No One

2008-10-17T03:15:00.005-05:00

DAN - Tell No One is a thrilling French mystery from director Guillaume Canet, based on a novel by Harlan Coben. The film follows Alex Beck, a doctor whose wife was murdered eight years ago. When new details emerge concerning his wife’s death, Beck must run from the law in search of the truth.

After seeing this film, I think it’s safe to say that I’m a sucker for French movies. Maybe it’s the romance of their language, or maybe I just don’t expect to see such well-made films from foreign countries. Either way, I liked this one.

François Cluzet plays the protagonist well. I’ve never seen him before, but I enjoyed this performance. The supporting cast of characters, a few of whom I recognized, also works well.

One thing that I found somewhat odd about this movie was the music. There are a lot of lighthearted songs that don’t seem to fit the story, and it doesn’t help that most of them are in English. The presence of U2's “With or Without You” was especially jarring for me, but it led to a moment that suggested a romantic side of the film.

I loved the stunts in this film. Beck takes a few punches, jumps from windows, and nearly gets run over on a highway, and it all looks convincing. Even something as simple as tripping and falling onto the pavement made me cringe. It looked painful.

There were several points in the movie where characters made references to something I didn’t understand, and I’d say to myself, “What did I miss?” But it would all be cleared up before the end of the film. There’s a particularly lengthy scene of exposition that ties a lot of loose ends together, and it was a relief.

Tell No One threw me for some loops, but it all worked out by the time the credits rolled. I was never certain what to believe, and I didn’t see the twists coming, which is a good thing for any mystery. Good story, good performances, and good direction.

Body of Lies

2008-10-13T20:07:00.006-05:00

STEVE - Leonardo Dicaprio and Russell Crowe star in the latest film from Director Ridley Scott. Body of Lies is a spy film set in the middle of the Iraq War. DiCaprio plays Agent Ferris, a solo on the ground CIA spy who tries to stop terrorism single handedly, while Crowe plays as Ferris’s ever watchful boss Ed Hoffman, who is always observing from the sky.

Real locations and sets serve the mise-en-scene in creating Ridley Scott’s dirty and depressing modern day Middle East. The cinematography aids in creating a stylized and fast paced film that unfortunately becomes sluggish due to a creative but Hollywood contaminated plot.

I recall talking to a friend about the overall plot after viewing the film. There where many sideplots and subplots and loveplots and subparplots. And the main plot (for which the title is named) becomes sandwiched between all these other plots and ultimately is left with itty-bitty-little space to breath. I believe when attempting to describe how the main plot was executed the word my friend used was, (insert high pitch voice) “Bloop!” And I think that pretty much sums it up.

Body of Lies isn’t anything special. Good acting and decent cinematography regrettably doesn’t make up for a poor plot(s) that could have been salvaged into something superior. It’s an ordinary, middle-of-the-road, run of the mill film that leaves you with nothing more than a few, fun, distracting hours. The movie attempts to send a message, but it ultimately was lost. After watching I just kinda felt like… well… I’ve had better.

__________________________

DAN - Ridley Scott’s latest film is an espionage thriller set chiefly in Jordan. Leonardo DiCaprio plays a CIA operative with a plan to infiltrate a terrorist organization, and Russell Crowe acts as his boss at Langley.

There’s not much more to it. This film follows the recent trend of terrorist-related movies set in the Middle East (Syriana, The Kingdom). Throughout most of the movie, I couldn’t shake the feeling that I’d seen it before. I wanted something new, but this felt like a rehash.

Near the end of the movie, Crowe’s character says, “Ain’t nobody likes the Middle East, buddy. There’s nothing here to like.” As far as films go, I tend to agree. I’m bored by the deserts, worn buildings, and warfare.

I didn’t have an emotional investment in any of the characters, and I rarely felt that they were in danger. There’s a romantic subplot that develops halfway through the film, and it seemed out of place.

I was bothered by a couple of things that should have been irrelevant, but they caught my eye. Most of them aren’t worth mentioning, but here’s one example. Ever since I saw the trailers for this movie, I’ve been annoyed by the characters’ hair. I know it should be trivial, but there’s no reason to dye DiCaprio’s hair pitch black (including his goatee). And Crowe’s hair doesn’t need to be grey and spiky. It was noticeably fake and distracting.

I was surprised to see Mark Strong as a Jordanian character, but he pulled it off. Strong has played supporting characters in several notable movies, such as Sunshine, Stardust, and a few Guy Ritchie films. Sure enough, his character in this movie has awkward grey streaks in his unnaturally black hair.

Even with all of my complaints, Body of Lies is a decent movie. It’s just not very inventive. I want more from the likes of Ridley Scott.

Man on Wire

2008-10-09T00:54:00.003-05:00

DAN - In 1973, construction was officially completed on the World Trade Center. One year later, a tightrope walker named Philippe Petit walked between the roofs of the Twin Towers on a high wire, and he did it without anyone’s permission. His antics are chronicled in Man on Wire, a documentary by James Marsh.

This is a magical film. The story, visuals, music, and “characters” are presented in a way that had me wholly captivated.

The story is told firsthand through interviews with Petit and his cohorts. Each person has a distinct and genuine personality, and it is evident that they are each proud (and sometimes ecstatic) to have been a part of this inverted scheme. Petit in particular is a fantastic and physically active storyteller.

The film’s visuals, aside from the interviews, consist of archive footage, photography, and reenactments. I was surprised by how cohesive all of this material is; the cinematography of the black and white footage from the ‘60s meshes perfectly with the modern segments. It’s a delight to see Petit and his friends running through tall grass and wrestling like giddy children.

The film’s music supports a sense of wonderment. In particular, Erik Satie’s “First Gymnopédie” left an impression on me.

Man on Wire serves as an uplifting memory to associate with the World Trade Center in light of more recent events. It is a true heist story in which there are no victims, and nothing is stolen. Rather, Petit provides his audience with inspiration.

Eagle Eye

2008-10-08T00:35:00.007-05:00

STEVE - Improbabilities, impossibilities, ambiguities, and implausibility would just be a few of the words needed to describe the outlandish and dubious plot of Eagle Eye.

Unlike other movie reviews, I won’t attempt to explain the plot to you. I’m not sure I can. Instead I recommend you watch the various trailers bumbling about on the interwebs. That should give you enough to understand what the movie, at the very least, attempts to do with the plot.

The film is the most ridiculous of the over-the-top action, adventure genre. Insane happenstance after insane happenstance pushes the audience further and further in asking, “WTF?” To quote the great Roger Ebert, “This whole movie is a feature-length deus ex machina, and if you don't know what that is, look it up, because you're going to need it to discuss ‘Eagle Eye.’” Amen.

However, even with that being said, you couldn’t help but enjoy the adrenaline pumping, shaky camera, action sequences which have become a staple in the action genre. As well as the conventional and eventual outcome of the film, which we all know the due to operational aesthetics. And if you don’t understand what that term means its okay, I learned it from Andrew Rudd.

For those of you film bloggers out there, this movie has fridge moments, nuke the fridge moments, and other refrigerator moments that I haven’t even heard of yet. After viewing this movie we may need to make one or two.

Vicky Christina Barcelona

2008-09-30T02:09:00.002-05:00

DAN - Woody Allen’s newest film is built around two friends, Vicky (Rebecca Hall) and Christina (Scarlett Johansson), who decide to spend a summer in Barcelona. They meet a mysterious and alluring painter named Juan (Javier Bardem) who invites them to visit his home in the countryside. Complex romances soon evolve among the characters.

I’ve seen a few of Woody Allen’s most famous movies, but I was never impressed. I was put off by the thought that he had written and directed those films for the purpose of casting himself in the role of a nerd who sleeps with beautiful women. It would push me even further away if he continued this in his old age, but he fortunately doesn’t appear in Vicky Christina Barcelona.

I enjoyed this film a bit more than I expected, but it’s not a complete victory. I suppose this is a character-driven film, though the characters’ behavior is sometimes difficult to understand. This movie might appeal to lovers of romance, as long as they aren’t offended by the loose and shallow nature of its characters.

Not much was required of the actors except for Penélope Cruz, who plays a semi-psychotic lover. The rest of the characters are fairly conventional. The presence of a narrator was distracting, as he provided insights into the characters’ minds. Narration only works if handled well, as in The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford.

Concerning fine arts, this is a beautiful film. Soulful Spanish guitar accompanies breathtaking scenery in Barcelona and Oviedo. The characters drink wine, express themselves through art, and enjoy life. A few brief scenes in New York City provide noticeable contrast.

I appreciate this film, though it hasn’t left much of a lasting impact on me. I was left wondering if the characters had learned anything through the course of the story, and I wasn’t sure if I had any personal gain.

__________________________

STEVE - What starts off as a proposition to a weekend of sightseeing and a threesome, quickly develops into a well crafted film on the subject of love and happily ever after.

Vicky Christina Barcelona is a terrific and engaging movie. The film is full of witty dialogue and smart characters, some of whom are logical, and others who are reckless and passionate. The film delves deep into the topic of love, and makes a beautiful exploration of the subject through the characters with their neurotic and sometimes irrational behaviors.

The plot follows two close friends, Vicky (Rebecca Hall) and Christina (Scarlett Johansson), who have decided to spend the summer in, of all places, Barcelona. It is the meeting of an attractive painter (Javier Bardem) and his proposition of a romantic weekend away…involving all of them that pushes the plot into interesting territory.

Vicky Christina Barcelona is a rare and skillfully made film, which makes it such a joy to view. Though surely this isn’t the screenwriter and director’s best work in his catalogue of over forty films, it is defiantly a wonderful refreshment from a summer of mediocre blockbusters (The Dark Knight excluded).

Burn After Reading

2008-09-21T20:00:00.004-05:00

DAN - Burn After Reading is a comedic pseudo-spy film from writers and directors Joel and Ethan Coen. When the memoirs of a disgruntled CIA employee end up in the hands of deviously dim-witted gym workers, the situation quickly spins out of everyone’s control.

The Coen brothers earned four Oscars for last year’s No Country for Old Men, including Best Picture and Best Director. Their choice to follow such a film with a farcical comedy was interesting, but I was concerned. The Coens’ last two comedies, Intolerable Cruelty and The Ladykillers, weren’t exactly up to par with their previous efforts.

Fortunately, the brothers have managed to whip up something special again.

Though the cinematography and setting (Washington, D.C.) didn’t initially thrill me, the characters and plot won me over. The cast consists of some of Hollywood’s most highly-regarded actors in less than flattering roles. John Malkovich’s short-tempered performance is a treat, and George Clooney nicely rounds out his “trilogy of idiots” with the Coen brothers.

Carter Burwell’s boisterous score stands out nicely, and it sets a tone for the film and its unduly pompous characters. In Joel Coen’s words, the music is “something important sounding but absolutely meaningless.”

For those of you who were upset with the conclusion of No Country for Old Men, this one doesn’t require quite as much soul searching. If you enjoyed Burn After Reading, I recommend Raising Arizona and The Big Lebowski, both from the Coens’ collection.

__________________________

STEVE - Burn After Reading is by far one of the most bizarre, screwball, tragicomedy that only could originate from the uncanny minds of the Brothers Coen.

This movie is littered with big name performers like Brad Pitt, George Clooney, John Malkovich, Frances McDormand, Tilda Swinton, and J.K. Simmons. All of whom give very unique, comical, and vastly different performances than you’ve seen before. Both Pitt and Clooney are hilarious, Pitt with his gum chewing, uneducated, gym instructor dialogue, and Clooney as the sex-addict, cheating buffoon. But it’s J.K. Simmons, who only appears for 5 minutes of film that brings the house down.

This film is made with expert execution and style, not to mention some terrific dialogue. But even with all of that, I found myself looking at the clock more than once, which isn’t a good thing when the film runs a total time of 96minutes. The issue lies in have to bring together so many different characters that the pacing of the film ultimately suffers.

Though it is by far one of the better ensemble casts that I’ve seen, and is quite comically screwy, Burn After Reading fails (for myself at least) to create an emotional connection with its audience. I’ll give it credit for its smart screenplay, fine cinematography, and first rate performances, but with all the scheming, affairs, and unique basement contraptions, it just didn’t hit home.

Bottle Shock

2008-09-14T03:53:00.006-05:00

DAN - In 1976 a competition was held in Paris in which obscure Californian wines were compared with the best that the French had to offer. At the time, France was producing what was considered to be the best wine in the world. This event, which came to be known as the “Judgment of Paris,” was the basis for Bottle Shock, directed by Randall Miller.

Even without seeing this movie, its ending shouldn’t be difficult to predict. The film’s tendency toward convention is its most obvious weakness. Sure, there are some unique moments here and there, but they’re all contained in a color-by-number story.

The movie takes place largely in Napa Valley, which provides some beautiful scenery. This is one of the few positives that stood out to me.

Bottle Shock suffers from a lack of character development. Friends betray one another, friendships are seemingly broken, but everything is conveniently back to normal fifteen minutes later. The cast’s performances weren’t noteworthy, though I’m sure they’d benefit from a better screenplay. Even Alan Rickman, who is usually fun to watch, didn’t have much to work with.

Little risk was taken in the making of this movie. Perhaps the producers’ only gamble was in making a film about wine fanatics. It’s not exactly blockbuster material.

At one point in the film, the characters say, “Through hardship comes enlightenment... in grapes.” If the movie’s producers had adhered to this philosophy in regard to film, they might have ended up with something more than mediocre.

__________________________

STEVE - What starts off as an intriguing film of a love affair between a man and good wine slowly becomes a movie bogged down by a sour and uninteresting family relationship that kills the feeling of a good movie buzz.

Bottle Shock is one of those “based on a true story” type of movies. You know the type… the kind which is “loosely” based on a true story. And because it’s “loosely” based on a true story it allows the writer to take certain “privileges” of the plot in order to create those typical “Hollywood Movie” clichés, because that’s what “sells” these days. It’s really quite unfortunate, because Bottle Shock could have been something unique. Instead it became another typical film of the modern Hollywood cinema.

However, this film does have a strong point, that point being Alan Rickman. Bottle Shock truly works best when focusing on the character and story of Alan Rickman’s Steven Spurrier. Spurrier is a British wine lover who owns a little shop in France called “The Academy of Wine.” The year is 1976, and it’s his idea to host a wine tasting contest between the two countries of France and America (this is the true story part). Rickman gives a wonderful performance as the snobby connoisseur of wine. His character and performance is so enjoyable that whenever he walks on screen you are simply unable to pull your eyes away. Unfortunately, every moment he’s not on screen, the film becomes a boor.

The movie is filled to the brim with mediocre plot, acting, and everything else. And it’s only because of Alan Rickman and his character’s storyline that I give this film a pass. Ironically enough, the movie works best when it focuses on the true events of the story, and not dealing with the “loosely based” characters and their family issues.

Pineapple Express

2008-09-07T04:22:00.008-05:00

DAN - Pineapple Express, directed by relatively unknown David Gordon Green, is a stoner comedy starring Seth Rogen and James Franco. One of the characters witnesses a murder, and the pair of potheads are forced to run from hitmen and cops alike.

I’ll preface this review by saying that I didn’t get much sleep the night before watching the movie, and I found it difficult to stay awake through the second half. But I persevered for the sake of providing well-informed opinions for our readers, who will settle for nothing less.

This movie is odd. It wanders through comedic takes on various genres, most notably action and adventure. There are drug lords, assassins, and moments of violence that surpass Grand Theft Auto in over-the-top offbeat gore. It’s as if Cheech and Chong wandered into a poor-man’s combination of The Fugitive and Kill Bill.

I’ve noticed that I’m becoming increasingly tired of comedies like this that use improvised dialogue. It’s too obvious, and it bumps me out of the film. The man behind this trend is Judd Apatow, who produced similarly-styled films like Step Brothers, Superbad, Knocked Up, and Anchorman.

Having said that, there were a number of good scenes. Danny McBride, who is on his way to becoming a big name in comedy, provided some of the best moments in this movie.

I’m sure Pineapple Express was meant to be viewed while on the reefer, because even though it’s a comedy, I didn’t laugh enough. Maybe I just need to loosen up. If only there were some sort of inhalable substance that would keep me laid back... legally, of course.

__________________________

STEVE - In late 2007, the Hollywood Insider came out with a list. This list ranked, in their opinion, the fifty smartest people in Hollywood. Conditions for such a list ranged from rules such as not only making smart films and movie decisions in the past, but to making smart movies now, while in the process, pushing the industry forward in a new and unique way. At the top of this great list, which contained legendary filmmakers like Steven Spielberg, James Cameron, and celebrated actors such as Meryl Streep and Will Smith, was none other than Producer/Director Judd Apatow. The reason he topped such a list? Well, to put it simply… smart and very funny movie making.

Mr. Apatow has brought us such classics as Anchorman, The 40 Year Old Virgin, Talladega Nights, Knocked Up, Superbad, and my most recent favorite Forgetting Sarah Marshall. Hit after hit, Judd Apatow has produced (and sometimes directed) many of our modern day comedy classics. After all, how many times did you or your friends find yourself confessing love for a lamp after seeing Anchorman for the umpteenth time?

So maybe now you can see why Judd Apatow is deserving of such a spot as the smartest man in Hollywood, and maybe why I was excited to see his latest produced comedy, Pineapple Express. So it burdens me with a heavy heart to reveal my sincere disappointment in what I was hoping to be a good movie.

Star and writer Seth Rogen (whom had impressed me once before with his witty and hilarious script in Superbad) failed not only to impress me as an actor, but also as a screenwriter. Rogen’s acting skills never impressed me to begin with, even though sometimes, when in the right role, the man can charm the pants right off of ya (not here however). It was nevertheless, his script’s dialogue, which in many scenes felt improvised and awkward, that caused this film to feel disjointed and uneven. And perhaps that was the issue; they should have stuck to the script instead of improvising. However, the larger offense done to the audience in this movie was its exposition.

In a horrible attempt to push the movie along it’s merry and at many times jarring plot, was some of the most ridiculous and unbelievable explanations and exploitations of plot and unlikely circumstances. True, this movie is in many regards what some would call a “pot-smoking movie” being that it contains much smoking of pot and or weed as it is sometimes referred to in many intellectual circles. And true, the movie was aimed at those certain intellectual circles that smoked said weed. Nonetheless, such horrible writing and execution of plot is truly unforgivable. And this here is where the problem lies.

Director David Gordon Green, whose previous experience was on serious independent drama up until this point, failed in many ways to form a cohesive and smart film. He should have called a halt to the improvising, which was truly out of hand in this movie, and made a more conscious effort to bring the film under the reigns of some of intelligence and coherent thought.

Now true, this was a “pot-smoking movie”, and yes it did and was meant to stretch the bounds of believability… which I’m all for. But you can’t force feed me a poorly constructed vehicle to drive the plot and expect me to get into that vehicle and ride in it to the end of the movie. It doesn’t work! Just like I’m sure my use of literary terms didn’t just work, or maybe it did. I don’t know… I go to Malone.

To be quiet honest, I think the real issue for me was that this movie had an important missing element… that wonderful, good feeling, Judd Apatow comedy charm. This movie had no charm. I didn’t fall in love with the characters, I didn’t route for the underdog, and my emotions weren’t carried away in the story. I was stuck in a theater… and I had gum on my shoe.

The Dark Knight

2008-07-21T03:11:00.013-05:00

STEVE - It was perhaps the most anticipated movie of my lifetime. As I told a friend, “I can’t ever remember wanting to see a movie this bad.” True, I’m a big Bat fan, but nonetheless you also have considered the rest of the variables in this film equation. You have a great director, who on more than one occasion has wowed me with his skill at pointing a camera. Legendary actors such as Michael Cain, Christian Bale, and Gary Oldman just to name a few of the top A list actors in this film. And of course you have the hailed performance of the unfortunately late Heath Ledger. So many great things to look forward too… and usually when I’m close to this level of excitement about a movie, I almost always tend to be more than a little disappointed after the experience. Thank the heavens that every once in a while, the Hollywood Studio System gets things right.

So many wonderful things in this movie were done right. So many, that I can’t list them. Thank you Warner Brothers for letting a wonderful vision come to life. Thank you Mr. Chris Nolan for a wonderful movie going experience, and thank you cast and crew and everyone else involved for making a top notch movie worthy of multiple nominations and awards. The performances, music, cinematography, direction, action… all outstanding!

It isn’t a perfect movie but the flaws are few and far between and it would just be nitpicking for me to point them out. So I won’t, all I say is that this is a must see, one to see over and over again with many multiple viewings after that.

__________________________

WARNING - Dan's review contains spoilers. Do not read it unless you've seen the film.

DAN - The Dark Knight is easily the most hyped film of this year. I had great expectations for it, and I wasn’t disappointed. Then again, I wasn’t exactly thrilled by the result. My initial reaction was basically this - I knew the movie was amazing, but I couldn’t fully celebrate it for two reasons.

1. I had invested too much hope into the idea that this would be a great movie. It met my expectations, but I’ve been on sort of a Dark Knight high for a while now. As a result, I didn’t really feel much exhilaration while watching it. This was minor, though. I still thoroughly enjoyed the movie, even if the “wow” factor wasn’t entirely there.

2. What surprised me most was how depressing this film is. This is where the spoilers kick in.

First, Rachel Dawes’ death took me by surprise. Granted, I wasn’t very invested in her character, but she was a good, innocent person. What’s worse are the effects of her death on other people.

I honestly cared about Harvey Dent. I was convinced that he was what Gotham needed in order to become a better place. He seemed like a truly selfless person who wasn’t afraid to stand up for what is right in the face of death, and I was rooting for him. The fact that he became evil (and ended up dying in that state) made me lose a little hope in the world. I knew all along that he would become Two-Face, but I didn’t want to accept it.

Also, the Joker is just... mean. Unpleasant. And knowing that he is the cause of Harvey Dent’s downfall, and that he enjoyed it, makes me mad. And now he’s (theoretically) sitting in a jail cell somewhere, happy with what he accomplished, and planning a way to escape and cause more damage. It worries me that such a person exists, albeit in a fictional world.

On a lighter note, I was glad to find myself laughing at some of the Joker’s moments and mannerisms. Despite his evil nature (and the knowledge of Ledger’s death), I was able to enjoy the performance.

In addition to this, there were some morally uplifting moments in the movie. The people on the ferries, even the prisoners, make the right choice. I take that as a sign that Harvey Dent made a good impression on the people of Gotham. Even though Dent is gone, he seems to have created a legacy that is already taking hold in average citizens and criminals alike.

Also, I gained a new love for Batman, himself. He’s willing to look like a villain in the eyes of the people he’s protecting for the sake of keeping Dent’s honor alive. It’s comforting and admirable.

All in all, I think this is an awesome movie, but it has taken me time to process some unexpected reactions. Ultimately, I admire the fact that Nolan and company didn’t make a “Hollywood” movie with a happy ending. Elements of the real world are reflected in The Dark Knight, and though they may be hard-hitting, they are truthful. I’ve thought about the relation between this film’s themes and reality more so than with other dark movies, such as No Country for Old Men. This is definitely more than a comic book movie. Not only is it entertaining, but it has meaning.

Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull

2008-05-22T03:47:00.003-05:00

STEVE - “Don’t touch anything!” should have been the words that Harrison Ford’s Indiana Jones directed towards George Lucas instead of Shia LaBeouf’s Mutt Williams. Regrettably, even if he had he would have been too late. So instead after nineteen years of been stuck in development hell, Steven Spielberg, George Lucas, and Harrison Ford dust off the old fedora and return once more to the world of everybody’s favorite archeologist, this time bringing along a new cast, new characters, and a new adventure.

I won’t lie to you; it was a little weird seeing Indy on a new journey. I’ve watched the old movies so many times that it was hard for me to believe that I was watching Indiana Jones in a new motion picture. Nevertheless, as strange as it was to see my favorite action hero venture out on a brand new quest, it was more amazing to see him come back to life. Sure he’s a little older and little worse for the wear, but that look in his eyes, and the gruffness in his voice, and the fedora… oh Indy… I’ve missed you.

However, that doesn’t stop the fact, that for whatever reason, George Lucas has it out to destroy ever grown man’s childhood! Why, George, why?! Indy may be out on a new expedition, but it’s the silliest, brainless, most ridiculous escapade ever! EVER!!! Did you know that the reason it took nineteen years to make a new Indiana Jones movie was because Lucas had this stupid plot in his head from the beginning, but Steven and Harrison had enough sense to say no? Well, now we know that if we ever want to get anything out of Spielberg or Ford all we have to do is ask, and then wait nineteen years for them to cave in. Which I’m kind of glad they did, but then I kind of wish they didn’t.

I mean it was great to see Indiana Jones fighting the bad guys again (even though the bad guys were Russians instead of Germans) and solving strange historic puzzles, and digging up buried artifacts. But the story and the special effects got in the way. Whose idea was it to make digital gophers? Come on… those things looked so ludicrous and ridiculously fake. I’m actually surprised… for an ILM movie these special effects were below par. They didn’t have me believing a good portion of what I was seeing, which is rare for ILM. Very rare. And as far as the story goes all I have to say is one thing. A REFIGERATOR?!! REALLY?!!

Actually I lied, I have more to say about the story, but more on that later.

As for the direction, I can say that I was glad that Spielberg returned to the director’s chair. Considering what he had to work with as far as the script went, I was glad he came back. And I’m very glad that Ford returned, because that my friends, is where the real magic happened. Nineteen years later and Ford proves that he can still be and is Indiana Jones. I was afraid at first that he wouldn’t be able to return to the role, and during the first few minutes of the film I didn’t believe that he was back. But then, once the action happened, I was caught… and I believed… and I’m sorry that I ever doubted you Harrison.

As for the rest of the actors; I hate to say that I was surprisingly disappointed. I expected a lot from the likes of Ray Winstone and Cate Blanchett. Unfortunately they did very little to impress me. Even Karen Allen returning in the role of Marion Ravenwood from the first movie disappointed me. Her acting seemed stilted. There was a moment early on in the film that I found myself really missing Sean Connery’s Henry Jones, Senior in the picture. I loved him in Last Crusade and his absence in the picture left a little bit of a, much needed to be filled in, hole. However, Spielberg has found his boy wonder… and he is Shia LaBeouf. The kid has what it takes, and I immediately fell in love with him and his greaser character Mutt. At one point I even began to care for Mutt as much as Indy. A hard feat to accomplish Mr. LaBeouf, and therefore my fedora is off to you.

And now to the script... it was weak, it was very, very weak. The action, direction, everything, with a few exceptions from the special effects department, was good. But the story left so much to be desired. The climax felt so anticlimactic, and I hated it! It was so un-Indiana Jones. But my biggest complaint concerns that of the relationship between Marion and Indy. It’s been twenty some years since these two have been together, and yeah we learn a little bit of history about them, and why they didn’t stay together after the first film. But after a quick spat, these two suddenly fall in love again? How?! You can’t leave someone, go off and have another life, and then all of sudden pick up where you left off twenty some years ago. It doesn’t work like that. There needed to be more development between these two than what was shown on screen for me to believe that they are still in love. No, it didn’t work for me. And neither did the McGuffin. Again, un-Indiana Jones like. Get over yourself Lucas, and quit ruining everybody’s favorite characters with weak story and plot lines!

So should you go see Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull? If it was any other action movie, with any other action hero, I would tell you no and that you would be better off staying at home and watching something else. However, this isn’t any other action movie, and this isn’t any other action hero… its Indiana Jones.

Forgetting Sarah Marshall

2008-04-21T00:39:00.005-05:00

DAN - Forgetting Sarah Marshall is a romantic comedy directed by Nicholas Stoller (Fun with Dick and Jane) and produced by Judd Apatow (Knocked Up). Jason Segel plays a man who falls into depression after his celebrity girlfriend dumps him. In an attempt to lift his spirits, he takes a trip to Hawaii. When he arrives, he soon finds that his ex-girlfriend is there on vacation with her new boyfriend.

I had a decent time watching this film, but I’d like to preface my review with an observation: the crowd with which you see a movie can have a big impact on your experience. I saw this film at a matinee, and the theater was barely occupied. The audience wasn’t up for a riotous afternoon of laughter, which isn’t helpful when seeing an edgy comedy.

The humor in this film ranges from subtle wordplay and nonverbal interaction to raunchy jokes and full-frontal male nudity. I chuckled a few times, but I couldn’t help wishing I was surrounded by a crowd that could really get into the movie.

The cast does a pretty good job, as they do in any Apatow film. Segel, who also wrote the screenplay, was charismatic and fun to watch, but some of my favorite moments in the movie involved cameo appearances by other actors. Russell Brand, an actor who is well known in England, was great as a carefree musician living the rock and roll lifestyle.

Overall, I enjoyed Forgetting Sarah Marshall, but it really wasn’t anything great. I probably could have benefited from watching it with a better audience, but it was still a good time.

The Mist

2008-04-17T10:02:00.008-05:00

DAN - The Mist, an adaptation of a Stephen King novella, was recently released on DVD. Directed by Frank Darabont (The Shawshank Redemption, The Green Mile), the film takes place in a small town as it is flooded with a thick fog that seems to hide something dangerous. A portion of the townsfolk shut themselves in a grocery store. As they attempt to make sense of the situation, crazy stuff starts happening, both inside and outside of the store.

I’ve enjoyed Darabont’s previous works, and some Stephen King adaptations have been great (The Shining), but something went wrong with this one. The writing, acting, and special effects are all outstanding, but they stand out in the wrong ways.

The characters’ actions and reactions rarely make much sense. They are immediately at odds with one another, but without any apparent reason. They mistrust and condemn each other, but I seldom spotted any understandable motivation for doing so.

The actors’ performances are prominently bland and laughable, though I suppose they did the best they could manage with the screenplay they had. It was especially painful to watch Oscar winner Marcia Gay Harden in her role as a self-righteous, hypocritical religious crusader who blames the mist on the sins of mankind. It was ridiculous.

I’ll avoid spoilers by saying that there are computer-generated effects in this film, but they are hardly convincing. Come on people, this is 2008. Jurassic Park did it better 15 years ago.

You’re likely to hear people talking about the ending of The Mist. I was happy to see a non-traditional conclusion; such a thing isn’t popular in modern cinema. Even so, the ending was hindered by the aforementioned lack of believable motivation.

I have more complaints concerning this movie, but not enough room to discuss them in one review. In my opinion, The Mist has few redeeming qualities. But as always, I encourage you to make up your own mind.

__________________________

STEVE - Writer and Director Frank Darabont is the authoritative figure when it comes to adapting a Stephen King story from novel to the big Screen. After such huge successes with translations of The Shawshank Redemption and The Green Mile, it’s pretty hard to imagine Darabont failing when retelling a Stephen King classic. And when it comes to the mist, nothing has changed; Frank Darabont still writes and directs just the same as his previous Stephen King films… oh yeah, except this time it was bad.

Well no, no bad might be a little too strong in this situation. Let’s see… hmmm… while watching I honestly felt as if I was watching a Sci-fi channel original movie… a “B” movie. And nothing good can come from a “B” movie science fiction adaptation. So I wouldn’t say the movie was bad, but perhaps a little too mediocre.

Not bad, not good, but mediocre. Seriously… just straight up mediocre. Everything in this movie was mediocre. Everything! The acting was mediocre, the script was mediocre, the CGI was mediocre, and the direction was mediocre. Mediocre does not describe writer and director Frank Darabont. The man is better than this.

However, the movie wasn’t a complete lost. The camera work and cinematography was pretty decent. And the ending, oh boy, the ending was nothing short of amazing. If you’re going to watch this film for any reason, watch it for the ending. It almost made up for two hours of medicoreness... almost.

So ladies and gentlemen, it is my recommendation that if you desire to see a pretty cool ending and you don’t mind sitting through two hours of mediocreness, than by all means watch the mist. Otherwise, avoid this film at all costs. And Frank Darabont, if you’re reading this than I have two questions for you. First, why are you reading criticinema, you’re better than this! Secondly, why are you making “B” movies, you’re better than this!

Persepolis

2008-04-05T23:53:00.005-05:00

DAN - Persepolis is a French animated feature co-directed by Vincent Paronnaud and Marjane Satrapi. Based on the graphic novel of the same name, the film is an autobiographical account of Satrapi’s turbulent life as a young Iranian girl. Satrapi’s world is drastically changed by the Islamic revolution in the late 1970s, and she is forced to mature at an early age.

Although I knew next to nothing about Iran prior to seeing this film, I found no difficulty in involving myself with the story. Persepolis presents the country’s recent history from a first-hand perspective, which I suppose made it easier to take in. The rise and fall of Shahs and Ayatollahs didn’t become a confusing distraction.

The movie’s primarily black and white animation style was simple, yet strikingly effective. Founded on Satrapi’s own drawings, the film is full of images that are beautiful in their use of contrast, composition, and movement. While watching, I often thought, “I want to animate something like this. It wouldn’t be too hard.” I’m not sure how true that is, but the film was inspiring nonetheless.

This version of the film was in the original French with English subtitles, and I recommend it. There’s something enchanting about the French language; even without the subtitles, this movie would be a treat. In my opinion, dubbing should always be avoided.

The score by Olivier Bernet works with the film’s visuals and themes, though at times it sounds synthesized. Some musical cues reminded me of Koji Kondo’s Ocarina of Time soundtrack, which has a certain nostalgic appeal for me.

Persepolis conveys elements of humor, despair, loneliness, and love while simultaneously telling a personal story that is relevant worldwide. This film reminded me that even though people live in a wide variety of strange cultures, we are not entirely different.

Mighty Morphin Power Rangers: The Movie

2008-04-01T15:05:00.007-05:00

DAN - I’d like to take a moment to give recognition to one of my generation’s long lost classic films. It has been nearly thirteen years since Bryan Spicer unleashed the masterpiece that is Mighty Morphin Power Rangers: The Movie. The film follows the six heroic rangers as they battle Ivan Ooze, the most wretched and purple villain to ever grace the big screen.

The choreography of the battle sequences far surpasses anything that had previously appeared on the Power Rangers TV show, effectively setting the bar for all future kung fu movies; we would not have The Matrix, Enter the Dragon, or Walker: Texas Ranger were it not for MMPR:TM.

The cast delivers stellar performances with no exceptions. David Yost, in particular, delivers a heart-wrenching portrayal of a teen who must simultaneously struggle with the pressures of an authoritarian school system while battling the galaxy’s most venomous foes. Needless to say, Paul Freeman delivers a performance the likes of which had not been seen since his delivery of Dr. Rene Belloq in Raiders of the Lost Ark. Truly chilling.

Graeme Revell’s score packs a powerful punch that brings a tear to my eye every time I listen to the soundtrack. This, when combined with Paul Murphy’s immaculate cinematography, creates a cinematic experience that is literally impossible to dislike in any way.

If, by chance, there are any readers out there who have yet to see this consummate piece of art, you must watch it. Right now. Turn off your computer and run (don’t walk) to a video store and buy (don’t rent) this film. You will not regret it. Go Go Power Rangers!

(Note: If it were up to me, I would give this movie 10 out of 5 stars, but that might defy the laws of physics.)

I'm Not There

2008-03-29T23:07:00.004-05:00

DAN - I’m Not There is a tribute to Bob Dylan as directed by Todd Haynes. Although being in a biographical format, the film doesn’t feature a singular representation of Dylan. Instead, six different actors portray various elements of Dylan’s life, be it truth or legend. The result is an intertwining set of separate narratives that amount to the director’s impression of one of his favorite artists.

Even though I know very little about the real Bob Dylan, it is apparent that this film’s construction of his character is unique. Dylan is depicted as a child, an outlaw, a poet, a prophet, and more. Each side of his personality is filmed in a different style; some segments are black and white, while others are in color. These stories could have been presented individually, but are instead intercut with one another, creating a unified presentation on the character of Dylan.

The effect of this myriad of plot lines can sometimes be disorienting. It’s clear that director Haynes is expressing himself through artistic editing, but I wasn’t always able to catch the intended meaning. Haynes’ style of storytelling, though unconventional, is not off-putting. It simply requires a greater level of attention from its audience.

Haynes previously directed a film called Velvet Goldmine that was based on the life of David Bowie. That film was more difficult to follow than I’m Not There, despite having only one actor in the role of the main character.

This film’s cast delivers a cornucopia of terrific performances. Cate Blanchett, Christian Bale, and the late Heath Ledger are standouts in an ensemble that lacks any notable flaws. I am impressed that black, white, male, and female actors are all able to convey something that resembles Bob Dylan.

The film’s soundtrack comprises Dylan’s music; some songs are original recordings, and others are covers. The music complements the film well, though at points there are some obvious problems with lip synching.

I’m Not There is an experimental film that is far from being mainstream. It’s an impressive outing for cast and crew alike. I imagine it would help to be a Dylan fan when watching this movie, but it merits a viewing by any interested audience.

Horton Hears a Who!

2008-03-16T01:52:00.005-05:00

DAN - Horton Hears a Who is the latest cinematic adaptation of a Dr. Seuss novel. Horton is an energetic elephant who hears voices coming from a tiny white speck as it floats through the jungle. The voices belong to the Whos, a race of miniature people in a world where nothing ever goes wrong. Though the other animals think he’s crazy, Horton takes it upon himself to transport the Whos to a safe spot in the jungle.

This film has some good things going for it, the best of which is its animation. The characters’ movements are fluid and creative, and they add individuality to each persona. This can probably be attributed to the movie’s directors, Steve Martino and Jimmy Hayward, the latter of which was an animator on five Pixar films.

The animation also fits well with the film’s voice actors. The cast, particularly Jim Carrey, Steve Carell, Will Arnett, and Isla Fisher, put forth lively and unique performances.

The score by John Powell is fittingly whimsical, never overpowering the accompanying visuals. At times it adds an emotional charge to the film; I actually got chills at one point.

For the most part, this film successfully adapts the world imagined by Dr. Seuss. However, the story might have been a bit too modernized. Some pop culture references, including a segment in the style of Japanese anime, seem out of place. They may be good for a few chuckles, but they were unnecessary.

Horton Hears a Who is a family film, but that doesn’t mean it’s limited to children. Like last year’s Enchanted, this movie can be a pleasant break from the heavy drama that is common in the theater, as well as in real life.

__________________________

STEVE - From the creators of Ice Age comes the beloved story of an elephant named Horton, who stumbles upon a flying speck that can talk. Most of us know how the old story goes, and thus becomes the obstacle for screen writers Ken Daurio and Cinco Paul to turn a beloved child’s book into a feature motion picture.

Without a doubt, Horton Hears a Who is the best Dr. Seuss made adaptation for the sliver screen so far. It seems Hollywood has learned from its mistakes. Instead of dressing up Jim Carrey in green costume, they use his voice and give to a very dedicated elephant. Yes, Jim Carrey lends his voice to Horton in his second Dr. Seuss outing. And along with him comes comedic actors Steve Carell, Will Arnett, Amy Poehler, Seth Rogan, and the great Carol Burnett. All of whom do an excellent job, with the exception of Seth Rogan who just felt a little out of place in this movie as Horton’s somewhat loyal mouse friend Morton.

Though it relies heavily on voice actors and sight gags, which tend to fall short of the mark about once or twice, the film does an exceptional job of keeping the spirit of Dr. Seuss alive, all the while mixing in twenty-first century humor. Although it’s not a perfect movie by any means, Horton Hears a Who is a fun filled adventure for the whole family and even retains the rare rating of “G”. When was the last time you saw one those?

The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford

2008-02-25T01:58:00.006-06:00

DAN - The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford is the second film from New Zealand director Andrew Dominik. Robert Ford is a young amateur criminal who worships Jesse James, the most notorious outlaw of the nineteenth century. When he gets the opportunity to join James’ gang, Ford comes to know his idol on a personal level. This film chronicles Ford’s involvement in the final years of James’ life.

I make an effort to avoid spoiling plot points in my reviews, but this movie’s title sort of gives one away. Robert Ford assassinates Jesse James. Part of the film’s charm lies in the fact that the audience is aware of this fact. I personally found it enthralling to watch these characters interact, knowing that one would eventually kill the other.

Casey Affleck gives an intricate portrayal of a troubled Ford as he transforms throughout the film. Ford simultaneously admires, fears, and wants to destroy his hero. Affleck is able to convey these conflicting emotions in a palpable manner, and he seems to do so with ease. In fact, I cannot think of one performance in this film that is sub-par. The ensemble is fantastic.

The score by Nick Cave and Warren Ellis is bittersweet. It sometimes comes across as a lullaby for Jesse James, which is both beautiful and strange. It is most effective during segments of narration by Hugh Ross, which are peculiarly mesmerizing in their composition.

My only negative critique is a minor one; this movie is long. Its runtime is 160 minutes, but the slow plot makes it seem even longer. However, each individual scene is a work of art, aided immensely by Roger Deakins, whose cinematography is innovative and captivating. If your attention span can handle it, this film is definitely worth watching.

__________________________

STEVE - Brad Pitt stars as the outlaw Jesse James in the indie western The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford. The film which is almost as long as its title, being that it clocks in just under three hours is about two separate men; the first man being the criminal Jesse James, who through crime and murder has achieved fame and novelty and has become an American icon. The other man is the coward Robert Ford, who wants have the fame and fortune that Jesse has, but even more prominently, to be Jesse James.

We obviously know from the title of the film that Jesse James will indeed die. So it’s no shock to the audience when the coward Robert Ford assassinates the famous outlaw. However, it’s the trip we take as a viewer, into the minds of these two characters, that really makes the climax of the film all that more consequential.

Something absolutely terrific that this movie does so very well that you don’t usually find in other works of film, is deep, deep, deep character development. This film takes you into the depths of these two men’s souls. We know what there thinking, why there thinking it, and why in the end, Robert Ford does what he does.

Because of how much time and energy is spent delving into the characters of the story we are left with a long run time. But it’s worth it, it’s so very much worth it. Terrific performances by the whole cast including my new favorite actor Casey Affleck, beautiful cinematography, excellent directing and wonderful execution. This movie comes highly recommended.

Gone Baby Gone

2008-02-17T03:07:00.006-06:00

DAN - Gone Baby Gone comes as the directorial debut of actor Ben Affleck. Based on the novel by Dennis Lehane, the film follows a private investigator and his girlfriend when they are hired to find Amanda, a little girl who was recently abducted. Time is of the essence and the odds are against them as the pair searches through the underbelly of Boston.

The quality of Ben Affleck’s acting may be debatable, but I was intrigued by the thought of him as a director. He’d proven his writing chops in Good Will Hunting, which he co-wrote with Matt Damon, but he hadn’t written anything of note since then. Though it may not be entirely revolutionary, Gone Baby Gone is a good film.

The film stars Affleck’s younger brother, Casey, who delivers a strong performance. I’ll definitely be keeping an eye on his career in the coming years.

The film’s score is subtle, yet effective. I was excited when I saw Harry Gregson-Williams’ name in the opening titles; he has composed some strong soundtracks in the past, and this is no exception.

The plot features several thrilling moments and unexpected twists. They work for the most part, though some might be perceived as a little too conventional. There is a particularly memorable scene near the end of the film that begs the question: must we obey the law if we are morally compelled to do otherwise? The arguments are convincing, and I found myself debating the alternatives in my mind for the rest of the night.

Gone Baby Gone is a thought provoking film akin to Mystic River, which was based on a book by the same author. If you like that film or are in the mood for a good mystery, check this one out.

__________________________

STEVE - Ben Affleck’s directorial debut is an excellent example of superb execution. The actor and Academy Award winning writer pens another great script along with new screenwriting partner Aaron Stockard and creates a haunting and very real portrait of modern day life in the movie Gone Baby Gone.

Baby brother Casey Affleck stars for older brother as the tough P.I. Patrick Kenzie. Kenzie along with lover and partner Angie Gennaro (Michelle Monaghan) are asked to solve a missing child case. Reluctant at first, both agree to the case after meeting mother Helene McCready portrayed by Amy Ryan. The two begin a long a desperate search for the child and along the way uncover secrets and hidden agendas that blend the line between right and wrong, and neither can agree what to do with the knowledge they have learned.

Gone Baby Gone is a powerful film that treads the lines from corruption, to domestic abuse, to good intentions gone wrong. Big brother Affleck drives his film forward giving powerful meanings to his messages through the use of his only weapon at hand… his camera.

As far as performances go, little brother Affleck and the rest of the ensemble consisting of Ed Harris, Morgan Freeman, Michelle Monaghan, and others perform considerably well under the older Affleck’s direction. Amy Ryan, in particular, turns in one of the best performances I’ve seen this year in a very impressive fashion. I can almost guarantee that you will find no other character to hate more than that of Ryan’s character of Helene McCready this year.

Gone Baby Gone recently arrived on DVD about a week ago and it’s one that you’re going to want to pick up at your local blockbuster. However be warned, this isn’t a feel good movie, but it is a great one.

Michael Clayton

2008-02-09T23:25:00.001-06:00

DAN - Michael Clayton is a legal thriller from the mind of Tony Gilroy, writer of such films as the Bourne trilogy. Having been nominated for seven Oscars, the film was recently re-released in theaters. The title character, played by George Clooney, is an attorney who fixes situations that might damage his law firm. When one of his biggest clients seems to inexplicably lose his mind, Clayton searches for an answer. Unfortunately, there are other parties who would prefer that he doesn’t succeed.

I had fairly high hopes for this film, though I didn’t exactly know what to expect. Tony Gilroy had written some decent films in the past, but this was his first attempt at directing. I’m sure this film was a clever, tension-building tour de force, but to be honest, I had trouble keeping up with it.

The screenplay is choc full of legal terms and political dialogue that flew over my head. I was able to get the gist of the story, but the characters’ motives were lost in the details. I found myself trying so hard to understand the plot that I must have missed a few character introductions. The film features several scenes with Clayton’s siblings and his son, but I didn’t learn of his relation to them until after the movie ended.

The cinematography and musical score are somewhat bleak, creating a level of semi-realism that didn’t keep my interest. Even the acting is mostly low key, though Tom Wilkinson and Tilda Swinton individually have some good scenes.

This is a film that requires intelligence and attention, but I didn’t find it worth the effort. I suppose it’s commendable that the director chose to take a non-blockbuster approach in making this film, but the result wasn’t entirely entertaining for me. However, if you like political thrillers (Syriana, The Constant Gardener), then this one is right up your alley.

__________________________

STEVE - Being one of the five Oscar nominees for best picture and in the running for six others including a best actor, best supporting actor, and best supporting actress, I was very interested in seeing this work of cinema. It’s not every day that you find a movie up for seven Oscars, three of which are for performances, for which reason, I recommend this film to the viewer.

Best actor nominee George Clooney leads this terrific cast of performers as the “miracle worker” Michael Clayton. Though he prefers to think of himself to be more like a janitor, Clooney’s character is a lawyer who cleans up others messes, and does it very well. It’s the different layers that Clooney brings to the character that holds my interest throughout this film. Every time the man walks on screen he demands your attention in the most subtle of ways, and it’s when Clooney is acting with eleven year-old Austin Williams that he truly shines and we see the human side of Michael Clayton.

Tom Wilkinson and Tilda Swinton also turn in memorable performances as they are up for the other two acting nominations. Also noteworthy of mention is already Oscar winner Sydney Pollack who gives a great performance as well and plays the role of Clooney’s superior.

Michael Clayton truly thrives in its performances; with a different cast I’m not sure the film would have been as well received. Though the script is also the cause for one of its many nominations, I wasn’t all to crazy about it. We really aren’t treading any new territory with this film as the story of loft business corruption has been done before. You are sufficiently lost for the fist third of the film, trying to piece together what exactly went wrong. If not for the well executed direction from scribe and director Tony Gilroy, and the many wonderful performances Michael Clayton could have been a very unnoticeable film.

There Will Be Blood

2008-02-06T18:57:00.001-06:00

There Will Be Blood, the newest film from acclaimed director Paul Thomas Anderson, tells the story of a self-made oil baron in California at the dawn of the 20th century. He and his young son, who acts as his business partner, find a small town that sits above an underground “ocean of oil.” The only thing that stands in their way is a young, strong-willed priest who has aspirations of his own.

STEVE - A year ago I took a theater class here called Auditioning. Essentially it was about the process of auditioning (for stage or screen) and becoming better at that process, hence the name of the class. One thing that I remember talking about in that class is something our professor called the ultimate compliment. You see, when a performer gives a performance for an instructor or fellow peer, and that instructor or peer gives the performer no comment or instruction afterward, then that performer knows that they have just received the ultimate compliment. It sounds strange, but for a peer or instructor to say nothing means that they found nothing wrong with the performer’s performance. The instructor has nothing left to teach and the peer nothing left to say. The performer did a perfect job. Such a comment is rare, and is the greatest comment that a performer could receive. I myself have never received such comment and I am only aware of one other person who has. It is the highest praise given only to performances of the highest caliber.

There Will Be Blood pulls this same speechless response out of me. I honestly don’t know what to write because I feel like nothing needs to be said other than for me to tell the reader of this article to go see this movie, because you are in for a treat. Although I am speechless (in a manner of speaking) allow me to list some of the reasons why you need to go see this movie.

The direction and visual structure of this film is a work of art, the likes of which are rarely seen. The music only serves to drive the audience deeper into the intoxicating world of our protagonist, hero, and villain Daniel Plainview. While such a deep and multilayered character would sound hard to portray, actor Daniel Day Lewis successfully represents Plainview by giving the most stimulating and flawless performance of a lifetime. Writer and Director Paul Thomas Anderson could not have created a better vehicle for Oscar buzz, being that it has already been nominated for eight of them.

Please, ladies and gentlemen of this supposed college, go see this powerful character driven drama. Not only will you leave second guessing your humanity but you will indeed understand why, in the end, there will be blood.

__________________________

DAN - Having read the introduction in Steve’s review, I’m tempted to simply say “no comment” in regards to There Will Be Blood. However, I think some things deserve to be noted.

Director P.T. Anderson consistently makes great movies. He is an expert storyteller, and he knows how to create complex characters. I had high expectations for this film, and they were met. Perhaps they were even surpassed.

A good portion of the movie’s introduction is without any dialogue. It takes talent to pull this off as effectively as Anderson does, and Daniel Day-Lewis is equally gifted in acting physically.

In fact, Day-Lewis is nearly unrecognizable, yet forever memorable, in his role as a fully determined businessman. His performance in this film captured my interest, and I’m currently in the process of watching his previous films. He seems to fully delve into his characters, and the result is captivating.

The musical score for this film is a thing of beauty, ranging from melodious orchestrations to shrill discordance. Surprisingly, it was composed by Johnny Greenwood of Radiohead; I would not expect the guitarist of such a band to compose such an extensive score. The music vividly paints an image of balanced madness that follows the character of Daniel Plainview.

There Will Be Blood is a work of art in every way.

Cloverfield

2008-01-27T03:06:00.001-06:00

DAN - Cloverfield is the second feature-length film from director Matt Reeves. Featuring a cast of relatively unknown actors, the film presents a first-person perspective of an attack on New York City by an unstoppable monster of gigantic proportions. Amidst the mayhem, five friends scramble to reach an injured friend who is trapped in another part of the city.

This film derives its inspiration from classic Godzilla films while simultaneously reinventing the genre. Unlike other monster movies that tell the story on a massive scale, this film puts the audience directly in the shoes of civilians who are struggling to survive. I haven’t experienced such a sense of helplessness in cinema since War of the Worlds in 2005.

The film is presented as though it were recorded entirely on a handheld camcorder. The cameraman, Hud (played by T.J. Miller), serves as the audience’s eyes and ears. We know what he knows; nothing more, nothing less. He often runs frantically, providing only glimpses of the terrors around him. This comes across as a believably realistic account of what a person might manage to record in the midst of such a tragedy.

There is no musical score in this film, save for a seven-minute operatic overture during the credits that was composed by Michael Giacchino. The absence of non-diegetic music adds to the realism of the film and was a wise decision on the part of the director. The visual and sound design of the film create an authentic and exhilarating experience that had me asking myself, “What would I do in this situation?”

It’s not often that a good monster film is made, but Cloverfield hits the mark. Relatable characters, immersive cinematography, and precise direction provide a unique and entertaining cinematic experience.

__________________________

STEVE - After months and months of internet promotions for Producer J.J. Abrams (creator of Lost) newest baby, I made my way to the nearest theater curious to see if Cloverfield lived up to its interweb hype. Now I’ll admit I wasn’t too excited to go see this movie. I sincerely thought that Cloverfield was going to be a complete waste of my time. You have unknown actors, a relatively unknown director, all in a Godzilla meets Blair Witch type movie that’s told from the point of view of a character (that is ironically named HUD) that happens to have a video camera. Truth be told, the real reason I wanted to go see Cloverfield was because I had an inkling that the new Star Trek trailer was going to be in front of it. And it was… and it was AWESOME. So now that I have sufficiently destroyed any chance of dating a woman on this campus, allow me to give you my actual thoughts on the sure to be cult favorite, Cloverfield.

When I wasn’t to busy getting annoyed with the camera, which was rarely centered on the action so that I could barely tell what was going on half the time, or looking at people’s shoes (which you surprisingly do a lot of in this movie) I was actually, dare I say it, enjoying myself. Now mind you those moments were rare, mainly due to our point of view cameraman (HUD) who couldn’t run a camera or steady one if his life depended on it. All that aside however, Cloverfield really wasn’t that bad of a movie.

There were some pretty sweet special effects in this film. The monster looked great, and the movie did a successful job of scaring its audience. And even though I’m sure some if not most will hate the ending of this movie, I thought that it was great. Brilliant. Well done writer Drew Goddard, an innovative way to end the picture.

So overall, it looks like I’d have to say that I surprisingly enjoyed Cloverfield. Nevertheless, I firmly believe that the shaky, hand-held, point-of-view camera system ultimately made the film suffer. The technique, though unique and probably a great idea on paper, held the movie back from its full potential. Perhaps with a more cinematic approach, Cloverfield could have been the great American monster picture. Instead, I guess we’ll just have to keep watching dubbed-over Godzilla movies.

Atonement

2008-01-19T18:21:00.002-06:00

DAN - Atonement is the newest film from Joe Wright, director of the recent adaptation of Pride and Prejudice. James McAvoy plays a man who is accused of a crime he didn’t commit by a little girl whose imagination and perception distort the truth. Kiera Knightley co-stars as McAvoy’s love interest who is separated from him on the brink of World War II.

At first glance, this film may seem like any other period romance, but it is something else entirely. The elements of cinema are used to surprising effect in this film; the editing, musical score, acting, cinematography, and direction are all in the hands of people who know how to use them. The result is an innovative film the likes of which I’ve rarely experienced.

Dario Marianelli’s score serves as an invigorating undercurrent for the film. It weaves in and out of the diegetic world, often directly coinciding with the characters’ thoughts and actions. The cast, particularly Knightley and McAvoy, deliver convincing and seemingly effortless performances.

The film is written and directed in beautiful fashion, creating a narrative that presents itself in multiple perspectives and various time periods. Director Wright and cinematographer Seamus McGarvey know how to use the camera to draw an audience into the film; the visual composition and physical movement of the camera combine to invite the viewer to experience the film from within.

The film’s themes of love, atonement, and the impact of imagination create a dramatic experience worthy of revisiting. It contains moments of humor, romance, hatred, and sorrow that are likely to have a powerful impact on any individual as it did for me.

__________________________

STEVE - Adapted from Ian McEwan’s novel, Atonement has the essentials needed to make a great piece of cinema. All the elements are there. Terrific performances from actor James McAvoy actress Keira Kinghtley, and thirteen year old Saoirse Ronan, moving music, gorgeous cinematography, and an overall well executed film.

The film starts strong, with director Joe Wright (Pride and Prejudice) using his skilled talents behind the camera to bring the story to life. Acting, dialogue, and plot are top notch here as the film begins and the story gains its momentum. However, once the plot has been built, the audience is thrown into the future four years later. From this point the story does a lot of jumping back and forth between past and present and here is where things began to fall apart for me. The momentum is slowed as you’re continually being tossed from past to present, virtually to a point where you’re not sure where exactly you are in the story line, and sadly you begin to stop caring. The script just doesn’t keep you interested.

Oddly enough, with that setback in mind, the performances and direction remain strong and the cinematography never lets up on being amazing. Actually it improves. There is a marvelous scene on the beaches of France that is filmed all in one shot and is absolutely incredible. I’m willing to bet that cinematographer Seamus McGarvey is going to be up for an Oscar nomination.

The movie does end on a strong note, bringing together everything in a nice neat package, even though during the second-half I felt like I was left stranded in the middle nowhere. Without a doubt Atonement is a skillfully made film with all the makings of an epic romance, but it’s not quite that epic.

The Devil Wears Prada

2007-12-26T16:29:00.002-06:00

STEVE - I’ll admit it. I like the Devil Wears Prada, it is perhaps my most embarrassing guilty pleasure. And I’ll also admit that there’s nothing really all that special about it. I mean it is your typical cliché chick flick. Except instead of guy meets girl it’s girl meets job… and Meryl Streep, (who is absolutely fantastic as the Devil in Prada) but still nothing special. No great script. No great acting (except for Meryl Streep… and maybe Stanley Tucci).

I was watching this again today and I think I figured out why I liked this movie. Execution. For me, execution is everything. Execution can make and break a movie. You can have a great script, and great actors, but a film just won’t work unless you have good execution. Examples:

Phone Booth, good actors, interesting premise, bad execution.

Cruel Intentions, good actors, great script, bad execution.

Eragon, interesting premise, pretty darn good book, horrible execution.

Star Wars I-III, great idea, great actors, THE WORST EXECUTION EVER!!!

Now execution isn’t everything, but it is very important. And that is one thing that The Devil Wears Prada does right. You put any movie in the right hands, and you’ll get something good. And that is why I enjoy this movie.

Kinsey

2007-12-25T13:50:00.002-06:00

STEVE - In perhaps one of the most interesting and disturbing films I have ever viewed, Kinsey is the real life story of Alfred Kinsey, a pioneer in the study in human sexuality. In his attempt to, at first, help married couples, and then others understand the act sex, Kinsey’s research draws attention from all areas of the globe and becomes one of the most renowned and hated researchers in the 20^th Century.

A well performed and directed piece of cinema. Bill Condon does a terrific job as scribe and director. And Laura Linney gives a brilliant performance as the loving and understanding Mrs. Kinsey. Perhaps why she was nominated for an Oscar.

However, me being the negative one (and the one who uses improper grammar), as truly moving and controversial as the piece was, I don’t recommend it. It was a well-made film, though it did leave some storylines and characters open-ended (like Kinsey’s father and son). And Liam Neeson’s performance was nothing to be ecstatic about. But my biggest complaint, is that I felt that the film tried to be too preachy in what it had to say. Allow me to explain.

The film is all about Dr. Kinsey trying to tell the world the truth about sex, when the world chooses to ignore the issue. It was something that Dr. Kinsey felt he had to do and something that really needed to be done, and I agree. So Dr. Kinsey tries to research sex from a purely scientific standpoint, with no feelings. Which of course sex without feelings… well it just doesn’t work, not very well at least. And of course, colleagues and those close to him get hurt because emotion is taken out of the equation. Now the film does touch on some of those consequences, but the Mr. Condon brushes those repercussions aside to push his movies agenda/message along; which of course like most things in Hollywood is very liberal. Now I don’t have anything against liberals. I at times have tended to lean towards the liberal end of the spectrum on some issues. But if you are going to make a film, on a powerful subject, that has a message, don’t get caught up in your own agenda. Which is what I felt this film and its writer/director did. A well made film, but a little full of itself.

The Good German

2007-12-24T21:14:00.002-06:00

STEVE - Something you should know about me… I love noir. So imagine how I felt when I discovered that Stephen Soderbergh was making one of his own. I was excited to see it but poor reviews and warnings of bad tidings kept me away… until now.

It was an interesting film, but it lacked some of the suspense and wit that made the classics, classics. I think the script needed a good going over before they filmed. One or two plot holes and an anticlimactic ending left me feeling disappointed. But I didn’t think this was to blame on the writers part but more so the directors.

The Good German is Soderbegh’s homage to the movie making style of the 40’s… when the film noir was first invented (Maltese Falcon anyone?). He does a pretty decent job of it with the credits and the transitions and by making the film black and white. Not to mention the setting of last scene (which I won’t reveal, go watch for yourself). However his camera work was far too modern, which I think might have hurt him in this case.

As for the actors I’d have to say I’m a little disappointed. Cate (Blanchett) was good, but not her best, and I guess I could say the same for George (Clooney). Now as for Toby (Maguire), I’d have to say nice try, but it doesn’t work for me. Toby can’t play the bad ass, tough guy (which he does in this film). It doesn’t work for me.

No Country for Old Men

2007-12-23T15:55:00.001-06:00

Warning: Spoilers
STEVE - No Country for Old Men is one of the best filmed films I have ever seen. Perfect cinematography accompanied by a perfect underscore of mostly sound effects, And a perfect cast with arguably the most evil villain to haunt audiences on the silver screen. It is a delight to watch such a complete film.

However, (and of course with me there is always an however) I will admit that I was lost on the true meaning of the film. I hate to admit it, but I think the ending was lost on me. In the end the villain escapes after being mangled in an auto accident, and Tommy Lee Jones character has a powerful monologue at the end of the film that I don’t understand. What does it mean??!!

I really wish to see this movie again just so I can make another attempt to grasp it. Until then…

The Prestige

2007-12-23T04:04:00.001-06:00

DAN - This was my second viewing of this film. The first time I saw The Prestige, I left the theater with a barrage of questions floating around in my mind. I knew it was a good film, but I gained more appreciation for it upon this second screening. This film about magicians is a magic trick itself, and it is performed almost flawlessly.

Christian Bale and Hugh Jackman each give intriguing performances that can be more appreciated the second time around. Bale in particular displays nuances that might go unnoticed if the viewer isn’t paying close attention. The film’s director, Christopher Nolan, has yet to let me down. His direction of this film is as good as any I’ve seen. I found that the film’s ending can be predicted before its reveal, but it’s the journey toward the conclusion that really makes The Prestige something unique.

A Mighty Wind

2007-12-22T17:18:00.001-06:00

DAN - Christopher Guest has a knack for creating faux documentaries with heart. He has somehow managed to assemble a group of actors who are great at improvisation, and their characters consistently come across as being genuine. A Mighty Wind is a film about three groups of folk musicians who unite to perform one concert together. Surprisingly, all of the music in this film is actually good; I suppose it helps that Guest has a history of performing folk music in real life. This film made me laugh, and at one point I almost even cried. Kudos to Mr. Guest and his troupe.

Empire of the Sun

2007-12-21T22:01:00.000-06:00

DAN - I had seen this film when I was a child, though I could only recall one scene from it. Steve had told me that I should watch it, and I usually enjoy Spielberg’s movies, so I was looking forward to it. On top of that, I was interested in seeing Christian Bale as a child actor. I was surprised by Bale’s performance, which is really what makes Empire of the Sun a noteworthy film.

This is a traumatic film about a British boy struggling to survive in China during World War II. I’m surprised I was allowed to watch it when I was young; it could have given me nightmares. Spielberg’s direction and John Williams’ score convey a feeling of hopelessness that coincides beautifully with the story. Bale, though being only thirteen years old in this movie and without formal training, gives a stellar performance – a highlight of his career.

American Gangster

2007-12-20T16:09:00.000-06:00

DAN - In the past I have enjoyed the work of Ridley Scott, Russell Crowe, and Denzel Washington, so I was understandably looking forward to this film. I knew nothing about the subject matter other than what I had seen in the film’s trailers, but I trusted the talent involved. They did not disappoint. American Gangster is a well-crafted film about business, respect, and the law.

Washington plays Frank Lucas, a man who is willing to take advantage of others for his own sake and that of his family. Crowe plays Richie Roberts a non-crooked cop (a rarity in this film) who is determined to put an end to Lucas’ drug business. A good story, top-notch acting, and excellent direction make American Gangster an entertaining film that deserves repeat viewings.

No Country for Old Men

2007-12-19T16:34:00.000-06:00

DAN - As a fan of several films by the Coen Brothers, I was hoping that this would be another one to add to my collection. The Coens have made some flops in recent years (Intolerable Cruelty, The Ladykillers), but based on this film’s trailers, I had a good feeling about it. The brothers exceeded my expectations, making No Country for Old Men one of my favorite recent films.

The film follows a man who, after finding two million dollars in a briefcase, must run to avoid being killed by the man who was sent to retrieve it. That man, Anton Chigurh, is one of the best villains I have seen in any film. He is a methodical killer who lets no one interfere with his determination. This film has its share of tension-inducing sequences as well as an ending that kept me thinking.

The Bourne Ultimatum

2007-12-10T16:01:00.001-06:00

DAN - I enjoyed the first two Bourne films, but they never amounted to anything more than good action films. Particularly in the second film, The Bourne Supremacy, there wasn’t enough character development for me to fully invest my interest. Director Paul Greengrass’ shaky camerawork is still present in Ultimatum as it was in Supremacy, but that never really bumped me out of the films. The Bourne Ultimatum finally reveals a good portion of Jason Bourne’s past, and it seems to contain a better sense of purpose than the previous installments.

Bourne is out for revenge at the beginning of this film, which picks up where Supremacy left off. The film contains several good action sequences, including a game of cat-and-mouse between a group of assassins and Bourne, who is trying to guide an informant to safety. The ending of The Bourne Ultimatum is more satisfying than those of its predecessors, giving some sense of closure for Bourne’s story.

Broken Flowers

2007-12-10T15:53:00.001-06:00

DAN - This is the first film I saw that was directed by Jim Jarmusch. At the time, I wasn’t familiar with his style of storytelling, and I didn’t like the film. Upon seeing this movie for a second time, I was able to enjoy it much more. Broken Flowers took me on a journey with the main character that had me rooting for him beyond the ending.

The film follows Don Johnston, played by Bill Murray, who receives an anonymous letter in the mail informing him that he has a son. He travels across the country, visiting old flames in search for the one who sent the note. During his trip, he interacts with a number of unique characters that are portrayed by experienced actors who, once again, add something special to Jarmusch’s film. The film spends enough time with Don that the viewer gains an understanding of who he is, despite his introverted personality. Broken Flowers led me to sympathize with Don. It left me wanting to know where his life goes after the credits roll.

Dead Man

2007-12-04T20:12:00.001-06:00

DAN - This is similar to other Jim Jarmusch films in that it was filmed in black and white, but the story and the world in which it takes place are much different. Jarmusch doesn’t usually direct Westerns, but in this instance he does it well. Beautiful cinematography, intimate direction, and a list of cameo appearances by accomplished actors make Dead Man a memorable and enjoyable film.

The film features brief appearances by Crispin Glover, John Hurt, Gabriel Byrne , Billy Bob Thornton, and Alfred Molina, among others. In addition to this, Johnny Depp plays the lead role of a man who is lost in a world where he doesn’t belong. The presence of these experienced actors improved the quality of this film in relation to others by Jarmusch. His fade-to-black transitions are still present; they nearly made me want to fall asleep, but in this case they appropriately reflect Depp’s character as he drifts in and out of consciousness. After seeing Dead Man, I’m convinced that Jarmusch should make more adventure films like it.

American Psycho

2007-12-04T02:39:00.001-06:00

DAN - Prior to seeing this film, I knew nothing about it. It looked like a cheesy horror flick, which isn’t exactly my favorite type of movie. I had seen Christian Bale in The Machinist, Batman Begins, and The Prestige, and I thought of him as a decent actor. I ended up seeing American Psycho with a couple of friends (one of them being Steve) as the result of a lack of anything better to do, and I’m glad I did. This film is horrific, gruesome, and twisted, yet I found it oddly appealing. (Hmm... what does that say about me?)

This film sparked my interest in Bale as an actor. As Patrick Bateman, he manages to seamlessly slip back and forth between being a charismatic perfectionist-yuppie and an insane murderer. The artistic direction of this film mirrors what I can only imagine is taking place inside Bateman’s mind, as there is something eerily off kilter in each scene. The mundane is made beautiful, casual conversation leads to murder, and reality is questionable. American Psycho is unlike anything I’ve seen, and though it’s not the most pleasant movie to watch, I couldn’t help but be drawn in.

(As a side note, is it coincidence that Bale has starred as Patrick Bateman and Batman? Think about it.)

Stranger Than Paradise

2007-11-14T21:03:00.000-06:00

I always start with characters rather than with a plot, which many critics would say is very obvious from the lack of plot in my films - although I think they do have plots - but the plot is not of primary importance to me, the characters are.

- Jim Jarmusch

DAN - This black and white film follows two friends and one girl, a relative from Hungary. The characters spend the first portion of the film mingling in New York City, and they later take a road trip to Cleveland and Florida in search of some adventure. The film showcases their experiences while on the trip and how they are affected by living in unfamiliar places. Stranger Than Paradise is a decent film despite its slow pace, but it is not Jarmusch’s best.

Though I enjoyed this film, it is not difficult to notice its flaws. The actors seem to be inexperienced, and their performances are not entirely convincing (John Lurie plays a similarly monotone character in Down By Law, another Jarmusch film). Stranger Than Paradise features long takes with little action. Even the transitions are slow, making the whole film seem longer and less eventful.

Yet with all of these distractions, the overall story is interesting, and it is told in an honest manner. One thing that remains consistent in Jarmusch’s films is the realism. He doesn’t flood his stories with intense, exciting, or comedic moments, like so many directors do these days. Instead, he lets the story occur naturally. He includes scenes in which characters don’t say or do much, which I recognize as being true to life.

The naturalism of Stranger Than Paradise causes the momentum to drag throughout much of the film, but it is commendable. I think highly of Jarmusch and his philosophy on film-making, even though he may not be consistently entertaining. He creates films that are pleasing to himself (and often to me, as well), and I respect that.

Paris, je t'aime

2007-10-20T22:39:00.000-05:00

I wanted to say to someone:
“It’s beautiful, isn’t it?”.
But there isn’t anyone.

DAN - Paris, je t’aime is a collection of short films that take place in Paris, France. The common theme among the films is love, and it is portrayed in a variety of ways. The title is a simple yet effective summary of the assortment of films; it translates into English as “Paris, I love you.” I personally fell in love with this film, and I found that many of its short stories are emotionally satisfying and fun to watch.

Paris, je t’aime consists of 18 short films that were directed separately by directors from around the world. Most of these directors also wrote their own films. These stories display love in different forms, whether it be romantic, platonic, familial, or something unexpected; they even show love’s downside. The films, though made separately, are arranged to flow smoothly.

The people involved in the making of this film are experienced in their respective fields, though I am not familiar with many of them. I went into the theater anticipating new work from the names I recognized – The Coen Brothers, Wes Craven, Alfonso Cuarón, Tom Tykwer – but I was pleasantly surprised by the other directors, as well.

For the most part, I enjoyed the individual segments of Paris, je t’aime, though they did drag here and there. Highlights for me include:

• Tuileries, by Joel and Ethan Coen. An unlucky tourist suffers the consequences of making eye contact with a quarreling couple.
• Bastille, by Isabel Coixet. A man plans to divorce his wife, but he finds a reason to love her again.
• Tour Eiffel, by Sylvain Chomet. A young boy tells the story of how his mime parents met and fell in love with each other.
• Faubourg Saint-Denis, by Tom Tywker. A blind man reflects on his relationship with an American actress. (Note: This film was made in 2004 and was used to encourage other directors to join the project)
• 14e arrondissement, by Alexander Payne. An American tourist recounts her visit to Paris and how the city affected her.

Paris, je t’aime is a funny, sad, uplifting, and visually captivating collection of films. Many of the stories would be equally effective without the Paris setting because the focus is on universal qualities of love. There are a few segments that passed by too quickly or didn’t seem entirely relevant, but they had little negative effect on the final product. I am pleased to say that this film successfully combines the efforts of diverse film makers, and I highly recommend it.

Once

2007-10-16T23:25:00.000-05:00

STEVE - Heartwarming and heartbreaking. Those words essentially sum up this very powerful and romantic movie. The chemistry shared on screen by Glen Hansard and Markéta Irglová (who are musicians and not actors) is so powerful. It’s the acting, the storytelling, and powerful music that makes this film (hands down) one of this year’s best.

Walking into the theater I wasn’t sure what to expect from an “Irish Musical”. Those words did not sound appealing to me. However there I was, not really knowing what to expect. Thank the Lord for good surprises.

The movie started off with a hilarious chase sequence that I would be unable to do justice if I tried to explain it. However, might I say that it was a terrific means to get the audience’s attention. Immediately I was pulled in and feeling for the leading man (who goes unnamed for the entire film). From there we are slowly brought into this poor musician’s world through his music. After a wonderful zoom in on our unnamed leading man as he performs on the street corner, the camera pulls out to reveal a young woman (who also goes unnamed) who was listening to his performance. From here we pulled into the obvious, but never acted on romance between these two musicians. One married while the other is still remains in love with an old flame.

The music was the most powerful ingredient in this film. I loved the scene in the music shop where guy teaches the girl one of his songs so she can accompany him on the piano. It is a powerful and moving sequence where sparks flew. Throughout the film their feelings for each other are expressed through the music they write and perform. Thankfully this wasn’t the typical guy met girl, fall in love romance. You so badly want to see that happen, to see the two get together, but their untimely romance is hindered by their past and current relationships. And the fact that they don’t get together or even kiss is what makes this movie work so well.

The last shot in this movie is a terrific closer to the story. The pull away from the window says so much.

However, as much as I really loved this film, I did have some issues. I was, unfortunately, bumped by the documentary style used to cerate that real world effect. It just didn’t work for me, especially when long takes were done. I was too distracted by it. I’ve seen other films that TV shows that are shot with the handheld effect, but the camera was almost too shaky. Was a steady cam even used? I doubt it. Also the lighting was in the film was poor, probably to keep that real world effect still going. I thought it hindered the film rather then enhance it. Some scenes were so poorly lit it was almost impossible to see what was happening.

Nevertheless, this was a truly powerful film on the subject of love and commitment. One worth recommending to others, which is exactly what I’m doing… WATCH THIS FILM!

__________________________

DAN - Once has been praised as one of the best films of the year. Critics claim that it has reinvented the musical genre. I had heard nothing but good things about this film prior to seeing it, so my expectations were understandably high. I recognize that Once has the potential of having an emotional impact on its audience, but it left me wanting more.

The film follows an unnamed vacuum repair man (Glen Hansard) who spends his spare time singing songs with his guitar on a sidewalk. An also-unnamed flower vendor (Markéta Irglová) expresses interest in his music and reveals her talent in playing the piano. The two become better acquainted as they play and write music together, and a semi-romantic relationship begins to build between them.

This relationship is expressed through the music that the characters write together, but I can’t say that I always felt a connection. The first song they play together, entitled Falling Down, is meant to be profound. It sounds great, but it consists of lyrics that didn’t really mean anything to me. For example:

Words fall through me
And always fool me
And I can't react
And games that never amount
To more than they're meant
Will play themselves out

Perhaps I’m missing the ability to poetically interpret these lyrics, or maybe I’m just lacking common sense. Either way, I didn’t understand the meaning of many of the lyrics in this film. Even so, some of the musical moments in this film did impress me. In fact, I like most of the music in this film regardless of the lyrics. I was a bit disappointed, however, having expected to be blown away by the emotional impact this film’s music has had on others.

The camerawork in this film isn’t exactly steady, but it didn’t bother me. If anything, it made the story seem more honest. I’m actually impressed by what was accomplished on a budget of $160,000. The independent nature of this film and the unconventional use of inexperienced actors gave it a somewhat rustic charm.

I can understand why people love this film. It is great in its own right, but I think the fact that it’s an independent film gives it more appeal. My theory is that people give this film extra praise because of its independence; they believe they are a part of an exclusive audience, and they feel compelled to promote the film’s greatness more than they would if it had a larger budget. As a result, I expected more than I got out of seeing Once, but I do recognize its value.