The Day The Earth Stood Still

I don't really want to write a full review of Scott Derrickson's remake of Robert Wise's 1951 film The Day The Earth Stood Still. They clearly didn't put a full effort into this film, so I won't put one into the review. You all know the story. Klaatu (Keanu Reeves), an alien ambasador, comes to earth with his robot Gort, and they try to get the humans to stop their destructive ways (nuclear weapons in the original, global warming here). He meets a widow and her young stepson (Jennifer Connelly and Jaden Smith), who try to help him escape from various government figures-both good and bad (Kathy Bates, Kyle Chandler and Jon Hamm among others), and with the help of an eccentric professor (John Cleese), try to convince Klaatu to not kill all humans.

The original film was one of the most interesting and relevant sci-fi films of the 50s, and it relied on tension and character instead of action. This version stays interesting and exciting for about 25 minutes, and then it decends into standard sci-fi cliche. Reeves gives his usual emotionless performance, but, like in the first Matrix movie and A Scanner Darkly, that's not necessarily a bad thing. Klaatu would benefit from a better actor, but Reeves isn't awful. Connelly tries her best with the awful dialogue she's given, and makes it work when possible. Cleese and Hamm (of TV's Mad Men) are both very good in limited roles, but Bates is clearly phoning it in. Jaden Smith may not be a bad young actor, but he plays the exact same stunningly annoying role as Dakota Fanning in War of the Worlds. The effects are terrible, the dialogue is weak and the visuals are bland and uninspired. The original story could work very well as a remake, but this is clearly Fox trying to make a quick buck with a lazy, usless effort.

See this ^ instead

Rating (out of ****) *1/2

Doubt

Every once in a while, I'll see a movie poster, and, without knowing anything about the film itself, I know that I will see it. This was the case with John Patrick Shanley's Doubt. The names Meryl Streep, Phillip Seymour Hoffman and Amy Adams on their own are usually enough to get me to see a movie (although even Streep couldn't get me to see The Devil Wears Prada or Mama Mia). I would watch the three of them standing in a white room talking for two hours and I'd probably be entertained. After I saw the poster for Doubt, I looked up the play it is based on, and I got even more excited. Rapid fire dialogue and criticism of religion are generally things that I like. Combined with the actors, it seemed like the recipe for a sure-thing best picture contender. Unfortunately, something went sort of wrong.

The film takes place in the Bronx in 1964. Father Flynn (Hoffman) is the new priest at the St. Nicholas parish and school in the Bronx. He begins with a sermon on Doubt, and how in uncertain times, it can bring us together. This message resonates with Donald Miller, an alter-boy and the school's first black student. His teacher, Sister James (Adams), an innocent, kind young woman, tries her hardest to care for him and the rest of the class, a group she truly loves. In contrast is the school's tradition-minded principal, Sister Aloysius (Streep). She disapproves of the priest's new, kind attitude toward the students, and immediately suspects the worst when Sister James comes to her with worries about the relationship between Father Flynn and Donald. After a failed confrontation, Sister James begins to doubt her suspicions for their lack of evidence, but Sister Aloysius goes on and calls in Donald's mother, played by Viola Davis. During their confrontation, Aloysius learns more about Donald and begins to understand his situation. Afterwords, she confronts Flynn one final time.

Talking about this film, the first thing one must bring up is the acting. All four leads have been nominated for Golden Globes and Viola Davis already won best breakthrough performance from the National Board of Review. Davis, despite only having ten minutes of screen time, deserves all the praise she gets. In her scene, she goes through every possible emotion and more than holds her own with Streep. Just like last year's Charlie Wilson's War, Adams and Hoffman rescue a mediocre film and bring to an acceptable level of quality. Amy Adams portrays her character's innocence with such heartbreaking intensity the she would have my vote for best supporting actress if I had a ballot. I have never seen Phillip Seymour Hoffman give a bad performance, and, after this fall's combination of Doubt and Synecdoche, New York, I don't think I ever will. Oddly enough, Streep, the best actress of her generation, is the weak link in the cast. It's not a bad performance by any means, it is simply average. She's intense when called for, and her accent is OK, but there is nothing to make it rise above the rest of her work or the other performances in this film. Maybe she is the victim of high expectations, but her past performances have all lived up to the hype. The performances are not the film's problem. Shanley may be a great playwright, but he has only directed one film before this, the awful 1990 Tom Hanks film Joe Versus The Volcano, and this film suffers from an inexperience hand. The cinematography from Coen Brothers regular Roger Deakins is fine, but the score from Howard Shore fails, and the pacing never feels quite right. The original play only had four characters and was almost all dialogue. The extra focus put on the kids and the heavy-handed use of weather metaphors, neither of which was in the original (which, may I remind you, I haven't seen), and they are two of the weak points here. Still, this is not a bad film, as the dialogue (except for the final scene) is pretty good, and the performances from Davis, Adams and Hoffman are great, but it is a disapointment.

Rating (out of ****): ***

Paris, Texas

There are times where I watch a film, think about it for a night, realize that it is one of the greatest things I've ever seen, and I have to watch it again the next day just to make sure. I think the last time it happened was when I saw Antonioni's L'Eclise. Before I saw Wim Wenders' 1984 film Paris, Texas, I had high hopes; it sounded interesting, the reviews were great and I'm a sucker for a good road movie. Wenders has always been placed on the same level as Herzog (my favorite director) and Fassbinder (who I'm sadly unfamiliar with), and, after finally having seen his supposed masterpiece, I can agree, because I had to watch it again this afternoon after being stunned by it last night. Paris, Texas tells the simple story of Travis (Harry Dean Stanton), a man we first see wandering through the Texas desert. Eventually, he collapses in a bar, and the German doctor treating him (someone else who appears to be lost in this world), calls his brother Walt (Dean Stockwell). Walt comes to get the initially mute Travis and fly him back to LA, but that falls through and they have to drive. The scenes between the two brothers are among the strongest in the film. Stanton's brilliant performance and the beautiful photography elevate these scenes to a level of pure genius. When they get back to Walt's family in LA, including his wife Anne (Aurore Clement) and Travis's son, Hunter (Hunter Carson, in one of the greatest child performances of all time), Travis seems out of place. His wife Jane (Nastassja Kinski) left Hunter there right after Travis left, and she then disappeared. After some great scenes of reconciliation, Travis and Hunter drive to Houston, where they know Jane has been living. Travis finds her dancing in a club where she can't see the patrons, she can just talk to him. The final twenty minutes may be some of the most heartbreaking stuff ever put to film, as Travis and Jane try to understand each other and confess their sins.

In the end, mother and son are reunited. The question remains, is Hunter better off this way? In LA, he was with a successful family that gave him complete support, but here is mother is a stripper, and the film implies that she is a prostitute on the side. I don't know if it really matters. I think Wenders just wants them to be happy in his version of America. This is not Stroszek. There is no direct criticism of the American dream; Wenders seems more fascinated with America than anything else. Ry Cooder's stunning score brings back memories of the old west, and the constant focus on billboards and other signs appears to be more out of interest than disgust. I don't know how well I've described it, but Paris, Texas is one of the greatest films ever made.

Rating (out of ****): ****

Milk

I am admittedly unfamiliar with the work of Gus Van Sant. Good Will Hunting was pretty good, and Last Days was interesting, but not really my thing. I haven't seen Elephant or My Own Private Idaho, two films that many seem to consider his best. Going into his latest film, Milk, I wasn't really sure what to expect. I knew the story, and I knew its ending. Even if you don't know, archival footage five minutes into the film tells you that San Fransisco city supervisor Harvey Milk and mayor Moscone were killed by former supervisor Dan White. What separates Milk from most biopics is not some new form of storytelling like last year's masterful I'm Not There; Milk simply just does the formula better than almost any other biopic I've ever seen. It opens with archival footage of gay rights activists in the sixties, and then we get out framing device, Harvey Milk (Sean Penn), around the time of his death, recording his thoughts on tape only to be played upon his assassination. The actual narrative begins in New York in 1970. Milk, still working in an insurance office, meets Scott Smith (James Franco) on the street, they fall in love and decide to leave New York and go to San Fransisco. Once they arrive, Harvey begins to get involved in the gay rights movement. He realizes that having an elected official would be the only way their growing community will get the rights they deserve. Christening himself the "mayor of Castro street," Harvey begins to drum up support, and while he loses his first two elections (and Scott in the process), he begins to build a team, including young activist Cleve Jones (Emile Hirsch). He finally wins in 1977, and makes quick friends with everyone on the board except Dan White (Josh Brolin). During his early time in office, he meets Jack Lira (Diego Luna), a lover who he enjoys for simplicity and ease. After passing a gay rights bill in San Fransisco, Harvey and his team meet strong opposition from anti-gay activist Anita Bryant and various politicians in his quest to stop prop 6, which would have taken away gay rights across the state (sound familiar?). After their victory (which is still marred by tragedy), White resigns from the board, and, after he is informed that he cannot get his job back, takes matters into his own hands, resulting in tragedy.

To be honest, I wasn't that excited about this film based on the trailers. It looked like Penn would continue his recent streak of overacting in every role, and I thought it would be too formulaic for its own good. I was wrong. Penn gives the best performance of his career, never going too far over the top and always hitting the perfect notes. Franco and Brolin are also great (in fact, Brolin somehow won best actor from the national board of review), but Emile Hirsch gives the best supporting performance in the film, exuding a near perfect level of energy as Jones, who is still one of the leaders of the gay rights movement. The only weak performance comes from Luna, who lacks anything resembling subtlety (although, thinking about it now, that may have been the point). The film looks fantastic, although the use of archival footage grows a bit stale by the end, and the score, which mostly relies on opera (Harvey's favorite) perfectly conveys the emotion of the film.

Before I saw the movie, I wanted to avoid talking about its relevance in my review. We all know that California passed prop 8 last month and Harvey's final message of hope will seem familiar to any American viewers, but there's more to Milk than that. This isn't just a film about gay rights. Harvey Milk was about more than that, he fought for everyone's rights because he just wanted to help people. He even tried to help Dan White (although, that may have been because he thought White was gay). Here, we see the universal fights for human rights and acceptance. That is what makes Dustin Lance Black's script so great. Sure, the film concentrates on gay rights, but every minority can feel their pain and revel in their triumph, and that's what this film is, an absolute triumph.

Rating (out of ****): ****

Slumdog Millionaire

Danny Boyle is a special talent behind the camera. He has created the greatest drug movie of all time (Trainspotting) the second best horror film of this decade (28 Days Later) and one of the better, albeit still heavily flawed, modern sci-fi films (Sunshine). His latest movie, Slumdog Millionaire, has been riding a wave of festival buzz and Oscar talk (and it will most certainly receive that "little movie that could" nomination that went to both Juno and Little Miss Sunshine), and I was really excited to see it. Slumdog tells the story of Jamal, a Mumbai street kid who grows up to get on the Indian version of "Who Wants to Be a Millionaire." Nobody believes that he could actually know the answers, so, after his first night on the show, which takes him all the way up to the final question, the police take him in and interrogate him to discover his method of cheating. He begins to tell them his life story, relating each question to specific events from his orphan youth. After the death of their mother in a religious riot, Jamal and his brother Salim meet up with a girl named Latika and eventually wind up in an absurdly corrupt orphanage. After escape and separation, Jamal spends the rest of his life trying to find Latika, while Salim transforms in a way frighteningly reminiscent of Lil' Ze from City of God. Of course Jamal's story wins the cops over, and he goes back on the show to try to find Latika again. It ends relatively happily and there's a dance number over the credits as some sort of homage to traditional Bollywood.
I can say that it ends happily because you know going in exactly what will happen. Like all inspirational films, you know that the character will reach their true goal in the end. In fact, after ten minutes, you should be able to guess the final question. I can't criticize the film for that. Unfortunately, I can criticize it for a few other things. Boyle's camera tries to capture the energy behind modern India (essentially the opposite of Wes Anderson's superior The Darjeeling Limited). This works perfectly about half the time. The color scheme is beautiful, and there are some truly stunning shots (a sequence involving young Jamal and Salim on a train stand out the most in my mind), but the constant motion does get annoying (although not quite at the level of a certain recent blockbuster). It also feels like nearly half the film is shot at either an odd angle or in slow motion, two techniques that rarely work here. Some of the music choices were also rather questionable. I would have much preferred them to just use Indian music all the way through, but one or two of the western songs actually work rather well (the use of M.I.A's "Paper Planes" perfectly complements the aforementioned train sequence, but the use of a remix about five minutes later fails). The rest of the western and techno music feels overbearing and takes away from the intended feel of the scene. The performances from the actors playing the three leads (and each had to be played by three actors at three separate ages) were very good, but some of the supporting performances completely fail, especially those playing the gangster characters.
Their "Millionaire" set really does look exactly like ours

Despite all of this, I still must recomend the film. It may not deserve the Oscar talk, but it's still something fun and different. The story is heart warming and occasionally pretty funny, the actors are great and, for the most part, it looks wonderful. It also has some good, albeit somewhat basic, Indian class commentary. Its always nice to see a great director take a bunch of relative unknowns (Anil Kapoor, who plays the gameshow host, is the only really well-known actor in the film, but even that is just in India), and make a good film out of it. I was also fascinated by the aspect of Boyle taking this very American story, moving it to India, and then basing it entirely around what was originally a British television show. It's something that could only be done in this modern world.
Rating (out of ****): ***

Edit: You know what, its been about a month since I saw the film. Upon much further review and a rewatch, I've decided that I gave it far too much credit. The acting is bad, the story is not as fun as I originally gave it credit for, the end is unbearable and, while the structure is interesting, it limits any opportunity to get to know the other characters.

New Rating (out of ****): **

Let The Right One In

This November, two non-traditional vampire movies will be released in America. They will both deal with teenagers (or preteens) learning to deal with the world around them, and they are both based on bestsellers. One is a masterpiece that goes far beyond almost any other vampire film ever made, the other is sure to be one of the year's worst films. I'll give you a hint, the name of the second one rhymes with "highlight." Is it really fair of me to judge Twilight, based on the bestselling young adult novel, so harshly without having seen it and only having been able to read ten pages of the book? Yes, because those were the worst ten pages of any book I've ever read. What will make it seem even worse if I'm forced to actually sit through it is the brilliance of that other vampire movie, Let The Right One In. This Swedish film may be the best vampire movie since Herzog's Nosferatu. Although this is a vampire film, it's much closer in feel to Pan's Labyrinth than anything else. While this doesn't reach the exact same level as Del Toro's masterpiece, it is still must-see cinema.

As the film opens, we see Oskar, a twelve year old boy living in the suburbs of Stockholm with his mother. He is an awkward child and faces constant bullying from an incredibly cruel group of children at his school. One night, while sitting in the courtyard outside of his apartment, he meets Eli, a girl who has just moved in and appears to be his age. As soon as she moves in, people around town begin to die in violent attacks. The first attacks were perpetrated by her handler, the much older Hakan, but he eventually fails, and Eli is forced to attack others for sustenance. As the film goes on, Oskar eventually realises what is going on, but he's OK with it. He's falling for Eli, even though she's not technically a girl, and happens to be well over twelve years old. She teaches Oskar to defend himself, and he does so in a scene that heavily reminded me of David Gordon Green's Snow Angels. The citizens of the town realize what's going on, and after numerous deaths, they close in on Eli. The end of the films features a scene of shocking, somewhat macabre violence, as Eli decides what really matters.

The film raises many moral questions, and they are the things that separate it from the standard vampire tale. After draining their blood, Eli clearly has two options. She could allow them to go on as a vampire, or she can kill them. We see what happens to one citizen who becomes a vampire, and Eli's preferred choice of murder seems to make a lot more sense. The people that die so that Eli may go on are all innocent. In fact, only one truly "bad" person dies in the movie. Is it really worth it? We know that Eli is a good person, but so are the townspeople. In the hands of a lesser director (something general audiences will get to see when the American remake, directed by Matt "Cloverfield" Reeves comes out next year), these questions would not have been nearly as interesting and the film would almost undoubtedly focused more on the violence than the characters. Thankfully, Tomas Alfredson shows a deft touch and balances all of the film's issues perfectly. There are probably a few too many lingering shots of snow-fall and nature (great in small amounts, but somewhat excessive here), but that is my only real complaint. The kids playing the leads give some of the best child-performances I've ever seen, the movie looks great, it's constantly exciting and by the end, I truly cared for the characters and their situation. This is the third best film of the year so far, and is my personal front runner for best foreign language film come January.

Rating (out of ****): ****

Quantum of Solace

It is probably important to note that I love the James Bond series. I'm pretty sure I've seen every one, and I know I have seen every one on opening night since 1997's Tomorrow Never Dies. I can't be certain what separates the good Bond films from the bad ones. I don't think it's the actor, as even Brosnan had Goldeneye, but after sitting through the train-wreck that is Quantum of Solace, I think it may be the director. Martin Campbell's Casino Royale is either the best or second best of all Bond films (it's hard to go go against Goldfinger). It was an exciting fresh start for the series and Daniel Craig was brilliant, but it still kept some of the moments that made us remember why we love the Bond films. Marc Forster's Quantum of Solace does nothing of the sort.

I'll start with the good parts: Daniel Craig proves that he is the best actor to ever play Bond (it's too early to say that he is the best Bond, just the best actor), and there are two pretty good action scenes (the finale, and a sequence involving Bond running away from Henchman at an opera). Unfortunately, there are more than two action sequences in this film, and the others are all downright incompetent. The worst example is probably the opening car chase, which could be one of the worst ever put to film. It isn't just a rather dull chase, but it's a dull chase that's edited quicker than a Bourne film; however, unlike a Bourne film, the short shots that we do get are not at all impressive. After that, we get what may be the worst Bond theme song yet. I'm going to blame this on Jack White, and unlike all of the other problems of the world I blame on this talentless hack, this song actually is his fault. Of course, the song isn't helped by the rather dull animation sequence that it's backing. Now, getting to the actual plot of the film, it opens an hour after Casino Royale, with Bond ending the chase and going to torture the mysterious Mr. White. He escapes, and another poorly shot chase ensues. Following some tagged bank notes, Bond goes to Haiti to find a contact, but, of course, winds up killing him, and trust me when I say this is a recurrent theme in this film. James Bond shouldn't kill everyone, even when he is motivated by revenge. It's what separates him from other action heroes. While in Haiti, Bond assumes the identity of that contact and discovers the plans of villain Dominic Greene, who plans on engineering a coup in Bolivia in order to take control of the nation's water supply, which is, as Roger Ebert points out, an incredibly stupid goal for a Bond villain. With the help of new Bond girl Camille Montes (played by the lovely Olga Kurylenko), he escapes via, you guessed it, another incompetent chase sequence. Bond follows Greene to Austria, and to a performance of the opera La Tosca. During the show, Bond taps into a conversation between Greene and other members of his mysterious organization Quantum (I'm actually very happy that they've utilized another SPECTRE type group). The films only really good chase scene follows, but even that is marred by needless, un-Bond-like civilian deaths. After this, M (once again played by Judy Dench) revokes Bond's papers, and he must rely on Mathis, the man who helped him in Casino Royal, to get him to Bolivia. I'll stop the summary here, as I'm pretty sure all of you already know whether or not you're going to see this film. All I'll say is that what follows in Bolivia includes a tribute to the most famous scene from Goldfinger, some more poorly shot action, the return of Jeffery Wright as Bond's CIA ally Felix Leiter, some heavy handed political commentary and a decent finale.

Craig and Kurylenko

Another important thing to note is the apparent increased role of Paul Haggis as a writer. On Casino Royale, he simply preformed some last minute touch-ups, but here is is the first credited writer. As someone who despises Haggis, I'm going to blame him for the lack of humor and the heavy-handedness. It's also come out that he turned in the final script two hours before the beginning of the writer's strike. I would have been happy if he had taken those two hours to write a single joke or pun that the Bond films are known for. Still, I've never really enjoyed a Marc Forster film, and if someone is barely able to put together a drama, they should not be given a $230 million action film. The film's failure probably belongs to both of them. Daniel Craig's performance alone keeps this film from falling into Moonraker or Die Another Day levels of bad, but Forster's complete inability to direct an action scene and Haggis's weak script do put this film near the bottom of my list of Bond films.

Rating (out of ****) *1/2

The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari

Until now, I've avoided reviewing most of the older films I've watched, simply because I didn't think I'd be able to write anything new or particularly insightful about them. Honestly, does the internet really need another mediocre analysis of La Notte or Kieslowski's "Three Colors" trilogy? To be frank, I didn't think I'd write a review of Robert Weine's 1920 horror masterpiece, The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, when I watched it the other day. It's among the most beloved and widely discussed silent films (with good reason), but I thought of something when I was done that will allow me to turn this into a good mix of review and rant. I'll start with the review. As the film opens, we see Francis, our protagonist, sitting in a park, preparing to tell his story to the other man sitting on his bench. This use of a framing device was unique at the time, and the film's legendary twist (which I will not divulge for those who have not had the opportunity to see it) would not work without it. Francis' story begins as his small village is visited by a traveling show featuring the mysterious Dr. Caligari and his somnambulist, Ceasar. Ceasar predicts the death of Francis' friend Alan, and, of course, his prediction comes true. The villagers become suspicious, and the woman that both Francis and Alan pined after appears to become the next target. I could go on, but it is a short film, and I don't want to give too much away. As many of you presumably already know, the film is best remembered for it's genius, German expressionism-influenced set design and it's innovative, still-shocking twist. The warped sets perfectly capture the madness of the characters and the situation, and they fill one of the most unique towns ever filmed. I want to avoid discussion of the twist, as I really don't want any of you to miss the pure shock of the film's final moments. This is one of the greatest horror films ever made, and I'd recomend it to anyone who loves film.

Now for the promised mini-rant. I understand that it is difficult to release silent films on DVD. The original prints have degraded and large sections may be missing (a la Metropolis until recent findings that will hopefully allow a fully restored version), but that isn't really the case with Caligari. In 1997, Image entertainment released a special edition (that I haven't seen) that allegedly has very high picture quality, plenty of interesting features and runs 76 minutes, which, at least according to IMDB, was the film's original runtime. Unfortunately, I do not have the Image edition, I have the Alpha Video edition. First, despite the box claiming that the film runs for 82 minutes, it was 66 minutes long, which means that I missed at least ten minutes of the film; because of this, I don't think I should give the film a real rating at the bottom of this review. At least most DVD's of Metropolis have title cards explaining what the viewer is missing. This DVD was released in 2002, which means that the picture quality should have been better than that of the Image version, unfortunately, this appears to be untrue. The quality of the image on this DVD was unbearable, and, at least according to various user reviews, far below the Image release. So what I'm tyring to say is this: DVD companies, please stop throwing out shit releases of great films to make a quick buck off of the poor film buffs of the world. I know you can't all be Criterion, but at least try to give a shit about quality. That's all.

Chopper (Dominik '00)

Andrew Dominik's sophomore effort, The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford, was my fourth favorite film of last year, and I consider it to be one of the greatest westerns of all time. I was stunned when I discovered that it was only his second feature, and his third film, the Cormac McCarthy adaptation Cities of the Plain isn't expected until 2012 (is there any way for that to not be awesome?), so I decided to go back and watch his debut. Chopper tells the story of Mark "Chopper" Reed, a notorious Australian convict who became a bestselling author. Chopper is played by Eric Bana, who gives a wonderful, charismatic performance in his screen debut. As the film opens, we see Chopper in prison for trying to kidnap a judge as a favor to a friend, That friend is Jimmy, a junkie who forms part of Chopper's gang. After a few violent acts (including a brilliant scene centered around his own stabbing), he is transferred to another wing and eventually released. These early prison scenes are probably the best parts of the film. There are moments where the accents seem a bit too thick to understand, and there were bits of the lingo that flew over my head, but this is not a complex film, and these scenes introduce us to a great character and they showcase Dominik's visual style quite well. When he gets out, Chopper just can't fit into his old Melbourne criminal underworld. He starts to work for the cops as a way to get away with more violence, but paranoia begins to destroy his relationships with everyone except maybe his worn out father, who just doesn't seem to care about what his son does. Eventually, everything begins to go wrong, and in the last shot we see the true isolation that Chopper has built for himself in his attempt to become some sort of Australian Jesse James (it's not hard to see how this film led into his next). This film is not as good as The Assassination of Jesse James, but it's an entertaining film with a great performance from Bana.

Rating (out of ****): ***1/2

Synecdoche, New York (Kaufman '08)

My review:
Before I saw Synecdoche, NY, Charlie Kaufman was already my favorite living screenwriter. Being John Malkovich, Adaptation and Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind are works of undeniable brilliance, Confessions of a Dangerous Mind is flawed (Clooney did alter the script without asking Kaufman), but entertaining, and I haven't seen Human Nature. Now that I've seen Synecdoche, I can say that Kaufman may be my favorite screenwriter, period. This film takes the themes of his earlier work and multiplies them. Those films were complex, but this is a whole new level. By the end, there is art imitating art imitating art imitating art imitating art imitating life (I may have forgotten or added one or two "imitating art", but that's irrelevant). There's a reason Roger Ebert said that this film must be viewed twice to be fully understood.
Kaufman's protagonists are always represent versions of himself (this is, of course, most obvious in Adaptation), and Caden Cotard (Phillip Seymour Hoffman, in the best performance of his brilliant career) is no different. He is shy, awkward and easily controlled by the women in his life, just like Craig Schwartz, Charlie Kaufman (the character) and Joel Barish. The film begins with Caden, around the age of forty, at home in upstate New York with his wife, Adele (Catherine Keener) and his daughter Olive. His version of Death of a Salesman has received rave reviews, but he has a failing marriage and a useless therapist. He also appears to be dieing, and he allows his health issues to define his life. The only true comfort in his life appears to be his work, despite the obvious affection of two beautiful women: actress Clair (Michelle Williams) and ticket-taker Hazel (Samantha Morton). As his health worsens (his body seems to be shutting down) and Adele leaves him for her art career in Berlin, he receives a genius grant, and starts a new play, a microcosm of New York, set in a massive warehouse. Here the plot gets a little weird (even by Kaufman standards). As the play becomes more difficult and he continues to build and ruin the relationships with those around him, he begins to cast doubles for the people in his life. Much of the films comedy comes from Tom Noonan's role as Caden's double. As life and art (and art within art) and so on merge, life in the warehouse becomes real life, and the same goes for the warehouses within the warehouse. Actors begin to play actors who play real people and every character, from Caden's leading doppelganger to the smallest extra, grows and evolves.
This is a film about life, it just happens to spend a lot of time dwelling on death and relationships. We follow Caden until he's eighty, we see him lose his friends, enemies and loved ones, and, in the end, we see the destruction of his entire world.

(Hoffman and Morton in one of the best scenes in the film)
I know I need to see this film again before I can write a proper review (if I have any new insights, I'll edit this), because there were things that I didn't get. Hazel moves into a burning house, a fact that is acknowledged but never really discussed. It was amusing, but I couldn't find the meaning. The end of the film, which slows down because that's how life ends, was really dense, and I know I'll get a new perspective with a second viewing, but for all I can say is this: Synecdoche, New York is the best film of 2008, and it will probably stay that way.
Rating (out of ****): ****

Obama's favorite films

So as a liberal from Chicago, yesterday was pretty much the best day ever. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of political blogs out there for further discussion, but this is a film blog, so, without further ado, here are Barack Obama's favorite films (in the order they're listed on his facebook):

Casablanca ****: The quintessential Hollywood classic. This masterpiece showcases all of the great qualities of old Hollywood, and is a true

Godfather I & II ****: Part one is in my top 5, and part two is up there. The perfect look at the American dream, the greatest crime film and the best films ever made about family

Lawrence of Arabia ****: Before Lord of the Rings, this was THE Hollywood epic. Peter O'Toole gives one of the five greatest performances in the history of film, the sets and score are beautiful and the story manages to make the four hour runtime fly

One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest ****: Nicholson's best performance carries this poignant and funny tale of rebellion. One of the best films of the 70's.

Sure, these are all safe choices, but they are also undeniably great films, so I can't criticize him.

The films of Michael Crichton

After the pure joy that marked last night's historic events, I awoke to sadness this morning after finding out about the death of an author who defined my childhood, Michael Crichton. When I was in Jr. High I read every single novel he ever wrote, and I continued to read his new ones, even if they weren't quite at the level of his previous work. Because of the entertaining, fast-paced nature of his novels, they seemed perfectly adaptable to film, but, alas, these adaptations rarely worked. Still, here is a complete overview of the Crichton adaptations that I have seen, from worst to best (rated out of ****):
Timeline (Donner '03) 0 Stars: I think this was one of his best novels, and I was disgusted by this adaptation. They ruined the plot, got rid of some characters and overly simplified the rest and really did nothing good at all.
Sphere (Levinson '98) *: I think this may be his best novel outside of Jurassic Park, and for the film version they essentially made it into a cheap version of The Abyss. This is not the type of film that Levinson should make, and the performances were surprisingly weak.
Jurassic Park 3 (Johnson '01) *1/2: Not technically based off of one of his novels (which explains the god-awful story), but close enough to make this list. Despite how incredibly bad a film this was, I'm still mildly excited for JP4
Andromeda Strain (Salomon '08) **: I haven't seen the original adaptation, but I did see this year's dull, uninspired miniseries. This story simply should not have been a Scott Brothers production. It's just not their type of thing
Congo/13th Warrior **: I put them together because I know I saw them and disliked them, but I don't remember enough to actually make a distinction.
The Lost World (Spielberg '97) **1/2: This movie shouldn't be near the top of any list, but, unfortunately, it is here. This sequel took away the fun and wonder of the original and made a meaningless thriller by taking away all but the most basic elements of the sequel that Crichton wrote.
Jurassic Park (Spielberg '93) ***1/2: Is it a little silly and simple at times? Sure, but that doesn't mean that it can't be one of the most entertaining and impressive films ever made. The only really successful adaptation of any of his novels

Special mention: ER: NBC's long running hit may have never recovered from the departure of Anthony Edwards, and it really should of ended the second Noah Wyle left, but it's one of the most popular and important shows of its generation, and it was a great show for those first eight years, and Crichton deserves a lot of credit for creating it.

Brand Upon The Brain (Maddin '06)

Yesterday I watched my first ever Guy Maddin film, Brand Upon The Brain. For those who don't know, Maddin is a Canadian director who has made a career out of modern "silent" film. I put silent in parenthesis because, while we can't hear the characters and title cards are used for dialogue, Isabella Rosallini provides some wonderful narration (when the film premiered, it was shown live and other narrators, including Maddin, Crispin Glover and Eli Wallach). The film opens with a fictionalized Maddin returning home to the island-orphanage his parents ran when he was a child in order to repaint it so his dieing mother can see it one last time. As he walks through it, he begins to have memories of the strange events of the past. Guy and his sister were raised by their overbearing mother, who has a Lucille and Buster Bluth-like relationship with her son, and their mad-scientist father, who is performing some sort of experiment on the orphans. These experiments leas to holes being drilled into the heads of the children, something which, naturally, alarms some of the adoptive parents. The concerns of these parents lead to the intervention of teen detectives Wendy and Chance Hale - a brother and sister better known as the "Light bulb Kids." Guy falls for Wendy, who he pines for for the rest of his life, and his sister falls for Chance, who is actually Wendy in disguise. This, of course, leads to lesbian sex. From here the plot spirals into classic horror/sci-fi madness, with a few laughs along the way. This film is brilliantly shot and fantastically edited, and while it is a difficult film, and may occasionally be a bit too indulgent for its own good, it is an undeniable masterpiece, and a film that everyone should get to experience.

Rating (out of 4 stars) ****

Also seen recently: Before Night Falls (Schnabel '00) Although it doesn't reach quite the same level of brilliance as last year's The Diving Bell and the Butterfly, this is an excellent biopic of gay Cuban writer Reinaldo Arenas, featuring a stunning performance from one of my favorite actors, Javier Bardem. Rating: ****

Autumn Sonata (Bergman '78) Not Bergman's greatest film, but it would be a masterpiece for almost any other director. Ingrid Bergman and Liv Ullman are great in this study of a mother-daughter relationship gone wrong. Rating: ****

Body of Lies and Rachel Getting Married

Ridley Scott has always been a bit uneven in his output. Bladerunner is one of the five greatest science fiction films of all time and Alien is a perfect exercise in horror, but nothing he released between Bladrunner and Gladiator really worked for me. Gladiator and Black Hawk Down were both really entertaining and well made, and Kingdom of Heaven became a near masterpiece in it's director's cut. That means, coming into Body Of Lies, I had enjoyed five of his sixteen films, not exactly a great proportion. Thankfully, Body Of Lies brought it to 6/17. This is certainly no masterpiece, but it is one of the best films about the war on terror, and the performances from DiCaprio, Crowe and Mark Strong are all wonderful. In fact, right now I'd say Crowe deserves a best supporting actor nomination. The script isn't great, and a romantic subplot does nothing but add unnecessary length to the film, but the performances and Scott's direction help overcome that in one of the year's more entertaining films.
Rating: ***

I have never thought much of Jonathan Demme as a director. Silence of the Lambs succeeded because the performances were great and the story was genuinely scary. Visually, the film was generally pedestrian with a few moments of true suspense, especially the final moments in the killers house. Outside of that, I've never been a huge fan of anything he's done, although I haven't seen any of his recent documentaries, and those documentaries certainly influenced the direction of this film. It is told in a series of long handheld takes (except for one seemingly misplaced underwater shot at the end) that give it a documentary feel. Aside from the visuals, this film has a wonderful screenplay that certainly deserves consideration come awards season. Few recent scripts have found as much success in the study of dysfunctional families. Still, despite all of that, this film belongs to one person and one person only: Anne Hathaway. She is the star of the film as Kym, sister to the titular Rachel (the wonderful Rosemarie Dewitt). As the movie opens, Kym is getting out of rehab for the weekend so that she can attend the wedding. Throughout the movie we slowly find out why she was there and why seeing her family is so difficult, culminating in a confession at her AA meeting that will break the heart of any viewer with a soul. Thankfully, as we see Rachel's tragedy, we also see the wedding and hear the music surrounding them. The families are happy, and you want them to remain that way. One of the film's strong points is the fact that, even though it is an interracial wedding, nobody mentions race. Maybe parts of our society have moved on to that point. I also mentioned the music because it is an extremely important part of this movie. There is no soundtrack, just music being constantly played in the background, and Rachel's fiance Sydney is played by TV On the Radio frontman Tunde Adebimpe.
There are moments that don't work, most notably an awkward competition between Sydney and the girls' father, but Hathaway's stunning performance (her best yet), the great supporting cast and Demme's deft direction keep it going towards a wonderful conclusion. This is one of the year's best films, and I hope the academy remembers it in January.
Rating: ****

I just watched a couple documentaries...

So the last twomovies I watched from Netflix were documentaries, and I figured I'd review both of them at once

The first of the three was Hearts of Darkness: A Filmmaker's Apocalypse, and it tells the legendary story of the troubled production surrounding Apocalypse Now, a film in my top five. This is a fascinating film, but it faces one big problem: it just isn't as interesting as Les Blanc's Burden of Dreams, about the production of Werner Herzog's Fitzcarraldo. They are unquestionably similar films, both following a crazed yet beloved director into the jungle to create the film that many consider his opus, all while facing increasingly absurd troubles, from governments, nature and actors, along the way. They key point that makes Burden better is Herzog. He is simply a more interesting person to listen to than Coppola (more on him later). Another minor flaw with Hearts of Darkness is in no way the film's own fault. There is a large section that talks about footage that never made it into the theatrical release, and it would have been fascinating to see this footage had it not been used a decade later in Apocalypse Now: Redux. Still, I don't want to be too critical of a good film. The interviews do succeed on their own, and the on-set footage is fantastic. Just see it before Burden.

Rating (out of 4 stars) ***

The second film was Werner Herzog's Grizzly Man. Before I really get into it, I should probably point out that Herzog is my favorite living filmmaker, and that I consider him a personal hero, despite the fact that he may or may not be insane. This is the story of Timothy Treadwell, a city boy from Long Island who, after years of fighting addiction, visited Alaska and spent the next thirteen summers living amongst the Grizzly Bears. Despite the illegality of his actions, he was able to get close to the Bears and other creatures living in the area. At the end of his final year, he and his girlfriend were killed, becoming the first bear-related deaths in the history of the park, something that leads Herzog to believe that Treadwell had a death wish. The footage that Treadwell shot certainly supports that idea. He speaks to the Bears like family, and he routinely gets close enough to touch them. It's quite easy to understand why Herzog was so attracted to this story. He talks about Treadwell's cinematic technique, his need for perfection and he sees a bit of himself in the footage. Near the end of the film, after watching some of his stranger behavior, Herzog talks about how it reminds him of behavior on a film set, and here he is clearly referencing Klaus Kinski, his crazed friend, enemy and muse. The film's strongest moments are those that show the fundamental differences between Treadwell, an absolute idealist, and Herzog, the angry cynic. Most of the experts interviewed seem to agree that with Herzog in that Treadwell was probably wrong, but looking at his family and friends, you come to realize that at least his heart was in the right place. If nothing else, you have to admire Treadwell for surviving like that for thirteen years, and I agree with Roger Ebert who put it best by saying, "he deserves Werner Herzog."

Rating (out of 4 stars) ****

Best of the year, so far

OK, in celebration of me being an awful person and taking tomorrow's holiday off even though I am an atheist who will not actually be going to temple, here are my ten favorite films that have received an American release in 2008:
10. Tropic Thunder While this may not be the greatest Hollywood Satire, it is funny and Downey gives one of this year's most interesting performances. I feel like it would have been better if there had been a few less scenes of Tom Cruise dancing.
9. Hellboy 2 Better than it's predecessor in every single way, Hellboy 2 was lost in the Dark Knight shuffle, but it should be remembered for its humor and beautiful creature design
8. Forgetting Sarah Marshall I thought this was the Appatow crew's funniest effort since the 40 Year Old Virgin, and while Roeper's claims of it being one of the funniest films of all time were a bit much, it is one of the funniest films of the year
7. The Band's Visit This underseen Israeli gem is a perfect and true showcase of real life in my favorite country
6. Wall-E Wall-E is adorable, and while this may not be Pixar's best effort (although it is their best since The Incredibles), it certainly is their best looking
5. In Bruges Consistently funny ("You're a fucking inanimate object" is the best non-Joker line of the year) and much smarter than any hitmen movie since Pulp Fiction
4. Religulous See my prior review
3. Burn After Reading Showing that they haven't given up on their funny side, America's best filmmakers return with a hilarious spy comedy featuring one of the year's best casts
2. Snow Angels An emotionally draining look at small town life that never borders on manipulation. Sam Rockwell deserves a best actor nomination come Oscar time
1. The Dark Knight The Blockbuster to end all blockbusters. Every shot is beautiful, every performance great and every moment perfect

Appaloosa (Harris '08)

So, do you want your westerns to be contemplative, beautiful and well-acted? Rent last year's brilliant "The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford." Do you like your westerns dull, ugly, unoriginal and mediocre in every possible way? Go waste $10 on "Appaloosa." This is one of the most disappointing films of the year. I had high hopes for another great modern western, maybe not along the same lines as "Assassination" or "The Proposition," but maybe something at least as fun as last year's "3:10 to Yuma." Instead I got this. The acting was the best part, and it rarely went beyond "pretty good." Ed Harris was his usual solid self, and Viggo Mortenson and Jeremy Irons were both great. Unfortunately, Renee Zellweger, as usual, drags the film down whenever she's on screen. Her romantic side story is the worst part of this film, but not all of that can be attributed to a bad screenplay, even though the screenplay is pretty bad. There are countless attempts at humor, but they all fail, as do most attempts at creating a connection between the two leads (Harris and Mortensen). There is some chemistry between the two, but all of that comes from the actor's abilities. The story itself is uninteresting and does little to separate itself from dozens of B-westerns that came before it. I appreciate the attempts to recall the great westerns of old, but they were better than this. One of the stranger things about this film is how ugly it is, but it isn't ugly in a good, gritty way like Leone's films, it's just ugly. The scenery is uninteresting and the camera angles are uninspired. Usually, I don't notice a film's score the first time I see it unless it is really good or really bad, and the score was the worst part of this movie. It sounds like an episode of Gunsmoke mixed with Walker Texas Ranger. Don't see this movie.
Rating (out of ****) *1/2

Religulous (Charles '08)

OK, time for my first actual review. Last night I went and saw "Religulous" the new documentary (mockumentary?) from Larry Charles ("Borat"), starring Bill Maher. I was worried going in because I sort of assumed that it would be Maher running around insulting religious people for 90 minutes, which I probably would have enjoyed, but there probably would not have been any substance. The first thing that any review must say is that this film is absolutely hilarious. It may be the funniest film of the year so far. Throughout the entire thing, Charles adds clips from old movies, stand-up routines and pop culture moments (of course Tom Cruise and his silly beliefs show up in these sections), and these moments add a lot more to the comic aspects of the film, and they are what makes this the funniest documentary since "Borat." Maher does not go into his interviews with the intent of simply insulting religious people, because he lets them insult themselves. One of the first segments of the film centers on him visiting a trucker's chapel and trying to talk to the people there. One leaves because he feels insulted, but the rest want to talk to Bill because they are not bad people, and Maher knows that, they are just confused and lost and looking for something to comfort them. There are some interviews that come off as Maher trying to be mean, but those are the interviews that center around the true fanatics (a Puerto Rican minister who claims to be the second coming, a southern minister who believes that Jesus meant for him to be extremely rich and an orthodox Jewish rabbi who believes that the state of Israel shouldn't exist). Even the visitors and (most of) the workers at an Orlando holy land theme park seem to simply be looking for something to hold onto. Two of my favorite interviews were a Vatican astronomer who acknowledges that the bible is a group of false stories that are simple there to teach morals and two ex-Mormons who spend their time insulting their former faith. While the film skewers all of the major western religions (plus Scientology) relatively equally, the last half hour is much more serious and devoted to Islam and the violence of modern Muslim extremists, and this is where the film's true message comes out. Religion may not be a bad thing conceptually, but as soon as man takes over, it becomes violent. The very serious conclusion has been criticised by some for being so different from the rest of the film, but it is important and Maher is correct. Unless we can begin to look at the world rationally, we will die, and religion will probably have something to do with it.

Final rating (out of four stars): ****

So I figure the best way to start this whole thing would be with a listing of my twenty-five favorite films (I was going to do write ups for all 25, but I'm lazy). I'm not going to give detailed write-ups yet, this is more of a "getting to know me" type of deal. I will be adding full reviews for many of these movies at a later date.
25. "Day for Night"
24. "Wild Strawberries"
23. "Amarcord"
22. "The Big Lebowski"
21. "Pan's Labyrinth"
20. "Taxi Driver"
19. "Closely watched Trains"
18. "Stroszek"
17. "Through a Glass Darkly"
16. "Children of Men"
15. "The Good The Bad and The Ugly"
14. "Persona"
13."Being John Malkovich"
12. "Pulp Fiction"
11. "2001 A Space Odyssey"
10. L'avventura (Antonioni '60) A huge part of why this film connected with me was because it seemed like the type of thing I would write. Obviously I couldn't write like this in terms of quality, just in the sense of the rambling narrative that seems to forget its original point when necessary, which is why this film is so interesting.
9. "8 1/2" (Fellini '63) 8 1/2 is the greatest movie ever made about the movies, but it is certainly not just about movies. This is a film about the creative process and trying to live your life in the difficult modern world. It also features a great performance from Marcello Mastroianni, who may be my favorite actor and one of the best supporting casts of all time.
8. "Rashomon" (Kurosawa '50) Kurosawa's take on the nature of truth succeeds on every visual level and features one of the greatest performances from Toshiro Mifune, Kurosawa's greatest actor.
7. "The Lord of the Rings" trilogy (Jackson '01-'03) they were written and filmed as one film, so I'm going to count them as one. Simply, these were the movies that made me love movies, and I will always love them for that.
6. "The Godfather" (Coppola '72) This is one of the most beloved films of all time for a good reason. From the brilliant opening, hiding the shadiness of the whole operation behind the classic party sequences through Michael's tragic transformation at the end, this is a classic in every way, and no other crime film has ever reached this level.
5. "Aguirre: The Wrath of God" (Herzog '72) Do you like "Apocalypse Now?" If so, than this is the film for you. It's hard to find any modern film with a jungle setting that doesn't take some sort of visual cue from Herzog's masterpiece, which is highlighted by yet another brilliant performance from his muse/mortal enemy, Klaus Kinski.
4. "Apocalypse Now" (Coppola '79) Coppola's final great film is the war film to end all war films, which is odd, because it isn't really a war film at all. War may be the basic plot, but there is so much more, and that is why is is such an important work.
3. "Fanny and Alexander" (Bergman '82) Bergman's greatest work is best viewed in its five hour long television version, not the three hour theatrical one, but both are brilliant takes on love, faith and family.
2. "Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb" (Kubrick '64)- Kubrick's true masterpiece is my favorite comedy, and it features what is probably the single greatest script of all time, challenged only by "Network."
1. "The Werckmeister Harmonies" (Tarr '00)- In my mind, this is the single most beautiful film ever made. The second the opening sequence (link) was over, I knew it would take this spot.